Why 24-70mm lens sucks for wedding photography

Dunja Đuđić

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

24-70mm f/2.8 is a go-to lens for many wedding photographers. However, photographer Taylor Jackson has a different opinion. He believes that the 24-70mm lens sucks for wedding photography, and he gives you a couple of reasons for that in this short video.

Of course, this is a completely subjective video and opinion, and it’s not set in stone. Here are Taylor’s reasons why the 24-70mm may not be the best lens for wedding photography:

Lack of consistency

According to Taylor, when you’re shooting primes, you have the consistency which creates a style. On the other hand, when you use a 24-70, you’re there only to get the job done. He believes it’s better to combine prime lenses like 24mm and 50mm, or 35mm and 85mm to achieve that consistency.

Shooting without a purpose

Another point Taylor makes is that a gallery of photos shot on prime lenses shows that each photo has a purpose. I don’t know if this implies that the photos shot on a 24-70mm lack purpose, and if so, I must disagree with that. Anyways, he adds that the gallery shot on 24-70mm looks dull with the wide variety of focal ranges used to get the shots. It creates a much bigger impact if you switch between, say, 24mm and 85mm.

Depth of field

Well, I guess this depends on the preferences. Taylor points out that he prefers shooting at f/1.8 or f/1.4, and 24-70mm f/2.8 can’t give you such large depth of field and subject separation.

Price and weight

Lastly, Taylor refers to the price and weight of the 24-70mm. Indeed, this type of lens is rather expensive and heavy regardless of the manufacturer, and I believe the weight can be a problem if you spend an entire day with a camera in your hands.

Personally, I don’t own the 24-70mm nor I do wedding photography. But, I think it would be my go-to lens. It’s versatile and covers a wide range of situations, and it’s ideal for fast-paced and dynamic events such as the weddings. I’d combine it with primes though, but it would definitely find its place in my gear bag.

Just like any other lens, the 24-70 f/2.8 has its good and bad sides. And apparently, the opinions about it range from being the best lens for wedding photography to being the worst. As you can see, I myself don’t have experience with it, so I’d really like to hear your thoughts on this topic. Is 24-70mm the best or the worst lens for wedding photography? Or is it somewhere in between?

[Why I Hate The 24-70mm F2.8 For Wedding Photography (1 Minute Rant) via SLRLounge]


Filed Under:

Tagged With:

Find this interesting? Share it with your friends!

Dunja Đuđić

Dunja Đuđić

Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, concerts, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.

Join the Discussion

DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

9 responses to “Why 24-70mm lens sucks for wedding photography”

  1. Rob Hall Avatar

    Zenitar 16mm Fisheye, it was terrible :P

  2. Christian Isaac Avatar

    This isn’t the worst but it sure isn’t the most needed. & It’s over priced if you ask me good ol Charlie.

  3. stewart norton Avatar
    stewart norton

    As agree….I ditched my 24-70 in favour of primes never looked back.

  4. Stewart Norton Avatar

    Agree ditched mine and went to primes best decision I made.

  5. Motti Bembaron Avatar

    I use the 24-120 f/4 and it’s a must for receptions and party photography. As for portraits, yes, primes are better but to say that the 24-70 sucks for wedding is silly. The 24-70 is sharp the colors are bang on. It is a beautiful lens but after the 24-120 came it made it a bit redundant. And yes, it’s heavy :-)

    1. mike Avatar
      mike

      45KG, really? I am surprised anyone would buy one.

      1. Motti Bembaron Avatar

        Just exaggerating a bit but it is very heavy. It is almost 1 kg (almost 2 lbs.). Attached to a D3 plus a flash and it’s one hell of a kit to carry around all day shooting a wedding.

  6. Trino Pam Avatar
    Trino Pam

    This article sucks…

  7. Bipin Gupta Avatar
    Bipin Gupta

    The saying goes “to each his own”. And why should a 24-70 (16-50 for APSC cameras) Lens suck? Utter bunkum. I find my 16-50/2.8 very useful. The 16 mm in tight spaces or when I need to include the entire family and the 50 mm for portrait shots of the Bride & Groom. Of course I also carry the 70-200/2.8 for the un-obtrusive Altar shots of the Priest with the Bride & Groom from the back pews of the Church. The 10-20 zoom finds use too for the pana shot in open gatherings and Indian Weddings where the guest list is extremely large and the Marriage Mantap rather crowded. And today’s zooms are darn good – some as good as primes.