advise on a wide angle wedding lens

[mheaps]

I am trying to figure out the best wide angle len for wedding portraits. I already have a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM. I want to be able to get a tall building and the bride and groom all in the photo. thanks

 

[photogincollege]

How much are you willing to spend. And what camera are you using?

 

[benhasajeep]

Some version of Canon since they listed an L lens.

Canon's 16-35 f/2.8L would be a very good choice but well over $1,400. In between is the 17-55 f/2.8 $925. Next less expensive offering would be the 17-40 f/4.0L $750.

Maybe even the Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 for $350 if your on a budget.

Not sure if that is wide enough for you. But would give you more use for normal shooting as well.

As for ultra wides. Sigma 10-20 f/4.0-5.6 $425. has a really good following. I just got a Tokina 11-16 and so far from the pics I have seen its looking very promising. And it's a fast f/2.8 for $600. But both of these would be limited for just wide shots only. But would give you the ultra wide your needing.

And Welcome to TPF.

 

[Steph]

Some version of Canon since they listed an L lens.

I guess the real question is full frame or crop sensor.

 

[haggis]

For weddings on a Canon 5D I use 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 f2.8. My backup camera is a 40D with either the 50 1.8 or 12-24.
Really is important to know whether you are using FF or crop.

 

[skieur]

I am trying to figure out the best wide angle len for wedding portraits. I already have a 50mm 1.8 and a 70-200mm 2.8L IS USM. I want to be able to get a tall building and the bride and groom all in the photo. thanks

I am not sure that your idea would make a good photo. The wider the angle of the lens, the more distortion (lean) you will get in the building and the closer you will need to be to have the bride and groom recognizable in the shot. Depending on camera angle, you may end up even distorting the bride and groom.

Unless you have lots of experience with wide angle shooting and can solve distortion issues, I would not recommend anything wider than 28mm (full frame equivalent).

skieur

 

[Lenscap]

I would suggest a widw angle of no more than 28mm (18mm for small digital sensors) otherwise you will get distortion of the building and the prople. A way around this would be to bring the bride and groom away from the building, so they are no large in the foreground and the building is small in the background. Hope this is helpfull.

 

[bigtwinky]

Without knowing the camera or the budget....

First choice would be a 16-35 f/2.8. The constant f2.8 is much needed for weddings.
Second would tbe the 17-55 f/2.8.

If you are using a crop sensor camera (any Rebel, 40D, 50D) and you are after a wide shot, I'd look at the Canon 10-22mm or the Sigma equivalent. They are not a constant f/2.8 but they will give you the wide angle you are seeking on a crop sensor.

 

[Guido44]

Tokina 11-16 2.8 mm




$589.95

I had a good experience buying from Arlington Camera

 

[jcolman]

I've got both a 16-35L and 24L that I'll use. The 16-35 (mark I) edges aren't as sharp as the 24, but I rarely use the edges anyway. I also don't normally shoot group shots at 16mm either. I find that 27-35mm focal length works well. Any wider and distortion becomes an issue.

Another good lens to consider is the Tamron 27-75. I had one for a while, then sold it (the autofocus is slow and doesn't always lock in low light) and bought the canon 24-70. This is a great lens. I eventually sold it to purchase the 24L which is a wonderful low light lens.

 

[jcolman]

I've got both a 16-35L and 24L that I'll use. The 16-35 (mark I) edges aren't as sharp as the 24, but I rarely use the edges anyway. I also don't normally shoot group shots at 16mm either. I find that 27-35mm focal length works well. Any wider and distortion becomes an issue.

Another good lens to consider is the Tamron 27-75. Good, inexpensive and sharp. I had one for a while, then sold it (the autofocus is slow and doesn't always lock in low light) and bought the canon 24-70. This is a great lens. I eventually sold it to purchase the 24L which is a wonderful low light lens.

There are times however when I wish I still had the 24-70.

edit: oops, didn't mean to post a reply to my own post!

 

[JerryPH]

Tokina 11-16 2.8 mm
$589.95
I had a good experience buying from Arlington Camera

I believe they mentioned that they had a 5D which is a FF, no?

Sigma makes a few, but I like going all the way. If you want wide, nothing beats a fish eye.

I picked up a Sigma 15mm F/2.8 prime fisheye:

 

[skieur]

Tokina 11-16 2.8 mm
$589.95
I had a good experience buying from Arlington Camera

I believe they mentioned that they had a 5D which is a FF, no?

Sigma makes a few, but I like going all the way. If you want wide, nothing beats a fish eye.

I picked up a Sigma 15mm F/2.8 prime fisheye:

I have a different perspective. It is a great church shot but not a great wedding shot, since anyone could be up at the front. Unless you can use this lens in a number of wedding shots, it becomes a limited, specialized lens, that might not be good value for money spent. For this shot I would also use DX0 to straighten out the walls of the church and thereby improve the image.

skieur

 

[JerryPH]

I have a different perspective. It is a great church shot but not a great wedding shot, since anyone could be up at the front.

It is exactly as it appears, a location shot, not the couple. I have other shots of the couple from 6 feet behind them and from behind the altar using this lens, but becuase the main photographer is making them available for sale, I am not posting them online.

I also have hundreds of wedding style shots. The main photographer took over 2500 shots and I took close to 900 shots myself. Being the assistant as well as the second cuts into the number of shots I can take. What is more important is that I do whatever I can for the main photographer to get the shot. Often that means me holding a monopod and gelled flash.

 

[kundalini]

Uhmph..... Lots of lip given to a ONE POSTER from 10 days ago...

The discussion would be much more intriguing had they bothered to fill in the gaps.


BTW, I don't shoot weddings.