Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses
Thread started 24 Mar 2017 (Friday) 22:42
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Do I need a 16-35 (or wider)

 
tim1970
Senior Member
tim1970's Avatar
Joined Dec 2010
Mar 24, 2017 22:42 |  #1

I am a family, senior, and wedding photographer. Up until now, I have never found the need to go any wider than my 24-70. However, my wife and I recently bought an RV, and we plan on doing some camping and hiking in our spare time. While I am not a landscape photographer, I would like to get some nice shots while we are hiking. Could I "get by" with my 24-70, or should I consider going a little (or a lot) wider? If I did get an UWA lens, I figure I could also get some specialty shots at weddings.

Thoughts?



Gear

Flickr (external link) | Web Page (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
ejenner
Goldmember
ejenner's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Denver, CO
Mar 24, 2017 23:25 |  #2

Personally I love UWA - getting close to the foreground at 16-18mm. However, I shot film for years with nothing wider than 28mm, so sure, 24mm is 'wide'.

UWA shots take practice and IMO good ones are generally not easy. Any slight change in camera position gets magnified when you are so close to the foreground and I personally always try to use a tripod to set up the shot.

But if you don't particularly like that close-to-the-foreground style, I would not get an UWA just to 'fit it all in'. Better to concentrate on a specific aspect of the landscape with a longer lens - longer in this context being 24mm-ish and above.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,042 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Post has been last edited 7 months ago by Wilt. 2 edits done in total.
Mar 24, 2017 23:36 |  #3

In shooting weddings on multiple formats, I have found that unless one is careful in shooting with 84 degree angle of view (24mm on FF), it is too easy to introduced perspective exaggeration of body parts, making them loom larger in the photo relative to others in the shot...a not-flattering look when it is a full bodied woman standing closest to your lens a few feet away. It brings the story about Jack Sprat and his wife to life, when the ample bodied lady is close to the lens and the skinny guy is standing a few feet farther back!
I reserve 24mm on FF for the scene-establishing shots in which the people are not close by and merely lend scale and a few recognizable faces to the scene. For APS-C, I find that 17-55mm allows me to zoom to the wide end without worrying about induced perpective distortion

16mm is great for making a distant horizon detail SHRINK in size in the image relative to objects in the close foreground, so hopefully you have something of interest (a person) standing in the foreground, else you risk dull and boring shots that have none of the 'spectacular' background that your brain is obsessed with. There is a definite art to using a superwide lens WELL.

20mm is my widest FF lens FL, and I do not often use it.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
ejenner's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Denver, CO
Mar 24, 2017 23:42 as a reply to Wilt's post |  #4

I assume the wedding specialty shots with an UWA would not be with people in them. The ones I have seen are usually of the decorations, taken with a wide aperture and close in to the subject, but so you get a sense of place since the background is not completely blurred.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Lyndön
Goldmember
Joined Oct 2008
Knoxville, TN
Mar 25, 2017 00:26 |  #5

You didn't specify if you're shooting FF or crop, but I'll give my opinion anyways.

If you shoot an APS-C camera, then the answer is "yes" you probably could benefit from a wider lens than a 24-70. It depends on your shooting style of course, but for me 24mm on a crop is limiting in several circumstances, especially in the tight quarters of dressing rooms and such at weddings. I'm not a wide shooter in general, but sometimes it's just needed on a crop. If you shoot FF, then you could probably make it without an ultra wide lens, but they're still nice to have, like you said, for some interesting perspective shots.


GEAR LIST

LOG IN TO REPLY
ejenner
Goldmember
ejenner's Avatar
Joined Nov 2011
Denver, CO
Mar 25, 2017 01:40 |  #6

Your two basketball wide-angle shots in your gallery suggest to me that you could handle an UWA nicely for landscapes - I definitely don't think it would be a waste for you.


Edward Jenner
5DIII, 7DII, M6, GX1 II,M11-22, Sig15mm FE,16-35 F4,TS-E 17,Sig 18-250 OS Macro,M18-150,24-105,T45 1.8VC,70-200 f4 IS,70-200 2.8 vII,Sig 85 1.4,100L,135L,400DOII.
http://www.flickr.com/​photos/48305795@N03/ (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/edward.jenner.372/p​hotos (external link)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Philippe_Peignoir
Junior Member
26 posts
Joined Sep 2014
Mar 25, 2017 07:28 |  #7

I went to both limits... in past I was a telefreak and I had the Sigma 50-500!
Found it great to have to much tele, but sold it eventually as I didn't shoot any birds or other far objects.

Then I started abandoned locations/landscape and went from a 24-70 and tested a Sigma 14 2.8, Tokina 16-28, all Canon 16-35's, 17-40...
Eventually it's more than worth it to buy a wide lens, spectacular perspectives for architecture, church, landscapes,...

Recently I sold my 14 2.8 as I found it too wide.
So 16-17mm is more than wide enough, if you don't want to spend too much money and have AF, you can buy a Tokina 17 3.5 ATX-Pro for example.
I have this sharp prime also and it costs only €350 secondhand <> €600 or more for the 16-35, 17-40's... which are overpriced!
So if you doubt I recommend a not too expensive one.


6D - 16-35 f4L - 50 1.4 Art - 85L - 135 f2L - 70-200 2.8L

LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick5
Goldmember
Nick5's Avatar
2,894 posts
Joined Mar 2007
Philadelphia Suburbs
Mar 25, 2017 07:40 |  #8

QUOTE=ejenner;18310296​]Your two basketball wide-angle shots in your gallery suggest to me that you could handle an UWA nicely for landscapes - I definitely don't think it would be a waste for you.[/QUOTE]
Ejenner's comments above are a bit of encouragement for you. I'd take his recommendation with thanks.
The Canon 16-35 f/4 L IS is one of the best. The price is even nicer.


Canon 5D Mark III (x2), BG-E11 Grips, 7D (x2) BG-E7 Grips, Canon Lenses 16-35 f/4 L IS, 17-40 f/4 L, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 70-200 f/4 L IS, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS, TS-E 24 f/3.5 L II, 100 f/2.8 L Macro IS, 10-22 f3.5-4.5, 17-55 f/2.8 L IS, 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, Canon 1.4 Extender III, 5 Canon 600 EX-RT, 2 Canon ST-E3 Transmitters, Canon Pixma PRO-10 Printer

LOG IN TO REPLY
mikeearly
Member
mikeearly's Avatar
Joined Aug 2007
Chester, VA
Mar 25, 2017 07:47 |  #9

My 2 cents is that you should definitely have something wider than 24 in your inventory. Don't get me wrong -- I use my 24-70 quite a bit when I am doing landscape work but I also have a fisheye, 11-24, 14 and 16-35 to use if the need arises. And that need arises very often. Totally different perspective and allows a lot more creative interpretation. And if you are willing to crop then those landscapes can take on a pano type look without multiple shots.

Now my wife says that I do not really understand what the word "need" really means -- but I very much think you NEED something wider than 24. :)


Mike Early
http://www.mdephoto.co​mexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Wilt's Avatar
39,042 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Joined Aug 2005
Belmont, CA
Mar 25, 2017 09:30 |  #10

Lyndön wrote in post #18310273 (external link)
You didn't specify if you're shooting FF or crop, but I'll give my opinion anyways.

If you shoot an APS-C camera, then the answer is "yes" you probably could benefit from a wider lens than a 24-70. It depends on your shooting style of course, but for me 24mm on a crop is limiting in several circumstances, especially in the tight quarters of dressing rooms and such at weddings. I'm not a wide shooter in general, but sometimes it's just needed on a crop. If you shoot FF, then you could probably make it without an ultra wide lens, but they're still nice to have, like you said, for some interesting perspective shots.

^
yup...24mm is NOT 'wide angle' when it is on an APS-C camera, the label does not pertain in that setting it is a 'wide normal'; 24mm is 'very wide' in the context of FF, and it is 'short tele' on 4/3 format. Which context is your use, OP???


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support http://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
13,489 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Joined Sep 2007
Mar 25, 2017 09:56 |  #11

Do you need a fisheye? No but it can certainly be nice at times, same with ultra wides


Sony A7r - A7ii - A7rii - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - FE 35/2.8 - CV 35/1.7 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CY 35-70, 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8, 24/1.4

LOG IN TO REPLY
iowajim
Senior Member
iowajim's Avatar
Joined Mar 2011
North Central Iowa
Mar 25, 2017 10:15 |  #12

My 11-16 is handy for landscapes and interior shots where I can't get back far enough from the subject. It's not so good for group shots - unless everyone is in a perfect line perpendicular to the camera, distortion ruins the shot.

If you stick with a 24mm, a person can alway flip to portrait orientation and stitch a panoramic together, but that isn't alway what a landscape needs.


Jim, in Iowa
80D / T2i / Tokina 11-16mm f2.8 / Sigma 18-35mm f1.8 / Canon 24-105 f4 / Tamron SP VC 70-200mm f2.8 / Sigma 150-600mm C

LOG IN TO REPLY
FEChariot
Goldmember
FEChariot's Avatar
Joined Sep 2011
Mar 25, 2017 10:38 |  #13

Wilt wrote in post #18310445 (external link)
^
yup...24mm is NOT 'wide angle' when it is on an APS-C camera, the label does not pertain in that setting it is a 'wide normal'; 24mm is 'very wide' in the context of FF, and it is 'short tele' on 4/3 format. Which context is your use, OP???

A simple click on the OPs gear list link shows a 1Dx2 and a 5D4. We can end the format wars at least in this thread.


Canon 7D/350D, Σ17-50/2.8 OS, 18-55IS, 24-105/4 L IS, Σ30/1.4 EX, 50/1.8, C50/1.4, 55-250IS, 60/2.8, 70-200/4 L IS, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 IS L, 135/2 L 580EX II, 430EX II * 2, 270EX II.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Elton ­ Balch
Senior Member
Elton Balch's Avatar
Joined Dec 2005
Mar 25, 2017 11:19 |  #14

FEChariot wrote in post #18310490 (external link)
A simple click on the OPs gear list link shows a 1Dx2 and a 5D4. We can end the format wars at least in this thread.

Agreed...however, most responders (including me) don't want to turn a response into a research project, however minor the extra effort might be. Wilt offered advice that was useful to APS-C that might be following the thread as well.

I think the OP should consider adding the Canon 16-35 F/4 IS. It opened a whole new world for me but there is a bit of a learning curve and I think it would complement his existing equipment nicely.


Elton Balch
5D Mark III, 7D Mark II, 24 mm f/1.4 L, 35 mm f/1.4 L, 50 mm f/1.2 L, 85 mm f/1.2 L, 100 mm f/2.8 macro, 135 mm f/2 L, 300 mm f/4 L, 16-35 f/4 L IS, 24-70 f/4 L IS, 24-105 f/4 L IS, 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II, 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 L IS ii, 580 EX Flash, Speedlight 600 EX RT, 1.4 extender, extension tubes and other stuff.

LOG IN TO REPLY
Scrumhalf
Cream of the Crop
Scrumhalf's Avatar
Joined Jul 2012
Portland OR USA
Mar 25, 2017 11:39 |  #15

Tim, as far as wedding shots are concerned, go back and figure out how many times you felt you needed to go wider than 24mm and were constrained by the fact that your wouldn't. I think you can figure out whether or not you need a UWA for weddings. I suspect the answer would be no.

As far as hikes and landscapes are concerned, absolutely you need something wider than 24mm. I recommend considering, in order of budget impact from highest to lowest.... a) Canon 16-35 F4, b) Canon 17-40 F4 and c) Rokinon 14/2.8. The first is a truly spectacular UWA. The second is an older model but one of the great bargains and can be found used all over the place. The third is a manual focus lens but cheap and very good .


Sam
6D | 7D2 (2 bodies) | Reasonably good glass
Gear List

flickr (external link)
If I don't get the shots I want with the gear I have, the only optics I need to examine is the mirror on the bathroom wall. The root cause will be there.

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

3,768 views & 7 likes for this thread
Do I need a 16-35 (or wider)
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00114 for 6 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.08s
Latest registered member is alessandro
892 guests, 450 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016