# What lenses do you use for group shots?



## iolair (Dec 10, 2009)

I'm looking over the next few months to get a lens, preferably a prime, to use for group shots - for example large wedding groups,  small family groups - maybe even the occasional school class or work group.  I'm on a 20D - therefore 1.6x crop factor.

My widest lens currently a sigma 28-200 zoom, with only OK image quality, which came from an old film EOS (and frequently gives Err 99 when I use it with my 20D ... grrr!).  My normal walkaround lens is the 50mm 1.8 (love the image quality).  You'll guess correctly from this that I love primes and that budget is important to me!

A lens which can also perform well for landscapes would be a bonus.

Mostly I'm asking what focal length people find works for group shots...  Because of budget, I'm considering Canon's 28mm 2.8, but I'm not sure if this is wide enough.


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 10, 2009)

You're working with a 1.6 crop and the widest lens you have is only 28mm?  Ouch!

My 'normal' lenses start at 17mm and my 'wide' lens is the 10-22mm.  
I shoot most wedding group shots with my Tamron 17-50mm F2.8 but I won't hesitate to use the 10-22mm for a wider shot.  
Of course, the 10-22mm does show a fair bit of distortion on subjects that are close to the camera and/or at the outside edges of the image....so care is needed to avoid that (if I want to avoid it).  

One of the main factors in what focal length you need...is the amount of room you have to work with.  If you can back up far enough, you could shoot groups at 200mm.  But we don't always have the room...and you'd have to shout for them to hear you . 

Another factor, is that if you are going to be shooting weddings.  You would be better off with 'faster' lenses (large max aperture).  I certainly wouldn't want to be stuck using those F4-5.6 lenses for a wedding.  So if you are going to get a new lens, I'd suggest something wider and something with a large aperture (F2.8 for a zoom).  


If you want a prime lens...there are a couple 24mm lenses.  The EF 24mm F1.4L is an outstanding lens but quite pricey.  There is another EF 24mm lens, but I haven't heard much about it.

There is a Sigma 20mm lens, I'm not sure about that one either.


----------



## iolair (Dec 10, 2009)

Thanks Mike ... I assume those lenses you're using are going on a full frame body?

I haven't so far found a lack of wide angle "ouch" ... because generally I control the conditions I shoot in and work within the options of my lens, I find that the 50mm covers almost everything I want to do and works well with my personal style.  However, to shoot a wedding and on-site groups I clearly *won't* have as much control over the conditions, so I need a lens that can accommodate that.

Yes, apart from the 28mm 2.8, Canon do a 20mm 2.8 and a 24mm 2.8 and while they're not hugely expensive, neither (for me, at least) is the cost trivial.  Either look like lenses that would suit me well, especially the 20mm, I just prefer to avoid spending more money if I can help it!
[EDIT]OK ... I just read some reviews on the 20mm, probably worth forgetting that one![/EDIT]


----------



## Big Mike (Dec 10, 2009)

> I assume those lenses you're using are going on a full frame body?


Nope.  I use 20Ds as well.


----------



## PhotoVerve (Dec 10, 2009)

iolair said:


> [EDIT]OK ... I just read some reviews on the 20mm, probably worth forgetting that one![/EDIT]



Care to link to the bad reviews?  I've read quite a bit of good stuff about that lens, and I'm seriously considering it for my next lens purchase.  I'd definitely love to save the trouble/money if it's not worth purchasing.


----------



## iolair (Dec 11, 2009)

PhotoVerve said:


> iolair said:
> 
> 
> > [EDIT]OK ... I just read some reviews on the 20mm, probably worth forgetting that one![/EDIT]
> ...


FM Reviews - EF 20mm f/2.8 USM

There are positive reviews as well, it looks like it could be a quality control problem - but compared to (say) the 24 mm lens, it looks like there are many more negatives. The lack of sharpness on many reviews concerns me for a lens for group shots - where you want to keep the details on many faces that will, after all, be rather small on the shot.


----------



## Dao (Dec 11, 2009)

Have you ever thought of trying the Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 lens?

Here is the reviews for the lens 

Photozone
Tamron AF 17-50mm f/2.8 SP XR Di II LD Aspherical [IF] (Canon) - Review / Test Report

SLRgear
Tamron Lens: Zooms - Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II LD Aspherical IF SP AF (Tested) - SLRgear.com!

The digital picture
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens Review


This lens is not L build quality, but optically, it is a great lens especially for the price.

Edit:
You can compare the MTF charts of various lenses in photozone.  Compare the EF 24mm MTF with Tamron at 24mm, it is very close in optical performance. (Seems like Tamron is slightly better)


----------



## Shockey (Dec 11, 2009)

I use the 24-70 and normally, I try to shoot as tight as possible to get rid of distortion.

Tamron lenses are nice lenses, just don't expect them to be tack sharp at 2.8, by 4 they are tack sharp.


----------



## iolair (Dec 12, 2009)

Looking here:
Tamron - Canon Fit - Camera Lenses - Warehouse Express

there are two Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 versions... the more expensive version just gives you image stabilisation for an extra £200?  Presumably if I was taking groups (and sometimes landscapes) with a tripod and possibly cable release, there is no advantage to spending the extra?  (I'm mostly just curious here, as I wouldn't spend that much extra for IS).  I notice the more expensive version has more optical elements too...

So, in the same price bracket, I have 4 wide lenses to consider:
Canon 20mm f/2.8
Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6
Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8
Tamron 10-24mm f/3.5-4.5

The 2.8s seem like the better option though, as shooting groups inside seems most likely.  I don't think there's anything wider than 10mm without going fisheye (which isn't my thing).

Anyone here have experience with those ultrawide zooms, though?  The extra field of view would add a certain level of extra ability to fit everyone in, or shoot the groups in smaller areas.  Would I notice much distortion with these?


----------



## wescobts (Dec 12, 2009)

Although not Canon, I use a 20mm 2.8 on my D-70, which is a crop sensor camera. Although not super wide is does the job very well. I love the way it feels on the camera, small light and fast. It produces very sharp images. I bought it brand new, and it was not the cheapest lens out there.


----------



## iolair (Dec 15, 2009)

OK, Ive decided that I'm aiming to get (as I can afford them) the Sigma 10-20mm and the Canon 28mm/2.8.

If I need the wider lens before I get those, I'll be hiring the 16-35mm L from lensclub: http://lensclub.es/catalogo.php?id=1


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 15, 2009)

Used to shoot my weddings with an 80mm (50mm in 35 film or FF camera) and never had a problem fitting the group in. That said, if you can't back up enough or if you have a very large group, you could have a problem 

Going wide though will make you deal with possible distortion and I would go no shorter than 28mm myself. By keeping it level, you will not see any distortion. With a crop frame body you have a bit of a problem because a 24mm will actually give you a  working 38mm which is not very wide.

Being new to digital and having no wide angle lenses yet, I would worry that that 24mm will give me all the distortion while working as a 38mm. Someone else can probably address this problem.

It might be worth renting the different possible lenses for a day and just trying a bunch of different things to see how they do.


----------



## KmH (Dec 15, 2009)

I use a variety of glass for group shots. Everything from a 12-24mm to a 70-300 mm. It depends on the size of the group, how far away from the group I can get, distance to background, indoors or outdoors, time of day, the mood I want to create, perspective....


----------



## Christie Photo (Dec 15, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Used to shoot my weddings with an 80mm (50mm in 35 film or FF camera) and never had a problem fitting the group in. That said, if you can't back up enough or if you have a very large group, you could have a problem
> 
> Going wide though will make you deal with possible distortion and I would go no shorter than 28mm myself. By keeping it level, you will not see any distortion. With a crop frame body you have a bit of a problem because a 24mm will actually give you a  working 38mm which is not very wide.



This all sounds right to me.  I always work with the longest possible focal length.  You should be able to do the vast majority of groups with a normal (35mm) lens, but in a pinch due to the number of people or confining space, it's nice to have a slightly wide lens (the 24mm).


To cloudwalker: 



c.cloudwalker said:


> Being new to digital and having no wide angle lenses yet, I would worry that that 24mm will give me all the distortion while working as a 38mm.



Just think of it as what you already know about different film formats...  how it all relates to normal focal length.  If you fitted your 55mm lens from your roll film system onto a 35mm film camera, it would act just like a normal lens...  distortion and all.  But if you mounted it on a 4x5, well...  I'm sure you know.

-Pete


----------



## skieur (Dec 15, 2009)

I use an 18 to 50mm on a crop body camera and a 28mm prime on a full-frame.  Distortion is minimal.

skieur


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 15, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> To cloudwalker:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



So, are you saying that the distortion has nothing or little to do with lens design but is rather a question of how the focal length relates to the format? Tbh, I had never given it any thought until this thread


----------



## sinjans (Dec 15, 2009)

Sigma has 2 versions of the 10-20 now. The 3.5 just came out so that should puch the price of the 4.0-5.6 down. still a good lense. I have not decided wether to go canon 10-20 or sigma. Does anyone know if the 50D has the correction information for the Sigma lenses? Not trying to steal the intent of this thread


----------



## icassell (Dec 15, 2009)

sinjans said:


> Sigma has 2 versions of the 10-20 now. The 3.5 just came out so that should puch the price of the 4.0-5.6 down. still a good lense. I have not decided wether to go canon 10-20 or sigma. Does anyone know if the 50D has the correction information for the Sigma lenses? Not trying to steal the intent of this thread



My Sigma 10-20 f/4-5.6 works fine on my 30D and my 7D, so I would imagine it would work on a 50D. (... love that lens...)


----------



## icassell (Dec 15, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Christie Photo said:
> 
> 
> > To cloudwalker:
> ...



There are different kinds of distortion.  Perspective distortion is related to focal length:

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)"


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 15, 2009)

icassell said:


> There are different kinds of distortion.  Perspective distortion is related to focal length



Although focal length does play a role in perspective distortion, it is actually a natural phenomena. If you stand at the foot of a skyscraper looking up, the top  will look smaller than the base just like it would with any lens.

I am talking about radial distortion which I believe is particular to lenses and much more of a problem with wider focal length. Of course, I could be wrong


----------



## Christie Photo (Dec 15, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> ...a question of how the focal length relates to the format?



Doesn't that seem right to you?  Gee...  maybe I'm the one who's thinking wrong.

I figure the lens is making a circular image, and the closer the edge of the frame comes to the the edge of the circle, the more we see the distortion.  If it goes far enough, you get the edge of the image (vignetting).

That's how I reasoned it out.  

Please....  someone jump in if I'm steering folks wrong.

-Pete


----------



## c.cloudwalker (Dec 15, 2009)

Christie Photo said:


> c.cloudwalker said:
> 
> 
> > ...a question of how the focal length relates to the format?
> ...



Absolutely not trying to say you are wrong. Just trying to understand. I am not much with science but I am pretty good with common sense and what you say about the circular image is, to me, common sense. And, I have seen the same thing mentioned on several sites/blogs.

Although most tests of distortion are done with straight lines, some people/sites/blogs seem to think it should be done with circles. To me it makes sense but, again, I don't really understand any (much) of it. My reactions have more to do with common sense than science so...

I guess I'll just go to the store and try a few things


----------



## sinjans (Dec 15, 2009)

icassell said:


> sinjans said:
> 
> 
> > Sigma has 2 versions of the 10-20 now. The 3.5 just came out so that should puch the price of the 4.0-5.6 down. still a good lense. I have not decided wether to go canon 10-20 or sigma. Does anyone know if the 50D has the correction information for the Sigma lenses? Not trying to steal the intent of this thread
> ...


 
Sorry I meant Periphial Illumination Correction information.


----------



## Christie Photo (Dec 16, 2009)

c.cloudwalker said:


> Absolutely not trying to say you are wrong. Just trying to understand.




Oh, me too.  I could be absolutely wrong.  In fact, after I made the post, I began to ponder that the image produced by a lens is likely not merely circular, but spherical...  like a contact lens.  Film, and I presume sensors, are flat, causing the distortion.  Hey...  maybe we're on to something.  Should we start producing curved sensors?


----------

