# advise on a wide angle wedding lens



## mheaps (May 16, 2009)

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 (May 16, 2009)

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


----------



## benhasajeep (May 17, 2009)

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 (May 17, 2009)

benhasajeep said:


> Some version of Canon since they listed an L lens.



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


----------



## haggis (May 27, 2009)

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 (May 27, 2009)

mheaps said:


> 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 (May 27, 2009)

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 (May 27, 2009)

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 (May 27, 2009)

Tokina 11-16 2.8 mm 




$589.95

I had a good experience buying from Arlington Camera


----------



## jcolman (May 27, 2009)

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 (May 27, 2009)

jcolman said:


> 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 (May 27, 2009)

Guido44 said:


> 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 (May 27, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Guido44 said:
> 
> 
> > Tokina 11-16 2.8 mm
> ...








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 (May 27, 2009)

skieur said:


> 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 (May 27, 2009)

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.


----------



## johnbergsing (May 27, 2009)

That 16-35 f/2.8L would be an awesome edition to your camera bag. However, I have the 24-70 f/2.8L and it is my favorite lens for most of my work!


----------



## B Kennedy (May 28, 2009)

I agree with the 24-70, I use it on my 5dm2 and its a wonderful fast lense.  My next purchase is going to be the 16-35 2.8.  But I am working out just fine with the 24.  great lense


----------



## JerryPH (May 28, 2009)

Well there is also a 3-way conflict in there...  wedding, portraits and wide.

Personally, I think that there is no such thing as a good wide portrait lens, weddings or otherwise.  We all know that the wider you go, the more distortion you get and when doing portraits, you are giving people what I always call chipmunk cheeks (I wanna choke when I see people talking about portrait lenses and they think that a 50mm is the ultimate portrait lens.  I want to slap them with a trout... lol).  The better portraits lens are the ones over 70mm and the best ones are usually in the 85-200mm range... *hardly* wide angle but they will give you better results than ANY wide angle out there becuase of this distortion.

BTW, I do shoot weddings, and have a BLAST!  Next one for me... this Saturday (that makes it the last 3 weekends in a row)!  Yipee!


----------



## B Kennedy (May 29, 2009)

JerryPH said:


> Well there is also a 3-way conflict in there...  wedding, portraits and wide.
> 
> (I want to slap them with a trout... lol).




LOL yesss.   I would like to photograph you slapping them with a trout -->Priceless


----------

