# Ultrawide lens vs. event shoot...



## schuylercat (Mar 4, 2008)

Portrait shooters who have used VERY wide angle for any reason to post a few sample pics?  I'm building my gear, and currently have an EOS 40D, an old 28-80 f/2.8L that's still optically superb, and except for a battery and a 2gb flash card, that's it.

I want to look into W/A for various creative reasons, but I just learned the wedding reception I am practicing for will be held in rather a smallish room (old stone-walled pub, pretty dark).  My 28MM may not be able to catch group shots in this little space, and I'd like to see and hear how you pros have handled tight spaces with your lenses.  I'm looking at the Canon 10-22 ($$$,) or the Sigma 10-20 ($), and fear they might be juuuust a little TOO wide.

Of coure, lighting becomes an issue as well - I'm looking at grabbing the Canon kit that uses the ST-E2 remote and a pair of 580EX's, but lighting a scene that's ultra wide, even with a pair of lights...um, OK.  I'm out of my depth already.

Help me!


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 4, 2008)

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=95620


----------



## Big Mike (Mar 4, 2008)

Have you tried a lens in the 17-55 'ish' range?  That is what would be considered 'normal' for this camera. (28-80mm is normal on a film camera).

The best lens in this range is the Canon 17-55 F2.8 IS.  It's expensive but for weddings, it's the best tool for the job.
Some alternatives would be the Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 or the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8.  They are both good, but not as good as the Canon...and of course, they lack IS.  (I have the Tamron)

I also have the 10-22mm.  I don't have any portraits handy to show...but it is a very fun lens to shoot with.

It is great for environmental shots, where you want to show the people and the space...but I wouldn't recommend using it for more formal type shots where a longer focal length would be better.

If you can, maybe go into a camera store and try out the different lenses...or at least something around 17mm.  That way you can try to judge if that will be wide enough for you.


----------



## JIP (Mar 4, 2008)

I agree with Mike, a 17-55 might be a more appropiate lens for your needs.  a 10-20 lens has a place at a wedding but a very limited one for taking some, for lack of a better term, novelty type images but in my opinion it is not a great general-purpose lens.  But this all goes out the window because everything depends on your own personal style.


----------



## schuylercat (Mar 5, 2008)

Hi guys

Thanks for the feedback.  I have had a lot of similar feedback from elsewhere - lots of people said "what, you got mental problems?  Go to Ritz, try a 10-20, and see what you think."

And so...off I go!

Cheers


----------



## EOS_JD (Mar 5, 2008)

10-22 is not for "normal" portraits. It's great for a different perspective but UWA lenses accenuate parts of the body that you may not want to show..... 

17-55 should be wide enough even in smallish rooms.

10-22 is great for large groups and different perspective shots.


----------

