Most wedding photographers start with a 24-70 and 70-200 combo, not because it’s ‘trending’ but because they cover the needs. Trending would be a strange word to describe something that’s been standard practice for >40 years.
By the time I hung up my boots, I shot 90% of a wedding on a 35 art and 135L pairing. Less versatile than the zooms, but I just came to love that combo.
Now you feel free to do what you want, but I think we might be at the point where you’re making excuses for cutting costs, rather than making the right choice for the right reason.
I think its also important to note that when you made your choice of going with the two primes; you had years and a lot of experience behind that choice. You'd arrived at a working method and style that suited you; plus you'd been in a LOT of different and varied situations to know how to react and respond to those different demands. Ergo how to work within the limits of the equipment that you chose.
The 24-200mm range that the combo of 2.8 lenses covers gives most ranges a person needs for a wedding with an aperture that's suitable both for low light work (AF and such systems); and creative choice. It's also two lenses so its really fast to swap between if you've one camera body and means less gear to lug around. Esp if you're working on your own.
There are a lot of benefits to the combo which is why its so popular.
If you want to work outside of that combo then you have to really focus on what benefits working outside is bringing. For the OP right now I feel like the only benefit they've focused on is the cost factor. Instead of the creative choice; style; presentation; ease of working etc... They've not really put on the table what they can do with the 16-35mm that really works with their style and method to produce great photos. Plus they've not outlined how they can work around the 35-70mm range gap that they've got between the two lenses that they have.
Now of course all people have to experiment to find out; but ideally you'd experiment in a casual setting (eg a wedding rehearsal) or with a second camera body with the other lens on. Or through study of photos after. Eg you might find you were using the 24-70mm at a single or very close to single focal range for 90% of the shots. Telling you that you could perhaps go for a 50mm prime and still do most of what you need for the day and perhaps get an f1.4 for more creative freedom.
It's less ideal to do a paid shoot on a one-time event that's also a one-time-life-time event for the couple. Weddings have that extra layer of not being repeatable and being very emotionally important for those involved that adds a lot of stress to performance. Many events might be one-time but if you muck it up its not the end of the world; people move on (if anything the worst is that you just don't get paid); weddings are more critical to mess up so often its best to go with your A-Game and with a system and setpu that is flexible that you know works.
Reading the thread can I ask why you actually posed the question as looks like you had made up your mind and were possibly seeking affirmation
That's actually very normal. A lot of people will ask a question which is broadly framing their intention and own answer. It's less that they don't value other inputs, and more that they've come to a choice (or close to a choice) and want to see how people react and if they do or don't agree. If they do agree great they made a choice most agree with; if they disagree then it's when they question and the thread becomes a back and forth.
ideally of each side going deeper into the reasoning behind their stance. Pointing out strengths and weaknesses of either approach.
Less ideally people get their egos out and start fighting instead of focusing on facts.
