WA lens question - FM Forums

Moderated by: Steve Tinetti, guardian

Visit the FM Store · Image Upload · Buy & Sell
FM Forum Rules
Wedding Resource List

FM Forums | Wedding Photographer | Join Image Upload
end

CBDigital
Offline
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #1 · WA lens question

My standard practice for weddings has been 24-105 on one camera ( 5D) and 70-200 2.8 on another 5D. I recently bought a Canon 35mm 1.4 and I am astounded by the image quality. It makes 35 mm on my 24-105 look like something from a point and shoot.

So now I am considering something wider. I am looking at the 16-35 and the 14 2.8 II.

My concern with the zoom is that I will get lazy and use it at 35 mm instead of the prime. But is 14 mm practical for wedding work other than a few specialty shots here and there? Just looking for some feedback.

Jan 30, 2008 at 06:36 PM

Evan Baines
Online
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #2 · WA lens question

I'm a dyed in the wool prime guy, but I find the flexibility of a zoom for indoor WA work to be indispensible. The 16-35LII is the only zoom I own right now, and I'm very happy with it.

Not much difference between 189mm and 200mm, but 16mm and 20mm is a night-and-day difference.

Edited on Jan 30, 2008 at 06:56 PM

Jan 30, 2008 at 06:55 PM

Mike Mahoney
Offline
Image Upload: Off

p.1 #3 · WA lens question

The challenge with WA lenses when taking pics of people is controlling the distortion. A wide lens is very useful in tight quarters but I find that you need to take care when using anything much below 30mm.

I'd really like to settle on just two primes for weddings .. a 35 1.4 and a 135 2.0 on full frame. To me a 24 is handy, but too short for many applications.

Jan 30, 2008 at 07:16 PM

juberisk2
Offline
Image Upload: On

p.1 #4 · WA lens question

i have a 24-105, and i know what you mean about using it at 35mm. at wider angles, with f4, there is no bokeh to speak of. if the reason you like the 35L is that 3-D look it creates at f1.4, you may be disappointed by a 2.8 zoom, as the bokeh is considerably less. that said, i wish i had a 16-35mkII.

chris

Jan 31, 2008 at 12:26 AM

technocraft
Online
Buy and Sell: On

p.1 #5 · WA lens question

I've been thinking about the wide parts of my lens collection. Since becoming a mainly prime shooter (with the exception of the 70-200/2.8), I've got some unused glass and want to reorganize down there.

I have:
17-40/f - sharp, wide. not fast, distorts too much at wide end (it's almost a fish a 17 on ff). Used only for formals really, though I have used it in the 20-24 range I guess, but it's f4 dammit.
28-70/2.8 - good range, okay sharp. not fast enough and heavy. I like getting the 70 reach, especially in close quarters where the 70-200 doesn't work. And with the 85/1.2 I use...
50/1.4 - not used much at all anymore (due to 35/.1.4)
35/1.4 - probably my most oft-used lens (excluding dance).

So...

I've been thinking about the 24/1.4 and 16-35/2.8. The comment above about the bokeh at 2.8 on a wide lense just kills me. I wouldn't want the 16-35 then. If that leaves me with the 24/1.4, is that wideR enough than the 35 to make a difference and not too wide as to distort too heavily?

Jan 31, 2008 at 12:36 AM


FM Forums \| Wedding Photographer \| Join Image Upload end