Which wide angle for indoor family shots?

[EDad]

I need some advice. I recently came across a few $$ and want to add a wide angle lens for indoor family pictures - 50mm is too close on a 10D. I have a 10D, 420EX, 50mm f1.8, 28-135IS 3.5-5.6 already, and am looking at:
Canon 20mm f2.8 USM
Sigma 20mm f1.8 EX
Sigma 15-30mm 3.5-4.5
Canon 17-40L f4


Money for these lenses is not the issue; I understand that both zoom lenses are clearly the best ones in the list - but that's for landscapes. I want to take pictures of my family (especially 10M old son) indoors - without a flash. I'm thinking that the speed of the lens is the premium here. I also believe that 24mm is the max focal length that suits my needs.

Any advice is appreciated!!!!

Can anyone guide me?

[slejhamer]

I also believe that 24mm is the max focal length that suits my needs.


I'm curious why you believe this? The distortion effects of wide angle lenses can be fun but are not especially flattering.

If the 50mm 1.8 requires too much room, the excellent Canon 35mm f/2 might be worth considering, and on a 10D is close to a "normal" lens. And if you can afford one, the 35mm f/1.4 L would be an even better choice.

In my opinion the two zooms you referenced are not fast enough for indoor natural light shots, unless you are posing your subject close to a window (and preferably adding a reflector too.) YMMV.

[maderito]

I shoot almost exclusively available light because I hate the harsh shadows and dark backgrounds when using flash. However...

If you have white or near white ceilings, bounce flash, especially with a diffuser, works nicely for indoor shots of the family. The bonus is that you get to use your favorite lenses. Once I used my 70-200 f/4 to get head shots of family members while I was sitting a comfortable distance away. Although I looked ridiculous lugging around the 10D+grip+tele, the shots were beautiful.

One finaly note -- people do seem to get annoyed when the flash keeps going off during those intimate family moments. So the no flash approach is usually the best.

Back to your main question...Have you considered the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8? Great reviews; may suit your needs. See this thread: http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=35201

[EDad]

I also believe that 24mm is the max focal length that suits my needs.


I'm curious why you believe this? The distortion effects of wide angle lenses can be fun but are not especially flattering.


You make a very good point. I was so focused on being able to be *close* to the subject that I was ignoring this downside. I'll run around some more at 28mm and see if I'm not outsmarting myself.

[EDad]

maderito

I do use bounce flash alot.... I'm trying to introduce more natural lighting pictures to my albums for the reasons you mentioned.

I'll look at the Tamron, though I think it's too close to the 28-135 IS I already have. The Tamron looks nice if I am ever considering a replacement.

[scottbergerphoto]

Since you said that money isn't an issue, I highly recommend the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L. It's a versatile lens that takes great portraits on a 10D with the 1.6 crop factor. I took these pictures of a recent christening with the Mark II and this lens:
http://www.pbase.com/scottbergerphoto/the_christening_of_charles_schmidt
Regards,
Scott

[DaveG]

I shoot almost exclusively available light because I hate the harsh shadows and dark backgrounds when using flash. However...




Although this isn't to the original poster's point, why don't you use flash and drag the shutter? Sometime this is called inside fill flash. In any case you set up with a tripod, get the ambient light exposure (say 1/8 @ f5.6) adjust the camera up to these settings and take a picture with flash. The flash will light up the subject's face so you don't get that racoon eye effect. Meanwhile you don't have any flash fall-off effect that you've described.

You do get a mixed lighting and while the subject's should be fine often there is a yellowish colour cast to the background. That I can live with as long as the ambient light has been created by incandescent lights. The green from some florescent lights will have to fixed.

Now you can't use this technique if the subjects are moving (say the bride and her dad coming down the aisle) or if you don't have the subject's full cooperation, "The flash will pop but don't flinch as the exposure continues."

With that in mind you'll get a much better image than either inside ambient light or flash alone.

[maderito]

DaveG --

Thanks. I think you've mentioned the technique of "dragging the shutter" before - and I did take note.

My experience with flash and a slow shutter speeds hasn't been terrific. If I take some flash shots and later see ghosting (typically a yellow fringe in my case) because of subject movement, I start swearing. I put away my flash and can't begin to look at it again for at least a month. :(

I'll remember your tip about the tripod next time; and I'll pin down my subjects just to be sure. :D

[DaveG]

DaveG --

Thanks. I think you've mentioned the technique of "dragging the shutter" before - and I did take note.

My experience with flash and a slow shutter speeds hasn't been terrific. If I take some flash shots and later see ghosting (typically a yellow fringe in my case) because of subject movement, I start swearing. I put away my flash and can't begin to look at it again for at least a month. :(

I'll remember your tip about the tripod next time; and I'll pin down my subjects just to be sure. :D

Yeah any motion can be a big problem.

At weddings I'll do a formal shot of the B&G posed in front of the alter area. I almost always have to drag the shutter to make this work right. I tell them (as I said in the earlier posting) not to react to the flash since the exposure continues for a bit longer. Since I've approached that shot this way I have't had ANY ghosting problems at all.

But I wouldn't even attempt to use this technique with a group shot. That shot would go something like this: I'd tell them not to move. I'd take the shot and then faster than what should be humanly possible Aunt Gertrude would look down to talk to someone. Then she'd smile at me and say, "Oh did I move?" And then she'd move during the next shot too!

I would just love to say to her, "Ma'am the way that the B&G have contracted me is based on a fixed number of shots. I've asked you twice now not to move. You just ruined two shots, so why don't you write them a cheque for $30, since that's what they've just paid for your stupidity, you idiotic ..."

But of course that fantasy just goes on inside of my head. The real way that I would do this inside group shot is to throw the technically better shot out as and option, shoot with a faster shutterspeed and plenty of fall off, and get an OK shot without much grief. At the end of the day you can only do what you can do.

[scottbergerphoto]

There are at least 2 additional ways to reduce light fall off in flash pictures and you don't want to use ambient light due to long shutter times.
1.Put your flash in Manual mode and put some small Morris Mini Slaves in corners of the room or on the floor behind a couch or a tree, etc. They will light up the room around your subject.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=89986&is=REG

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=106894&is=REG

2. In ETTL, use a 550EX as master on camera, and place an asistant with a 550EX or 420EX on a pole, stand off to the side. You can also just put the slave on a bookshelf or the floor.
Regards,
Scott