Wide Angle or 24-70mm range on a crop body?

[ghache]

I have the 24-70 on my cropped sensor and i think it perfectly fine for any situation.


its a bit tight to get full body shots in a tight room indoor but overall its my gogo lens for oudoor shoots.

if you shoot alot indoor. you might wanna try the 17-55 f2.8

 

[Tbini87]

I often say that 24-70mm is awkward on a crop body, because I just don't think that 24mm is wide enough for your primary lens....and that's just a personal preference.

Of course, I have a wider lens, the 10-22mm...so in theory I would be OK pairing that up with a 24-70mm....but I don't really want to be changing lenses just to get the 16-23mm range. When I want to shoot wide angle, I'm usually going fully wide to 10-12mm. But when I'm shooting general 'normal' length photos during a wedding, I like being able to zoom from 17mm to 50mm. Sure, I'd like to be able to zoom out to 70 or 85mm but they just don't have an F2.8 lens that covers that. I do have a 17-85mm F4-5.6 lens, but it isn't fast enough for me at a wedding.

On a film/full fame body, yes...the 24 to 70mm range is ideal.

Don't you also really like the 70-200 2.8 for weddings? I think I will probably we shooting with this lens almost the whole time. My wife would then be stuck with the 17-55... which seems a little short for a ceremony (she might have to get in real close the the B&G). I was thinking that the 24-70 may be a good lens for her during the ceremony... then maybe switch to the 17-55 for the reception. Again, I am not really sure how it will all pan out since we don't have experience shooting weddings.

As far as the wide angle lens, I probably wouldn't be using it a ton at a wedding. However, I know that David Ziser has been using his and says he loves it for weddings. It creates some crazy distortion and I would probably only use it for overview shots say of the entire ceremony or reception area. I have seen some wide angle shots of weddings that obviously wouldn't be possible with our current lens lineup, and I would hate to miss out on cool opportunities due to not having a WA on hand.

 

[Tbini87]

I have the 24-70 on my cropped sensor and i think it perfectly fine for any situation.


its a bit tight to get full body shots in a tight room indoor but overall its my gogo lens for oudoor shoots.

if you shoot alot indoor. you might wanna try the 17-55 f2.8

For those recommending the 17-55 2.8, we already have it, and love it! Good recommendation for someone who doesn't already have the lens.

 

[mjhoward]

Get the 17-55 f2.8. Similar build, large aperture, and similar focal length to what would be on a FF. (25.5-82.5mm)

l
l
V

We have D90s, a 17-55 2.8, 35 1.8, 50 1.8, and 80-200 2.8.

:facepalm:

I dont know how I missed that... in that case, if you're unhappy with the 17-55, I'll take it off your hands for the right price! I'm in the market

 

[Tbini87]

Get the 17-55 f2.8. Similar build, large aperture, and similar focal length to what would be on a FF. (25.5-82.5mm)

l
l
V

We have D90s, a 17-55 2.8, 35 1.8, 50 1.8, and 80-200 2.8.

:facepalm:

I dont know how I missed that... in that case, if you're unhappy with the 17-55, I'll take it off your hands for the right price! I'm in the market

Pretty happy with it for now. I'm guessing somewhere down the line we will move the FX but until then we will be holding onto it!

 

[Destin]

Why do you think that the 11-16mm is too narrow of a range? I mean sure it's only 5mm, so it's half the range of the sigma 10-20, however when paired with your 17-55, your only losing 1mm at the wide end compared to the sigma, and you gain a constant 2.8. Seems like a no brainer to me.

If you want super wide, sigma just released the 8-16mm. Widest lens made for a crop sensor so far..

 

[Tbini87]

Why do you think that the 11-16mm is too narrow of a range? I mean sure it's only 5mm, so it's half the range of the sigma 10-20, however when paired with your 17-55, your only losing 1mm at the wide end compared to the sigma, and you gain a constant 2.8. Seems like a no brainer to me.

If you want super wide, sigma just released the 8-16mm. Widest lens made for a crop sensor so far..

11-16 might not be TOO narrow, but it is narrow, and much more narrow than the sigma 10-20. The 2.8 is obviously nice, so the question is which is more important: a constant 2.8 or more zoom range?

I did notice the 8-16 by Sigma which is a little more expensive than I was planning on. That range is a lot more appealing than 11-16 imo. However, I may be overestimating the importance of range compared to the constant 2.8.

 

[Geaux]

My bet is that you'll never shoot the ultra wide at wide open anyways. Performance on a wide is best around f/8-11, plus it's mostly used for landscapes, so you won't be shooting at 2.8. That was what I've been told by other wide users and was my deciding factor in going with the f/4 sigma over the more expensive/new f/3.5

 

[Infidel]

I'm still waiting for sobolik to chime in and suggest the ultra wide as your primary wedding lens..."just correct the distortion in PS elements and crop 4-5 different, usable images per capture...great way to get candids".

 

[mjhoward]

11-16 might not be TOO narrow, but it is narrow, and much more narrow than the sigma 10-20. The 2.8 is obviously nice, so the question is which is more important: a constant 2.8 or more zoom range?

You should add IQ and build quality to your evaluation as well. I believe the Tokina has better IQ. I wouldnt worry much about have a few extra mm on the longer end, you'll likely keep it zoomed all the way out 99% of the time.

My bet is that you'll never shoot the ultra wide at wide open anyways. Performance on a wide is best around f/8-11, plus it's mostly used for landscapes, so you won't be shooting at 2.8. That was what I've been told by other wide users and was my deciding factor in going with the f/4 sigma over the more expensive/new f/3.5

I just got the 11-16 yesterday and have already used it many times at 2.8 for shooting indoors and it is very sharp even wide open.

 

[kundalini]

Performance on a wide is best around f/8-11,

Ohhhh, I don't know. Some of them do a decent job at f/2.8.

100% crop​

I think the OOF background (bokeh) works pretty well on my copy.​

 

[Tbini87]

11-16 might not be TOO narrow, but it is narrow, and much more narrow than the sigma 10-20. The 2.8 is obviously nice, so the question is which is more important: a constant 2.8 or more zoom range?

You should add IQ and build quality to your evaluation as well. I believe the Tokina has better IQ. I wouldnt worry much about have a few extra mm on the longer end, you'll likely keep it zoomed all the way out 99% of the time.

My bet is that you'll never shoot the ultra wide at wide open anyways. Performance on a wide is best around f/8-11, plus it's mostly used for landscapes, so you won't be shooting at 2.8. That was what I've been told by other wide users and was my deciding factor in going with the f/4 sigma over the more expensive/new f/3.5

I just got the 11-16 yesterday and have already used it many times at 2.8 for shooting indoors and it is very sharp even wide open.

Very true. I am leaning towards the tokina 11-16 the more I think about it. I agree that we will most likely be using it completely zoomed out at 11mm, and the 2.8 would be nice.

 

[Tbini87]

Performance on a wide is best around f/8-11,

Ohhhh, I don't know. Some of them do a decent job at f/2.8.

I think the OOF background (bokeh) works pretty well on my copy.​

Is this the Tokina 11-16? Looks pretty impressive wide open. Is this taken at 11mm?

 

[Derrel]

I'm still waiting for sobolik to chime in and suggest the ultra wide as your primary wedding lens..."just correct the distortion in PS elements and crop 4-5 different, usable images per capture...great way to get candids".

Sardonic.

 

[Tbini87]

Hey guys, is the Tokina 11-16 2.8 only for DX? It says DX in the name, and I thought it was only for crop sensors, but I ready a review on amazon saying that it can be used on FX, and I thought that Kundalini shoots with a D700. I guess it isn't really a big deal, but a switch to FX down the road seems probable.