Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 19 Nov 2011 (Saturday) 15:06
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Anyone use the 14 2.8 for weddings?

 
Peacefield
Goldmember
Avatar
4,022 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jul 2008
Location: NJ
     
Nov 19, 2011 15:06 |  #1

I've had the 16-35 II for a while now and like it a lot. It's pretty handy to be very wide and still get to a not bad focal length for a spontaneous portrait. That said, I'm at 16mm nearly all the time it's on my camera.

So it leaves me to wondering if I wouldn't rather have the 14mm. That much wider, probably a bit more crisp, smaller and lighter, etc. But I'd want to hang on to the 16-35 because that flexibility is sometimes necessary. This leaves me to choke on the price of the 14.

So . . . anyone else use it for weddings and was it worth it to you? Or should I just continue to just use the 16-35 as my UWA (knowing that I also have the Tokina 10-17 fish in the bag)?


Robert Wayne Photography (external link)

5D3, 5D2, 50D, 350D * 16-35 2.8 II, 24-70 2.8 II, 70-200 2.8 IS II, 100-400 IS, 100 L Macro, 35 1.4, 85 1.2 II, 135 2.0, Tokina 10-17 fish * 580 EX II (3) Stratos triggers * Other Stuff plus a Pelican 1624 to haul it all

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Red ­ Tie ­ Photography
Goldmember
Avatar
3,575 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2009
Location: San Diego
     
Nov 19, 2011 15:24 |  #2

Ive seen a videographer use it, but no one I have shot with have used it. I think the price is a bit prohibitive.


Bryan
Gear List (external link)
San Diego Wedding Photography - Red Tie Photography (external link)
Red Tie Photography Blog (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,727 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Nov 19, 2011 15:46 |  #3

Interesting. I've been thinking about replacing my 16-35L with the14mm as well. Probably not going to do it, but tempting...


NYC Wedding Photographer (external link) | Blog (external link) | facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snakeman55
Goldmember
Avatar
1,223 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Baltimore, Md
     
Nov 19, 2011 17:18 as a reply to  @ nicksan's post |  #4

I'm at 16mm most of the time with it too (10 when I used the 10-22/crop), but like you said - being able to zoom in to 35mm for a quick portrait at the reception is nice. Plus I don't usually find myself thinking 16 isn't wide enough.

That said, if you go through with it I'd love to see what you do with 14mm at weddings.


-Adam
Wedding Photographers in Maryland (external link)
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nicksan
Man I Like to Fart
Avatar
24,727 posts
Likes: 39
Joined Oct 2006
Location: NYC
     
Nov 19, 2011 19:15 |  #5

snakeman55 wrote in post #13423370 (external link)
I'm at 16mm most of the time with it too (10 when I used the 10-22/crop), but like you said - being able to zoom in to 35mm for a quick portrait at the reception is nice. Plus I don't usually find myself thinking 16 isn't wide enough.

That said, if you go through with it I'd love to see what you do with 14mm at weddings.

Yup. Agreed. I think the 14L looks like a cool lens to have. I am definitely more at 16mm on my 16-35L than 35mm, but I totally agree about being able to zoom with that lens. That said, I don't really need 16mm that often, so what makes me think I'll even use the 14L?


NYC Wedding Photographer (external link) | Blog (external link) | facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
c2thew
Goldmember
Avatar
3,929 posts
Likes: 4
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Not enough minerals.
     
Nov 19, 2011 19:22 |  #6

It's a cool lens, but definitely wayyy too specialized. Maybe useful for 4-5 pages in a book, but definitely not the entire wedding/reception.


Flickr (external link) |Gear|The-Digital-Picture (external link)|The $6 mic | MAGIC LANTERN (external link) | Welding Filter
Go Support Magic Lantern 2.3!!

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,561 posts
Likes: 446
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Nov 19, 2011 21:05 |  #7

I'm really a HEAVY ultra-wide user. But there is quite a big difference between 14mm and 16mm. So even for an UWA whore like me, it was still too wide for me to use in general wedding shooting. 16-17mm is often just right. At 14mm your subjects are either too small in the frame or you gotta get way too close. Perspective distortion is already quite a task to keep under control at 16mm, let alone 14mm.

That's one reason why I never went for the highly regarded Nikon 14-24... aside from the fact that it was too fricken big, heavy, and the weird pylon shape was enough to piss me off. (That stupid lens took up the space of three lenses in my bag.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tonedef78
Member
42 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Brisbane, Australia
     
Nov 20, 2011 02:34 |  #8

What about a cheaper alternative like the manual focus Samyang 14mm 2.8?
Rather than fork out for the 14L.


Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
picturecrazy
soft-hearted weenie-boy
Avatar
8,561 posts
Likes: 446
Joined Jan 2006
Location: Alberta, CANADA
     
Nov 20, 2011 10:14 |  #9

tonedef78 wrote in post #13425025 (external link)
What about a cheaper alternative like the manual focus Samyang 14mm 2.8?
Rather than fork out for the 14L.

Definitely something I would consider instead of the 14L. I heard the samyang 14 optics are excellent. At 14mm, the DOF is so huge that it's pretty darn easy to manually focus it. You don't have to be precise at all. For receptions, I often pre-focus my 10-22 and leave it there and never change focus for the whole night.


-Lloyd
The BOUDOIR - Edmonton Intimate Boudoir Photography (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Studio Family Baby Child Maternity Wedding Photographers (external link)
Night and Day Photography - Edmonton Headshot Photographers (external link)
Facebook (external link) | Twitter (external link) |Instagram (external link) | Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
snakeman55
Goldmember
Avatar
1,223 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Feb 2005
Location: Baltimore, Md
     
Nov 20, 2011 15:08 |  #10

Yeah I had the Rokinon 8mm when I shot crop and it was pretty great. Apparently it's very comparable to the Samyang. I guess they brand these a few different ways. I hadn't realized they had a FF version. I'll definitely be putting this (external link)on my list.

I totally agree about the focusing. At that FL you can basically put the focus ring in the middle and forget about it.

I shot these with the 50D/8mm version: one (external link), two (external link), three (external link)


-Adam
Wedding Photographers in Maryland (external link)
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Philco
Senior Member
Avatar
940 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Nov 2005
Location: SandyEggo, CA.
     
Nov 20, 2011 20:57 |  #11

I think what makes the 14mm special is the way it corrects for a certain amount of wide angle distortion. That would be an incentive to use it for certain types of shots, even if you intend to crop in a bit tighter in post. I've used it a few times for specific applications - for instance, the interior of a surveillance van that one of my corporate clients built for law enforcement. I probably could have framed the main shot with a 16mm, but the 14mm was still a better choice for that job. That being said, at the time, the lens correction option in PS/LR didn't exist. I'm not sure how great that filter is on a shot with a lot of hard lines and detail yet since I haven't compared.

It's definitely a specialty item, and one I'd probably use once or twice each wedding if I owned one - but $2k+ for a very occasional lens doesn't make business sense for a lot of photographers.


Canon 5D MKIII/Canon 5D MKII/ 70-200 F2.8 IS L / 24-70 F2.8L / 85 F1.2L II/ 35 f1.4L / 135 F2.0L / Canon 600 EX-RT X 2

[SIZE=1]r follow me on Facebook. (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jimconnerphoto
Goldmember
Avatar
2,165 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Feb 2008
Location: Southern California
     
Nov 20, 2011 20:59 |  #12

Canon has the new 8-15 that looks like fun.


Wedding and Portraits www.jimconnerphoto.com (external link)
Commercial Work www.jamesdconner.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,831 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Nov 21, 2011 08:17 |  #13

I have the 14L. I don't use it much at weddings - I'll use it for some room shots and some on the dance floor. Sometimes I'll use it during the ceremony too, but I actually prefer my 17 TSE for that is there is enough light.

Though the IQ is better, the 14L is considerably wider than the 16-35. Typically during the reception I'm using my 24L the most.


connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Christina
Senior Member
Avatar
633 posts
Joined Jan 2007
Location: Pittsburgh
     
Nov 21, 2011 08:34 |  #14

I rented it once when I was shooting video. I definitely would not buy it - even if it was half the price - for photo only. I'd check the specs - I don't recall it being much smaller than the 16-35 and I don't think it was lighter. It still felt like a fairly weighty lens.

It's nice that the 14mm has less distortion than the 16-35, but I really think the 16-35 is far more versatile and useful.

14mm on full frame is REALLY wide.


Christina - Pittsburgh Wedding Photographer (external link)
Syncopated Pictures (external link)
http://christinamontem​urrophotography.com/bl​og/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
timnosenzo
Cream of the Crop
8,831 posts
Likes: 10
Joined Sep 2005
Location: CT
     
Nov 21, 2011 09:38 |  #15

Here's a size comparison. It's definitely considerably smaller than the 16-35 - especially if you're using the hood on the zoom.

IMAGE: http://www.timnosenzophoto.com/photos/i-crKtF6K/0/XL/i-crKtF6K-XL.jpg

IMAGE: http://www.timnosenzophoto.com/photos/i-5NQTxfp/0/XL/i-5NQTxfp-XL.jpg

connecticut wedding photographer (external link)

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

3,573 views & 0 likes for this thread
Anyone use the 14 2.8 for weddings?
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?
Register to forums
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is richard laurence
664 guests, 294 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.