Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

I want to get a lens that is wider than my Canon 24-70/24-105. Primary use will be weddings with some landscape pictures in the South Pacific as well as occasional night photography such as the Milky Way.

I'm leaning toward the the 16-35 f/4 L IS. However, I could purchase a clean 16-35 f/2.8 L II which is a faster lens but the 16-35 f/4 has superior specs other than the aperture.

My gut says to give up the stars and go with the 16-35 f/4 L IS as the specs seem to be most favorable.

Your thoughts?

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Hey Jerry. Not knowing about the specific lenses, my only take is from a pure experience with slower lenses vs. faster.

I wouldn't hesitate to go with the F-4. You shoot with a FF camera body that is fine in low light. I'm sure if it's too dark, you can add a focus assist light. Really, how often do you shoot wide open, at least for me, it's more about focus, which means less and less with the newer bodies. If you are doing landscape work, and you say that the superior optics are in the F/4, then I'm hoping you want to go B I G with the prints. I'm telling you, since I sold my first 80" print, I've gotten more orders for that less than attractive beast of a photo of a dam, than any other photo. But, it's sharp as a tack, and people are just impressed with the size and clarity, and not so much about the actual subject. (seriously, a really ugly dam with sticks and muddy water, what are they thinking... Actually I hate the photo, but I've made good money from it. Unlike me, you have beautiful surroundings to take photos of. The toughest part is finding out where/how to sell them. Once I sold to my first local business, I keep getting enquiries.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I seldom use my wide angle lenses at full aperture- mostly I am looking for more depth of field when using shorter focal lengths. Even in darker churches, at weddings, f/4 or f/5.6 should do the trick at a moderately high ISO setting and still allow for a reasonable hand held shutter speed. In my own commercial work I sometimes use a faster wide angle lens because the sharpest performance kicks in about 2 stops ahead of the maximum aperture- this might be an advantage for those nigh shots you mentioned. In architectural work, I prefer a somewhat slower lens- an f/4.0 performs best at F/8 or f/11 so I get to stop down more without diffraction. I'm fussy about that because some of my stuff requires very big enlargements. For landscapes and seascapes, again, you don't need a 2.8- I'd go for the sharper performer. I'v not had experience with "stars" or any astronomical work so I don't know how to advise you on that aspect of you question.

Weddingguy Loc: British Columbia - Canada

Personally, I would go to the F/2.8. The specs may favour the F/4, but let's face it, they are both "L" lenses!
99% chance you would never see the difference . . . unless you are pixel peeping . . . which customers do not do.

I am not a fan of that range for weddings as I find even the 24-70 can give me distortion grief at the wide end in weddings, if I happen to get in too close. To be considering the 16-35 you must be getting into situations that are forcing you into being in very close. It is less trouble to eliminate those situations.

The 16mm can give a few "funky" shots, but not worth the $$$ investment . . . or the trouble of changing lenses, for non-money shots . . . in my opinion of course.

I rarely shoot at F/2.8, but love the faster focus of the faster lens in subdued light, which you will encounter at all weddings.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Thank you all for your responses .... I asked world class wedding photographer David Ziser and he said 16-35 isn't wide enough for him. He prefers the 11-24 Sigma. He says if your going to go wide .... go wide. Pricey lens ... but David's work speaks for itself.

aflundi Loc: Albuquerque, NM

If you want to go *wide*, have you considered a fisheye? Gene Ho likes for weddings.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Wide angle usage at weddings? I seldom use my wide angle lenses for formal or classical portraits. Occasionally I might use a very slightly shorter that normal focal length for a formal shot where I want to bring the background into sharp focus and fine detail or if I am ridiculously crunched for space on groups- I try to avoid that situation! . I used to use my 60mm lens on the Hasselblad in the olden days- nowadays I set a zoom for 40mm (for full frame) for that same effect. I am careful to keep the camera parallel to the subject- no tilting up or down to avoid foreshortening or linear distortion.

For candid. SOMETIMES, I like to work in close to hte action- ethnic dancing, folks hugging and kissing at a receiving line etc.- a 24mm to 35mm focal length is good for that on a full frame camera. I try to keep the camera parallel and level in theses cases as well but in wild dancing shots, I don't mind a bit of dynamic distortion.

Fisheye? I have fisheye lenses for my all medium format and DSLR gear as well. For weddings, I MAY do the occasional shot- wild dancing again, shooting upwards from the floor as folks dance around the camera- one can be seriously injured doing that! I can make a little church seem like a great cathedral. Other than that- I can't think of too many instances where it would come in handy.

At the end of the day, each photographer has to make decisions based on their own creativity and style and of course, what their clientele appreciates, expects and likes. I certainly like to introduce different concepts and see how the customers go for it.

Hey! What do y'all think of a DRONE camera for a aerial views of the church as the couple and their guests descend the steps! Perhaps I better increase my liability insurance before I consider that one! No- I wouldn't fly it inside the church during the ceremony!

Best regards!

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Hey Ed.
I have a drone, got it for that specific task.

I think you have almost the same regulations to fly commercially (In the US, if you make $1 from flying the drone, for whatever reason, you must get your Part 107 waiver)

$1000 for the drone
$300 for the classes to get certified
$150 to sit for the part 107 test
$200 annually for the insurance.

4 times I had the request to use it, and all 4 times, winds in excess of 30 mph, which is right at the very top of the ability, and way beyond the safe range to fly it.

If it weren't for "accidently stepping into" a commercial real estate company who requests the occasional aerial shot, I'd probably just let the 2 year certification expire, and just play with it, and take photos for myself.

Another issue is, up in the great white north, there are a TON more restrictions on places to fly. I can fly about anywhere if I get approval from the control tower if I'm within 5 miles of an airport, even the international airport if I tell them the exact address, time and altitude, or notify the local police if I'm flying in a business or residential neighborhood, to avoid calls from suspicious residents.

I would love to take it to Canada just to fly and get some beautiful aerial shots, but from my research, like 90% of the country is a no fly zone for one reason or another. Before you spend the big bucks, you may want to make sure you can fly legally there.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I'll check with the aviation authorities up here and let you know what the exact regulations are. We have an international airport and a military airfield here and there are strict airspace prohibitions about flying over National Defense HQ and the Parliament Buildings. Imagine having an expensive drone blown up by anti aircraft fire😨🚠🚀⚡!

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

We have an Air National Guard base at our "international airport" (I think it's international, because they have 1 flight to Canada)

They've gotten to know me. People don't realize that you don't need "permission" you need to "notify" as long as you aren't actually "at" the airport. Of course, your laws may be different, but in my training, there was a lot about regulated airspace, and Canada is more strict than most places.

Beercat Loc: Central Coast of California

Here is a perfect example why I want something a bit wider. I was using my 24-70 @24mm. Could not go back any further. Couldn't get everyone in the picture.

Another situation is when your in tight quarters in the Brides room. I would prefer having a 16-35 and @24mm there is little to no distortion.

Agree with Ed that you must be careful with a wide lens and keep the lens parallel to the ground. I hear so many photographers saying to be slightly above the head level .... I disagree ... heck I even stoop down sometimes. The off-camera flash you want slightly above head level but not a camera.

I work similar to Ed. I use a 24-70 most of the time and @35mm for portraits. @35mm the distortion pretty much goes away so long as your holding the camera correctly plus @35mm if your using a CP you don't need to worry about the uniformity of the blues. @24mm you can get into trouble using a CP. As my 24-70 is a f/4 version I try and stay between f/8 and f/13 as that is the sweet bracket, f/10 is perfect when you want DOF and sharpness.

24mm, 1/160, f/8, ISO-320, +1 EC

(Download)

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Even your 24 offers up some perspective distortion. Small rooms are tough, but you have to be extremely careful so you don't make a brides hands, or worse, her nose, look huge when using a 11 or 16mm lens. If you keep your subject perfectly centered, and don't worry if "aunt Flo" looks huge on the outside edge, then you can get away with it. Honestly, you can get some really interesting shots, but it does take a lot of practice so you know in advance, exactly what you'll be getting.

crazydaddio Loc: Toronto Ontario Canada

I have the 16-35F4Lis.
Great lens. No interest in going to the 2.8
Also have the 24-70F4....and I WILL be going to the 2.8 .

Too completely different use cases. Need the 2.8 for the bokeh and shooting motion in low light. 16-35 is rarely used when there is motion so f4 with the IS is perfect....and the IQ is better than the 2.8

Anything under 35mm distorts. I try to back up and shoot at 35mm min.

....and yes....I have used the 16-35 when backing up means busting down a wall but I never like the results when people are involved edge to edge.

11mm and fish eyes should be used for effect photography and not for people unless they are in the center of the frame and at waist height.

Would rather do a pano than use a a wide angle for landscapes also for same distortion reasons. (Assuming it is not windy :-)

Tim Stapp Loc: Mid Mitten

Just a quick thought on the f/4 lens. I had an instance at last night's reception where it was so dark that the f/4 lens that I rented would allow the camera to focus. I rented to try it out. Glad that I did.

bkyser Loc: Fly over country in Indiana

Well, Tim.... ready to post some photos from that wedding?

I'm looking forward to it. We had a train show last weekend in Ft. Wayne. Would have been perfect for testing out the film and camera you brought down, but we had another busy weekend at the new house, and I couldn't convince "she who must be obeyed" to make a side trip.