Wide Angle For Group Portraits - DPChallenge Forums

02/23/2010 10:24:45 AM · #1

I love my Canon 28-135mm lens. But, it doesn't do well for group photos - it gets a little soft when I have to zoom it all the way out.

L-glass is not a financial option for me. It just isn't. But, assuming I'm not going to get laid off in June.... I might be able to scrounge together $500-600 between now and say - July.

I would also like something that zooms out wider than 28mm. Since I don't have a studio, I am often working in cramped less than desirable conditions. But, at the same time, I'm often shocked at how many people want Christmas portraits in front of their own Christmas tree or in their own living room.

elsapo

Canon EF 50mm f1.2L

02/23/2010 10:36:15 AM · #2

You might be able to find a used Canon 17-40mm f/4L USM lens for around 500-600. It's a great lens!

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

02/23/2010 11:10:49 AM · #3

I've looked at one of those, but the f/4 concerns me for indoor stuff.

Bear_Music

Sony 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/23/2010 12:03:56 PM · #4

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

I've looked at one of those, but the f/4 concerns me for indoor stuff.

That's not really a productive way to be thinking, because there's no Canon zoom wider than 28mm that gives you f/2.8 except the 16-35mm (at 1600 bucks) and the 17-55mm (at $1,200), both f/2.8 lenses. You can get Canon's 20mm f/2.8 in the $600 range; that's a very nice piece of glass... But on the 30D it's not that wide... At about $800 you can get the excellent EF-S 10-22mm ultra-wide, an f/3.5 lens with great optics, but you need to be aware that at the wide end it's actually TOO wide for groups, if you fill the frame the edge distortion of faces and bodies is pronounced. Nevertheless, when you dial it to around15mm and up, it's reasonable for groups.

The new 18-135mm EF-S IS Canon seems to be a very decent performer at the wide end and wide open, and it has the new, 4-stop IS system, which really does work, so it's viable in low light situations. It's about $350...

R.

Tez

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/23/2010 04:42:00 PM · #5

your 28mm isn't wide enough for group shots? Can't you just stand back?

Seriously, doing a group shot at 17mm and up close leads to distortion and people on the sides looking all weird.

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

02/25/2010 08:56:31 AM · #6

It's not so much that it's not wide enough - it goes soft at 28mm. Plus, like I said - since I don't have a studio, I often work in really tight situations where backing up isn't always an option.

For instance, I was completely backed against a wall when I shot this and this. In one of them, I'm obviously way too close, and in the other one the lens went soft.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

02/25/2010 09:38:32 AM · #7

I'll go out on a limb here and suggest the Sigma 12-24. I think it fits your budget, has amazingly little distortion and is insanely wide. at 12mm, it might be a bit soft in the corners, but all UWA lenses are. It also offers full frame coverage, so with a 30D, you're just using the "sweet spot" in the center of the lens.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

02/25/2010 11:34:39 AM · #8

First off, don't try to do group shots at f/2.8; you are just asking for OOF faces. Not all your subjects in a group will be in exactly the same plane, and at f/2.8 you don't have a lot of DoF to work with. Use ceiling-bounced flash or off-camera flash with a modifier like a softbox or umbrella. Shoot at f/5.6, or even f/8 if you can. Lesson: you do not really need a fast lens, but you really need to look at how you light these shots.
28mm is probably not quite wide enough for these kinds of shots given the limited space available, however you *really* need to watch distortion with wider lenses. Even with a distortion free lens (straight lines remain ruler-straight), people at the edges of the frame will be badly distorted. It's not a lens defect, it's just how a normal (rectilinear) lens works. Straight lines stay straight, circles get distorted. FYI, with a fisheye, circles remain circles anywhere in the frame, but straight lines become curved when off center.
What you want is probably something no wider than about 16mm. 20mm would be a good place to be. The Canon 20/2.8 prime might be an option. Use that when you really need to get as wide as possible, and use your existing 28-135 stopped down to f/8 when you can. Stopping the 28-135 down will greatly improve sharpness, both because the lens is sharper when stopped down, and you won't have faces at or beyond the edges of your DoF.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

02/25/2010 11:35:53 AM · #9

Originally posted by ragamuffingirl:

Happy looking fellow isn't he?... ;)

02/25/2010 12:10:12 PM · #10

LOL! He is actually a great big teddy bear. I've been photographing these people for YEARS! I did their wedding pictures, and he looks like that in EVERY SINGLE PICTURE I HAVE EVER TAKEN OF HIM!

Does anyone have this lens?

michaelmonn

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/25/2010 12:41:25 PM · #11

ive heard good things. but ive never used it myself

Tez

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

02/25/2010 01:24:40 PM · #12

I used to have that lens, but I sold it when I upgraded to the 17-40 L (which is better in every respect except aperture).

I'd say that lens is OK, it isn't terrible at anything but it doesn't really excel at anything. It gets really sharp at around f/4-f/7.1 but before and after that it suffers slightly. It also has a really really noisy AF, which when i used it for ringside sports wasn't an issue, but in a family setting i imagine it might be. My dogs ears would prick up when i focused with it as it makes a loud whirring noise which you will get used to, but it's quite a unique aspect of this lens.

Distortion is mild, aberrations are mild, bokeh is average and that pretty much sums it up- it's a nice focal length, nice aperture, nice price but it can't hold a candle to any L lens, but then again, it's 1/3 the price!