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
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
Thread started 22 Nov 2017 (Wednesday) 00:02
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Widest Angle You Use ... Aperture ... The Reason ?

 
mdvaden
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 524
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Post edited 4 months ago by mdvaden. (2 edits in all)
     
Nov 22, 2017 00:02 |  #1

1. What's the widest angle lens you incorporate for your wedding photography? (and aperture)

2. Why not any wider than that lens? (cost, weight, style, etc.)

3. What is the reason you chose that particular lens?

4. Is there another wide angle lens you would rather own?

5. Do you use it for most weddings, some weddings, or just a few?

6. All auto-focus? Or do you shoot manual focus wide angle?

***************

Presently, the widest prime I own is 35mm 1.8 and the widest zoom 16-35mm f/4 ... haven't used the latter for weddings yet, but have used 24-70mm f/2.8 ...... considering 14mm to 24mm maybe.


vadenphotography.com (external link) . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,103 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1988
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 4 months ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Nov 22, 2017 00:33 |  #2

I have found that when you use wider than an Angle of View of about 74 degrees (28mm lens on 135/FF), you can run too much risk of being too close to human subjects, which results in induced perspective distortion. 28mm is safe, but 24mm exposes you to the risk of induced perspective distortion. This remains true in 645 format cameras, with 45mm FL being safe enough, but 40mm FL is again at risk of induced perspective distortion with human subjects close to camera.

Here is a post showing induced perspective distortion...
http://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18491933
...The near hand is 'bigger' than the far hand, the near person is 'bigger' than the far person, so shooting a large group at an oblique angle is more 'dangerous' for induced perspective distortion with too WA than a longer FL, and why the back row of a group appears smaller than the front row.


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
mdvaden
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 524
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Post edited 4 months ago by mdvaden.
     
Nov 22, 2017 00:51 |  #3

Wilt wrote in post #18501588 (external link)
I have found that when you use wider than an Angle of View

The example showed a couple of subjects.

How about a group of 8 to 20 or more people at some distance? Do you enjoy the safety of 24mm or 28mm for that size of group too?

I've shot about 40 people side-by-side (not a wedding) using the 24-70mm, but stood back about 50 feet away to add a little context.


vadenphotography.com (external link) . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,103 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1988
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 4 months ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Nov 22, 2017 11:02 |  #4

mdvaden wrote in post #18501594 (external link)
The example showed a couple of subjects.

How about a group of 8 to 20 or more people at some distance? Do you enjoy the safety of 24mm or 28mm for that size of group too?

I've shot about 40 people side-by-side (not a wedding) using the 24-70mm, but stood back about 50 feet away to add a little context.

The PRINCIPLES are identical whether you have 1 or 10 or 20 people...with the wider the angle FL:

  • The closer body part is emphasized with much greater size than the body part which is farther away
  • The person is emphasized with much greater size than the person who is farther away


...and the degree of size exaggeration is greater with the closer distance between lens and subject.

So, YES 24mm is indeed 'safe' ... when you are not a few feet away from the closest person, but standing back!
The effect is 'induced perspective distortion' caused by (too close) DISTANCE...the wider angle lens simply makes it far too easy to be standing much too close!

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
mdvaden
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 524
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
     
Nov 22, 2017 16:06 |  #5

Wilt wrote in post #18501861 (external link)
The PRINCIPLES are identical whether you have 1 or 10 or 20 people...with the wider the angle FL:

As a rule, that does not correlate at all with many photos I've taken with people. That's one reason I decided to post this thread and see what various people prefer. And for weddings, it can involve anywhere from one person to a large group of people.

I will use the image below to explain why what you suggested does not apply for many of the photos I've taken. The image below was taken at 26mm with a Canon 16-35mm f/4 ... there is near zero distortion to the woman in the image.

if 30 people were lined-up in the center third of this same scene, there would still be nearly no distortion to any of the subjects.

I have photographed several people at this same tree, or in similar settings, at 12mm, 14mm, 26mm and 45mm. The wider angle, the less distortion I get with the people. And curvature, etc., is mostly the perimeter of the scene.

This is different from many weddings, but it's a good example to cover why ultra wide angle can work without distortion to people. In my case, I shoot crop sensor M5, but also a Canon 5DS with images 5600 x 8600 pixels. I can use wide angle, and crop rather large images from images as one extra option.

The red dress is the other sister. Shot at 16mm, and she looks proportionally the same to when I've used 85mm from different angles and distances. I could place a couple or group in that scene too, with normal looking humans.


IMAGE: http://photos.imageevent.com/mdvaden/redwoods2/huge/GF_Ari_Cnvs_Sample.jpg



IMAGE: http://photos.imageevent.com/mdvaden/redwoods2/giant/LOST_Ver_3_1200.jpg

vadenphotography.com (external link) . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,103 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1988
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited 4 months ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Nov 22, 2017 16:15 |  #6

mdvaden wrote in post #18502173 (external link)
As a rule, that does not correlate at all with many photos I've taken with people. That's one reason I decided to post this thread and see what various people prefer. And for weddings, it can involve anywhere from one person to a large group of people.

I will use the image below to explain why what you suggested does not apply for many of the photos I've taken. The image below was taken at 26mm with a Canon 16-35mm f/4 ... there is near zero distortion to the woman in the image.

if 30 people were lined-up in the center third of this same scene, there would still be nearly no distortion to any of the subjects.

The person in this photo is NOT TOO CLOSE...I estimate she is 1/6 of the frame height, and for her to be captured at that size puts her at 33' away (assuming she is 5'5" tall). I emphasize that it is PROXIMITY to the lens which induces perspective distortion.

Try this experiment:


  1. position your two hands 6" in front of another, with thumbs pointing up
  2. move your pair of hands at arm's length away and note the relative size of the two thumbs to each other
  3. now move your pair of hands so that the closest thumb is only inches away from your eye, and note the relative size of the two thumbs to each other


...and in situation 3 the closest thumb can appear to be twice as wide as the farther thumb! 'Perspective distortion' induced with NO FOCAL LENGTH involved!

Getting back to your picture, the woman at 33' looks totally normal, but if she is only 5' away she is twice as large as someone who is 10' away.

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
DaviSto
... sorry. I got carried away!
Avatar
1,901 posts
Gallery: 56 photos
Likes: 871
Joined Nov 2016
Location: Abuja Nigeria
Post edited 4 months ago by DaviSto.
     
Nov 22, 2017 16:20 |  #7

As we all seem to have to keep reminding one another, perspective (and therefore perspective induced distortion) are all about the distance between the camera and the subject and, assuming a moderately well-behaved lens, about nothing else apart from this.


David.
Comment and (constructive) criticism always welcome.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdvaden
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 524
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
Post edited 4 months ago by mdvaden. (3 edits in all)
     
Nov 22, 2017 20:12 |  #8

Wilt wrote in post #18502177 (external link)
The person in this photo is NOT TOO CLOSE...I estimate she is 1/6 of the frame height, and for her to be captured at that size puts her at 33' away (assuming she is 5'5" tall). I emphasize that it is PROXIMITY to the lens which induces perspective distortion.

Try this experiment:

Wouldn't need an experiment.

I used 11mm about 5 years ago with a model's bare toes in the foreground, and it made them look like fingers surgically attached. So well-aware of proximity.

What I'm looking for are photographer's answers to the 6 questions in the OP ... and experiment can't answer that, and I'm reading to see what people use or don't.

It's virtually the holiday now, but maybe a few more will chime-in in the days ahead.


vadenphotography.com (external link) . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 285
Joined Nov 2010
     
Nov 26, 2017 20:21 |  #9

12mm. Environmental portraits.
14mm. Astro wedding photography
16-35. Have two in the bag and use regularly at 16mm.


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
40,103 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 1988
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Nov 27, 2017 09:44 |  #10

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #18504780 (external link)
12mm. Environmental portraits.
14mm. Astro wedding photography
16-35. Have two in the bag and use regularly at 16mm.

It would be good to mention if this is on 4/3 format or on APS-C or on FF body


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
tim
Light Bringer
Avatar
50,906 posts
Likes: 327
Joined Nov 2004
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
     
Nov 27, 2017 12:12 |  #11

Nikon 16 - 35 F4 VR, shot at F4, on full frame. Good lens, lets me get the whole wedding party in small churches and get some fun creative shots, and I didn't need the much more expensive 12-24. I use it at all weddings. AF.


Professional wedding photographer, solution architect and general technical guy with multiple Amazon Web Services certifications.
Read all my FAQs (wedding, printing, lighting, books, etc)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
memoriesoftomorrow
Goldmember
3,846 posts
Likes: 285
Joined Nov 2010
     
Nov 28, 2017 01:35 |  #12

Wilt wrote in post #18505073 (external link)
It would be good to mention if this is on 4/3 format or on APS-C or on FF body

Full frame


Peter

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tigerkn
Goldmember
4,052 posts
Likes: 153
Joined Feb 2009
Location: CA
Post edited 4 months ago by Tigerkn.
     
Dec 01, 2017 16:51 as a reply to  @ memoriesoftomorrow's post |  #13

1. What's the widest angle lens you incorporate for your wedding photography? (and aperture)
Tokina 16-28 f/2.8

2. Why not any wider than that lens? (cost, weight, style, etc.)
16mm is plenty wide :) - Price is great.

3. What is the reason you chose that particular lens?
Neck to neck with L lens from many reviews and only 1/3 in price.

4. Is there another wide angle lens you would rather own?
16-35mm f/2.8L III or Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L (only if this isn't $2,700)

5. Do you use it for most weddings, some weddings, or just a few?
Wedding only - The whole wedding Guests group (when the 24-70 can't cover at 24mm).
Mostly use on the dance floor toward the end of the night. See sample from link below (toward the end of the blog post)
http://www.photoquests​tudio.com …-photographer-daniela-ben (external link)

6. All auto-focus? Or do you shoot manual focus wide angle?
Auto-focus


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link) | Gears (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdvaden
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
2,193 posts
Gallery: 21 photos
Likes: 524
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Beaverton, Oregon
     
Dec 10, 2017 10:19 |  #14

Tigerkn wrote in post #18508414 (external link)
1. What's the widest angle lens you incorporate for your wedding photography? (and aperture)
Tokina 16-28 f/2.8

2. Why not any wider than that lens? (cost, weight, style, etc.)
16mm is plenty wide :) - Price is great.

3. What is the reason you chose that particular lens?
Neck to neck with L lens from many reviews and only 1/3 in price.

4. Is there another wide angle lens you would rather own?
16-35mm f/2.8L III or Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L (only if this isn't $2,700)

5. Do you use it for most weddings, some weddings, or just a few?
Wedding only - The whole wedding Guests group (when the 24-70 can't cover at 24mm).
Mostly use on the dance floor toward the end of the night. See sample from link below (toward the end of the blog post)
http://www.photoquests​tudio.com …-photographer-daniela-ben (external link)

6. All auto-focus? Or do you shoot manual focus wide angle?
Auto-focus

Thanks for the reply ...

In the dance floor photos, is the effect with lights from the movement of lens, or people moving light sticks? It looks good as an effect.


vadenphotography.com (external link) . . . and . . . Coast Redwoods Main Page (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tigerkn
Goldmember
4,052 posts
Likes: 153
Joined Feb 2009
Location: CA
     
Dec 10, 2017 14:09 as a reply to  @ mdvaden's post |  #15

The effect with lights from the movement of lens. Thank you mdvaden!


Website (external link) | Facebook (external link) | Instagram (external link) | Gears (external link)

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

5,394 views & 1 like for this thread
Widest Angle You Use ... Aperture ... The Reason ?
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre Weddings & Other Family Events Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


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


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is nick66
747 guests, 394 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.