Canon 16-35 2.8 lens

[Deborahd]

I shoot with a Canon D60. I am looking into this lens since I do all on location(baby and children).
I need something for a small amount of space but sometimes need wide for family or additional children. Is this lens the way to go and are there lower priced but quality alternatives.

[Belmondo]

It's a great lens, and will certainly help in tight spaces. There might be a tendency to exaggerate features like noses, etc., but that will be the case with any wide angle lens used up close. Quality-wise, it's a very good piece of equipment.

[Cadwell]

One other option is a Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L. It's a stop slower and 1mm longer at the wide end but is a very high quality piece of glass. It's significantly cheaper.

[Deborahd]

Would the 17-40 distort as well. Don't mean to sound too dumb, but If I had to shoot in a 6ft long area what would I get? We don't have a photo store in our area so I can just try different lenses. That would help.

[Deckyon]

I have the 16-35mm f/2.8 and love it. It is fast and sharp and quick to AF. I do not notice distortion. Remember the crop factor with everything but the 1Ds (and 1Ds Mark II)

[ralee]

Hi

The Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L is a great alternative if you dont need the 2.8 - both are pretty close in quality.

Yes, both have tendencies to exaggerate features because of the wide angles

Why not buy the 17-40L and with the money you saved also get the Tamron 28-75 2.8 , then you have more options- yes the Tamrons focusing is slightly slower than Canon L's but your type of shooting probably wont miss the speed.

Rob

[Morden]

I have a 16-35 f2.8 L and it is a great, fast wide angle zoom. I use it on my 20D and my 10D. Prior to the 10D, I used it on a D60, on which it worked very well. :)

[DaveG]

Would the 17-40 distort as well. Don't mean to sound too dumb, but If I had to shoot in a 6ft long area what would I get? We don't have a photo store in our area so I can just try different lenses. That would help.

When you get any super wide angle you are going to get distortion as you get close to the edges. On your D60 the distortion of the 16-35 or 17-40 is minimized since not all of the lens is used. 16mm is roughtly the same as a 26mm lens for example and the distortion at the edges isn't all that bad. You should still make sure that you don't put faces into corners since it'll turn the subject's face into a football.

You should also look into a Photoshop plugin called PTLens. It's free (!!!) and is designed to take the barrel distortion out of wide angles. It'll also take pin cushion distortion out of telephotos. Just do a google search on PTLens and you'll find it.

[Adam Hicks]

Deborah, do you really want 'that' wide of a lens for kids and portrait shots? Generally I would recommend an 85mm 1.8 for a lot less money that would get you into the right focal range for proper facial depth, without exaggerating the nose and features, as discussed before. Using 16mm on a persons face would not give optimal results, and would be a lot of $$$. I'd suspect that you could get much better light gathering and save a pretty penny by going with an 85mm 1.8, and you'd keep the features looking proper.

Just my opinion. That and with a 16mm shooting portratits, you'd be too close to the child / baby / adult for them to be able to relax and act naturally.

Adam

[Andy_T]

Deborah,

welcome to the forum!

Which lenses to you have at the moment?

If you're interested in the comparison of the 17-40 and the 16-35, take a look at this comparison: http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/16-35.shtml
Bottom line ... if you don't really need the 2.8 as opposed to the 4.0 aperture, you don't really have to spend twice the money on the 16-35.

But, as Adam said, a 28 mm lens (17mm * 1.6 crop factor) is normally not really advised for taking pictures of people.

Best regards,
Andy

[Adam Hicks]

Of course now we come into something that's often discussed... even though it's a 28mm with the crop factor, the facial features should be proper on an 85mm lens regardless of the crop factor. The crop factor does not change magnification, only the 'negative' size, presenting the same viewable area as a 1.6x longer lens on a film camera. So even though a 28mm is still too wide, an 85-100mm would still be the proper choice for portrait photography. That's why I'd say the 85 1.8 or the 100 2.8 USM Macro would be great for these uses. Although I can understand the need for a zoom lens if the kids are active. In that case maybe the Tamron 28-75 2.8 would be bright enough, give her the 2.8 aperture she needs, and get her close to the optimum focal length out at 75mm.

Adam

[Andy_T]

Of course now we come into something that's often discussed... even though it's a 28mm with the crop factor, the facial features should be proper on an 85mm lens regardless of the crop factor. The crop factor does not change magnification, only the 'negative' size, presenting the same viewable area as a 1.6x longer lens on a film camera.

That's correct. What is important is the perspective ... how far you are away from the subject when you take the photograph.

Naturally, with a 50 mm lens (that 'behaves' like an 80 mm lens on a full frame camera), you will step back further to get the person completely into the picture. If you walk up directly to the subject's nose because you have a very wide angle lens, the nose will be displayed quite prominentely in the picture.

So what's the morale of this? Better not take portraits in too confined surroundings ???

Edit ... take a look at this thread to see how 17 mm behave in closed confinements ...
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=48636&start=28

Best regards,
Andy