I am putting together a Nikon kit, after having taken a break from Weddings to work in Film. The last wedding I did, I was using medium format primes, so I am still trying to work out how I want to approach things now. I will cut/paste my current gear at end of post...
My question is, what do people think of the new Nikon 16-35mm F4 VR as a Wedding lens?
I am thinking about selling my Nikon 14-24 to purchase the 16-35, but I am wondering If F4 might be too slow? Of course if the 14-24 never gets out of the bag, maybe it doesn't matter if it's a stop faster? I was thinking the 16-35 could end up staying on the camera a lot more, maybe even replacing the 24-70 on one body. While using an 85mm F1.4, or 70-200mm 2.8 on a second body.
...Are you guys shooting altar groups and formals on a tripod? Because I was also thinking the 16-35 might work for shooting them hand held, dragging the shutter to as slow as 1/4th to pick up ambient, while freezing any subject movement with some off camera speedlights.
Sorry for the ramble, any thoughts?
Nikon D700 (looking to get a 2nd)
Nikon 14-24 2.8
Nikon 24-70 2.8
Nikon 70-200 2.8 VRI
Sigma 50 1.4
Nikon 55 macro 3.5 AI
Nikon 85 1.4
Nikon 300 2.8D AFI
Nikon SB-900 (will buy at least one more)
Coco ringflah
Quantum Qflash T2
Radiopopper P1 system
Minolta Spotmeter F
Polaris SPD100 meter
Minolta Autometer IV F
Big old Gitzo
Slik AF Pistol Grip heads
The wide end of both lenses is a little too wide for me. I shoot large group formals and don't go wider than 24mm on FF. 14mm has a lot of distortion. Also I usually shoot formals at 4-5.6 so the 2.8 isn't really used.
(I was thinking not using a tripod would be faster shooting, but then using a tripod on groups would make it a lot easier to clone out bad expressions and blinks)
The photographer for my sisters wedding used the 14-24mm. That thing at the wide end does nasty things to people anywhere near the edges. Really nasty. My dad was rather annoyed at how bad it made people look. My 17-40L is certainly not perfect but doesn't distort the edges as badly so I assume the 16-35 would be a better wedding choice.
The 14-24 has pretty ridiculous distortion at the wide end and people anywhere near the corners is a no-no. From the little I have seen so far, the 16-35 is worse. Of course this is absolutely to be expected from a wide angle zoom. And no, the Canon 16-35L is no better. However, group shots are best done with something like a 35, so the 16-35 may turn out to be a viable solution (I am waiting until I can see a review that I can put some faith in). My preference would be something like Canon's fantastic 35L but until Nikon comes out with one I will stick with the 24-70 always being sure to keep folks away from the edges if I am shooting at the wide end. My siggy 50 is also very good if I have the room .
The older 17-35 f/2.8 that Nikon makes is wide enough for me. My boss has the 14-24 and its just ridiculous at weddings. You might be able to put it on for 2-3 shots during the ceremony to take a mentally wide one from behind the couple and thats where I'd stop. The 17-35mm is a much more useful range and I find I dont have to change lenses as often because of it.
14-24 is way too wide for people. People really get mangled at that focal length as you approach the edges. I'd say that the 16-35 is perfect on a DX, but even that gets a little wide when placed on an FX. I used to shoot weddings and events on a 1D Mark II with a 17-40, and even that lens can cause some unpleasant distortion.
Thanks for all of the replies, it looks like the consensus is that the 14-24 isn't really a wedding lens. The front element sort of scared me anyway. I wish Nikon would update the D700 soon, then I could sell the 14-24 to help fund the second body I need.
ExtendedPuppet wrote:
Thanks for all of the replies, it looks like the consensus is that the 14-24 isn't really a wedding lens. The front element sort of scared me anyway. I wish Nikon would update the D700 soon, then I could sell the 14-24 to help fund the second body I need.
I think the 14-24 is a fantastic lens for capturing overall scenes, such as from the back of the church. For group shots I could never imagine using a wide lens like that, but of course I'm the crazy one using a 70-200 at 200mm for large group shots
I'll add my hat in that 17-35 ring. When it was introduced, it was the bomb, and now people seem to think it's garbage. I may be slightly softer than the 14-24, but it's made many, many, many saleable images for me, and nobody has complained about the IQ yet...
The 14-24 is better at 24mm than the 24-70. Now, if you're not shooting UWA anyway, why spend money to replace an excellent lens you don't use (14-24) with a good one you won't use (16-35). I'd save money in hope of a d700x later this year.
Yeah I really need a second body, more than a wider than 24mm lens I guess
I was thinking if I got the 16-35, I would use it almost instead of the 24-70 in some situations, but idk.
Thanks for the suggestions
You better save money for your second FX body. If you need a lens just for groups of people, you have a much inexpensive option: Sigma 20mm/f1.8 or Sigma 24mm/f1.8. I have a good copy of the 24 and I use exclusively on D700 for events in available light. These Sigmas are perfect for shooting people. I have no idea if they are good for architecture or for landscape but for events are really good if not great. I have on my shelve 14-24 but rarely use it in events... maybe at large conferences when I need realy wide open shoots to include a very large audience. But I get strange effects when shooting groups of people, even on 24mm, with it. That does not happen on my Sigma. I still lust for Nikon 24/1.4 but I do not think that I will agre to put so much money there when Sigma simply does the job for me. Eventually try to rent one to see it at work.
I don't have as much experience of other people here but will chip in what experience I have to date.
I have the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 coupled and also the 85mm f/1.4, bodies are D3 and D700.
I would say a second body and a SB-900 is a must, I would not do a wedding without a back up flash and body.
The 14-24mm for me does not get used a lot, maybe one or two shots a wedding, for me the lens has two purposes, one is for wide angle stuff, but the second and to me more important role is a back up for the 24-70mm, the 24-70mm is the workhorse for me, and if I was to damage it I could use the 70-200mm on one body to cover the long end, and the 14-24mm on the other body to cover the wide end (another advantage of two bodies). I see you also have the 50mm so that would help as well, but if your 14-24mm was gone, you would have no back up for the wide end.
At the moment I'm thinking of selling the 14-24mm and replacing with the 24mm f/1.4 and 16mm fisheye, that would mean two sets ups, 24-70mm and 70-200mm on two bodies, or 24mm & 85mm for low light, the fisheye could then be used for the odd rare shot when needed.
.
