For my flavor of photojournalistic wedding shoots, I love my Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VR.
Reason? Long available focal length allows me to shoot from a greater distance if need be. Aperture is constant; the ability to shoot at 200mm and f/2.8 comes in very handy at times. The lens has active stabilization, very handy for obvious reasons.
i shot a wedding a couple of weekend ago and used my Tamron 28-75 2.8 pretty much the entire time. It was fast and wide enough for the preparation shots at the bride's house, but gave me enough reach and versatility for the outdoor ceremony. On my backup body I alternated between the Canon 17-40 f4L and the Canon 70-200 f4L.
I never shot a digital wedding but at the end I was shooting 35mm..
At that time I usually setup a 35mm wide angle and never changed it. That lens never had so wide a coverage that the lights wouldn't reach, and I was close enough that if I had to walk up to the bride for a head shot I could.
If there was any distortion I never noticed nor did anyone at all ever mention it to me. Paying customer's opinions are the ones who count. I always shot with an auto flash setup at 5.6 so even though it was a 2.8 I seldom used it.
For candids I use the 85mm/1.8 and 50mm/1.4 most, because I like a very shallow DOF. I'll sometimes use my cheapo 22-55mm zoom if I want a wide angle.
For formals, I still use film and shoot on medium format, usually at around 85mm, which is about 50mm for 35mm film cameras (or "full-frame" digitals). It's wide enough that I don't have to step back into the next county, but it's not so wide that things distort. If I were shooting formals on 35mm, I would use a 50mm for the same reason. It's just more natural looking.