Canon 16-35mm f2.8 II vs. Sigma 35mm f1.4 - for concerts & weddings

Trevor Sowers wrote:

jag64551 wrote:

Thanks for your feedback. In response to your observation, I am a big guy It does get tiring sometimes, but I consider it a workout.

I probably didn't make this clear - the swap to the 16-35mm would hinge on me selling the 24-105mm; just so that's clear. I wouldn't have both.

I'd say getting rid of the 24-105 and getting the 16-35 is a good idea. Don't sell the Sigma though (assuming you like the focal length)

I shoot almost all primes and I do weddings and concerts as well! I use the 24L II the Sigma 50 1.4 the Canon 85 1.8, 135L and the 200L II My only zoom is the 17-40L which can be handy and the range of focal lengths is useful and fun for that type of photography.

I agree. If JAG sells the 24-105, a wide - ultra wide angle zoom will be a must. The 16-35 or a 17-40 should be perfect for this purpose. I would also keep the 35 prime (if AF works properly), 'cos f1.4 can give bokeh that 2.8 will never be able to.

I would easily swap the 50 mm for a 85 mm 1.4, 1.2 lens. I never really liked the 50 mm focal length, I felt it too obvious (can I say boring?). Most of the time you can go 3 steps back from your subject, so you can shoot the same scene with 85 mm with much nicer bokeh.

The above way JAG can set up 2 really nice combinations:

1. For action, p.e. wedding ceremony "runaround" (you can't choose position freely): 1 body with 70-200, 1 body with 16-35, 2 flashes on shoe. Man can even leave the camera bag in the trunk of the car...

2. For portraits: 1 body + 85 mm, 35 mm and 16-35 for some ultra wide magic + a more serious lighting setup.
Perfect.