Which Wide Angle EOS Lens?

[PhotoDude25]

Hi folks.... :) ......I presently shoot with a Canon D30 and have found I need a little wider angle lens for shooting high school team football photos. I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good wide angle lens for shooting such photos? If anybody out there that shoots similar photos could let me know what they use, or what works best for them, I would greatly appreciate the help. I now use a 35-80mm which I am not too satisfied with. Not as sharp as I'd like and not wide enough at 35 to get everyone in the photo without having to back up so far that the image becomes way to small. Thanks in advance for any insight anybody can lend......Happy shooting!...........PhotoDude25

[Pekka]

Hi folks.... :) ......I presently shoot with a Canon D30 and have found I need a little wider angle lens for shooting high school team football photos. I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good wide angle lens for shooting such photos? If anybody out there that shoots similar photos could let me know what they use, or what works best for them, I would greatly appreciate the help. I now use a 35-80mm which I am not too satisfied with. Not as sharp as I'd like and not wide enough at 35 to get everyone in the photo without having to back up so far that the image becomes way to small. Thanks in advance for any insight anybody can lend......Happy shooting!...........PhotoDude25

You mean group shots, right? Perhaps the first step to determine the right choice of lens is to find out what is the exact wide angle mm you really need. Can you borrow gear (or rent)? As a best choice I would recommend 24/1.4 or low budget Sigma 20/1.8. Then again you could do well with 24-70L, too. Of course if you ever buy a 1D or Mark II the wide angle is much wider so 35mm (e.g. 35/2) may be wide enough.

[Headcase650]

If the only thing you need it for is wide angel group shots I would go with a prime. Maybe a 28mm/2.8 or a 24mm/1.4. The first is the cheaper choice. You need to decide how much you want to spend, that will allow better recomendations.

[DaveG]

Hi folks.... :) ......I presently shoot with a Canon D30 and have found I need a little wider angle lens for shooting high school team football photos. I was wondering if anyone could recommend a good wide angle lens for shooting such photos? If anybody out there that shoots similar photos could let me know what they use, or what works best for them, I would greatly appreciate the help. I now use a 35-80mm which I am not too satisfied with. Not as sharp as I'd like and not wide enough at 35 to get everyone in the photo without having to back up so far that the image becomes way to small. Thanks in advance for any insight anybody can lend......Happy shooting!...........PhotoDude25

Actually you don't want a wide angle. You want a 50 mm lens which would be roughly an 80 on your D30.

Think of it this way, you'd use a portrait focal length lens if you were shooting a portrait right? And a 50 is that lens. Well when you are photographing a group are you not photographing a portrait of 40 people, all at the same time? Why would you NOT use a portrait lens? At worst use a normal focal length lens (35mm?) as it's a "better than nothing" answer, but as I say a short tele is better.

If you look at any of the professional team shots I can assure you that they were not taken with a wide angle. There would be too much foreground and sky in the wide angle shot since the wide angle get wide left and right but also top and bottom. A short tele will give a nicer perspective and will leave out the foreground/sky.

The real issue here is lighting the thing. In a gym you'll need some powerful flashes (a couple of 1000 w/s strobes should do it) and that may be impossible. But lighting gear is what you really need, not a wide angle.

[montyl]

DaveG,

If PhotoDude25 has a 35-80mm lense with a FOV (Field of View) of 63 degrees at 35mm and 30 degrees at 80mm and it is not wide enough to take the pictures that he wants then why would he go to a 50mm lense with a FOV of only 46 degrees? That is unless you are meaning he needs to back up more, which defeats the purpose.

For me with my D60 to get a better FOV then my 28-135 IS can give me, I went and bought the Sigma 12-24mm lense which at the 12mm end has a 122 degree FOV, and trust me I have not found another lense that can match it, without switching to a fish eye lense.

PhotoDude25

If you are adament about sticking with EOS lenses take a look at the spec page on Canon USA's web page. The 20-35mm f/3.5-4.5 with a FOV of 94 degree may be wide enough for you.

[DaveG]

DaveG,

If PhotoDude25 has a 35-80mm lense with a FOV (Field of View) of 63 degrees at 35mm and 30 degrees at 80mm and it is not wide enough to take the pictures that he wants then why would he go to a 50mm lense with a FOV of only 46 degrees? That is unless you are meaning he needs to back up more, which defeats the purpose.




The point IS that he does need to back up more. Look you can make a picture or you can make a good picture and that would be the difference in a group shot made with a wide angle compared to a short tele.

Hey I've been there too and I've done groups with wide angles when my back is literally against the wall. But it's something to avoid if it's at all possible. A footbal team is going to require a large space just to set it up, so there are only two two places where they usually are done. Outside at the field, or inside the gym. Both locations offer enough room (usually) for the photographer to back up. The real issue, as I said, is if he has enough flash horsepower to light the thing.

There is a school of thought that pigeon hole lens focal lengths. Wide angles are for groups and scenics. Normal lenses are useless, short telephotos are for portraits and long telephotos are for sports and birding.

Well wide angles are used when you want to put something important from the scene in the foreground and then have a foreground/background interaction. Normal lenses are the fast, sharp, jewel in everyone's bag that is an acceptable compromise when you shoot outside groups and have to fill flash with portable lighting. The teles are good H&S portrait lenses but work wonders for groups. The long lenses are equally interesting for doing full length portraits with blown out backgrounds. They also are great for showing the majesty of the mountains.

Think outside the box.

I shot a wedding yesterday with my 10D. The portrait of the bride, the bride and groom together and all of the group shots were done with my 50mm lens. Then at the church (which was outside on the top of a hill overlooking the ocean) I used my 16-35. So I used the "group photo" lens for the action, and the short tele for - amoung other things - the groups.

Hey prove me wrong about this. Go outside and shoot a small group - four or five people - with a wide angle, and then use a 50mm lens. Then decide which one you like better. I have no doubt that the 50mm shot will be harder to set up (not enough room, harder to light or even fill flash) but I also have no doubt it will be better. But you decide.

[mdude85]

[quote=montyl]DaveG,


Hey prove me wrong about this. Go outside and shoot a small group - four or five people - with a wide angle, and then use a 50mm lens. Then decide which one you like better. I have no doubt that the 50mm shot will be harder to set up (not enough room, harder to light or even fill flash) but I also have no doubt it will be better. But you decide.

I don't know about all this, but I do know that shooting large groups with a 50 mm 1.8 is a nightmare.

I have heard good things about the sigma 12-24, as someone else mentioned. I also just purchased a .42x semifish eye converter. I'm receiving it in the mail tomorrow and will post shots ... it was only 50 bucks so I am not expecting too much out of it, but it just might do the job if you don't want to spend so much on wide angle zooms.

[montyl]

I was curious the other day because I was thinking about trading my Sigma got the 16-35mm EF lense, so on my CAD program I drew out the field of view for both. For the Sigma if I am 31 inches from my subject, horizantally I am going to cover 105 inches so if some one smarter then me wants to do the math, you can figure out the ratio. But I know that I can cover anything that I want. And yes on my DSLR's it is really a 19.2mm, and i am not sure what my FOV is on it, but beleive me it is plenty wide. And personally I think it would make it extremely easy to photograph large groups like a football team.

And mdude85, without having tried taking a large group photo, just looking at PhotoDude25's explaination of trying it with a 35-80mm, there is no way I would want to try a 50mm of any lense. Especially when you consider the distance you would have to move back from the subjects, they would be unrecognizable dots of color. If I were doing a family portrait of say 4-5 people I am sure the 50mm would be just about perfect.

[Andy_T]

I would assume that the 17-40 f/4 L would fit the bill nicely and am a bit astonished that nobody has mentioned it so far.

It will give you about the same focal length as a 27-64 mm lens on a 35 mm film camera. Plus, it's one of the few cheap (800$) L lenses and supposed to be tack sharp.

Best regards,
Andy

[RichardtheSane]

IEspecially when you consider the distance you would have to move back from the subjects, they would be unrecognizable dots of color.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning for that

Surely if the group fills the frame then the detail captured on the sensor would remain pretty much the same.

Trouble with a wide angle is perspective, for example if you have two rows of people and shoot it with a 50mm lens it will flatten the persepctive so it looks 'right'. If you use a 15mm lens then the front row would look closer than the back row, which is not so good. A wide angle lens exaggerates the perspective.

In the end it is your choice, if you want your shot to look OK, get whatever wide lens you please. If you want it to look good then don't go wider than 35mm, and use 50mm ideally.

[Andy_T]

If you want it to look good then don't go wider than 35mm, and use 50mm ideally.

That would roughly translate into the 20-35 mm lens ... which is not too bad, either.

Best regards,
Andy

[RichardtheSane]

If you want it to look good then don't go wider than 35mm, and use 50mm ideally.

That would roughly translate into the 20-35 mm lens ... which is not too bad, either.

Best regards,
Andy

How do you mean by translate?

I suppose that wouldn't be too bad... but not as good as 35-50mm.

[Andy_T]

How do you mean by translate?


Richard,

most likely I misunderstood you.
You mean ... 35 to 50 mm on a 10D. Right?

I supposed that you were quoting some 'old photographers wisdom' from days of lore and Velvia film :wink: that 35 mm is the widest permissible focal range on a 35 mm camera.

... and that would be 20 mm to 35 mm, given the 1.6 crop factor. (After all, 50 mm in 35 mm equivalent is not really 'wide').

So your suggestion is not to go under 50 mm (on a film camera, 35 mm on the 10D) at all for pictures of human beings, even large herds of them. :wink: Right?

You'll just need a big room, then, if you do the pictures inside.
Outside you can use your feet to zoom.

Best regards,
Andy

[DaveG]

And mdude85, without having tried taking a large group photo, just looking at PhotoDude25's explaination of trying it with a 35-80mm, there is no way I would want to try a 50mm of any lense. Especially when you consider the distance you would have to move back from the subjects, they would be unrecognizable dots of color.

No, you would fill the frame with the group and the head sizes would be the same. You would be back farther, which makes the subject smaller; but the telephoto aspect of the lens would magnify the subjects, which makes the subjects bigger; and the whole thing cancels out. But the perspective is much better with the 50.

[RichardtheSane]

Andy, I do actually mean 35-50mm on a 10D, or the actual focal lengh of the lens, but I wanted to clarify things before I comment.

The 35-50mm lens is optically ideal for the scenario we have been given. It is the optics of the lens that control the persepctive, so the crop factor of the 10D etc is doing exactly that...cropping.

If you do pictures inside then you will have to compromise, and use a wider lens... however if you are ouside then the thrifty fifty should be your lens of choice and use you feet to zoom.

So, my suggestion is to try an avoid going below an actual focal length of 35mm (ignoring crop/magnification factor) if at all possible.

Did I make sense there?

[Andy_T]

Did I make sense there?

To me, yes.

But I can only guess to which extent we have now confused the other readers of this thread :wink:

So the bottom line is:
'Continue using your 35 mm lens, stop bitching around and practice your leg work' :lol:

Best regards,
Andy

[montyl]

Gentlemen,

You have all been shooting at PhotoDude25's point with a shotgun and not even come close to hitting it.

POINT 1: he is using a 35-80mm lense and it isn't doing it for him. 35-80 covers 50mm, at least in my math class. Quite getting hung up on recommending a focal length he has already used and didn't get the results he wants.

Point 2: he is asking for advice on a WIDER (let me repeat that) WIDER angle lense then 35mm, because 35mm is not doing it for him. Quite trying to recommend a 50mm lense when he already has a lense that covers that, and doesn't like the results.

Give the man some advice on what he is asking about, he wants to know about a lense that is WIDER (again let me repeat that) WIDER then 35mm.

[WestFalcon]

I shoot similar pictures several times a year so what I tell you is from experience and not just a hypothesis. I shoot football teams and large reunion groups for a local college twice a year. I use two lenses: the 20-35 usm and the 17-40 L . I use a white lightning flash high on a light stand over my head(10 feet up). I shoot at F 9.5 or F11 at 125th of a second. I'd like to say that the L lens is much sharper but that's not the case. Both are great, so my recommendation is the 20-35 if you can shoot at F8 or smaller. My shots are sharp from edge to edge and colors are great. I like the 17-40 better and prefer that lens to the 20-35 but it is more expensive and is not really needed for this type of photography. At F4 or 5.6, I'm sure the L lens would be sharper. I shoot large jpeg and make super 8x10's. Good luck.