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 Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 30 Oct 2012 (Tuesday) 10:09
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Wedding photographers...

 
5W0L3
Senior Member
998 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2012
     
Oct 30, 2012 10:09 |  #1

Which wide angle lens do you use the most to capture couple shots / portraits involving the scenery / sky etc.

my 35L isn't wide enough, and at times i wish i had something ultra wide for those kind of shots.


Manav
5D III x 2 (gripped) | 35L | 85L II | 100L | 24-70mm IIL | 70-200mm IIL | Some strobes & some speedlights.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,755 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5772
Joined Sep 2007
     
Oct 30, 2012 10:14 |  #2

might as well look at the 24-70... 24 is borderline ultrawide IMO.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Invertalon
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,495 posts
Likes: 21
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Cleveland, OH
     
Oct 30, 2012 10:19 |  #3

I think for weddings, the new 24-70 II will be the new gold standard.


-Steve
Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
HiepBuiPhotography
Goldmember
1,612 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Harrisburg, PA
     
Oct 30, 2012 10:22 |  #4

I use the 24mm L II.


Hiep Bui Photography | Harrisburg Wedding Photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dmward
Cream of the Crop
9,080 posts
Gallery: 29 photos
Likes: 1515
Joined Jun 2009
Location: Metro Chicago
     
Oct 30, 2012 17:29 |  #5

I have the 16-35 in my bag but rarely take it out. Too likely to get some ugly distortion toward the edges with people. 24-70 is good option. I used the V1 for a couple of years and now the V2. Outside I also use 24-105 The extra 35mm is nice to have for portraits. 70mm is just a tad short for my taste.


David | Sharing my Insights, Knowledge & Experience (external link) | dmwfotos website (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
frugivore
Goldmember
Avatar
3,089 posts
Gallery: 11 photos
Likes: 118
Joined Aug 2010
Location: Toronto, Canada
     
Oct 30, 2012 17:39 |  #6

HiepBuiPhotography wrote in post #15186438 (external link)
I use the 24mm L II.

Me too. I use it whenever I get the chance. There is no lens like it, IMO. It is the widest f/1.4 lens you can get. It gives you sufficient shallow DOF and a great expansive angle of view.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
5W0L3
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
998 posts
Likes: 14
Joined Mar 2012
     
Oct 30, 2012 22:43 |  #7

so does 24-70 II have much distortion towards the edges?.. because i'd be happy to invest in that sometime in future..


Manav
5D III x 2 (gripped) | 35L | 85L II | 100L | 24-70mm IIL | 70-200mm IIL | Some strobes & some speedlights.
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Rittrato
Goldmember
Avatar
1,224 posts
Likes: 26
Joined May 2010
     
Oct 30, 2012 22:54 |  #8

Agree with majority here. 24 1.4L II on FF is just magical. That 1.4 brings a lot of creativity when shallow DOF is needed.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pearlallica
Goldmember
Avatar
1,302 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Great White North
     
Oct 31, 2012 10:20 |  #9

another 24mm guy here too. I find any wider and the subjects get lost in an overly dominant background.

16-35 only comes out to play with large family shots or indoors in tight spaces.

the 24 1.4 is wonderful for dimly lit receptions too.


jonathan @ tlcphoto.com (external link) - pro wedding and portrait photog
5d2 5d3 50L 16-35 70-200 ElinchromRX600 580EX 600EX VIV285

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
coryparris
Member
Avatar
31 posts
Joined Jul 2009
Location: SEATTLE!
     
Oct 31, 2012 10:27 as a reply to  @ Pearlallica's post |  #10

I generally shoot 24-50-85-135. The 24 is wide enough most of the time, but if we are going to be in the forest, I choose the 16-35 to emphasize the height of the trees.

IMAGE: http://www.coryparris.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/300_thumb.jpg

Seattle wedding photographer Cory Parris (external link)
Blog of said Seattle wedding photographer (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jblaschke
Goldmember
Avatar
1,445 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 25
Joined Apr 2008
Location: New Braunfels, Texas
     
Oct 31, 2012 13:25 |  #11

The Wife uses her 24-70 mk I very heavily during weddings, switching between that and the 70-200 2.8 IS, with a handful of other lenses thrown in for specialty shots. For FF versatility, there's a reason Canon's 24-70L is the go-to lens for wedding photographers.


Canon 7D | Canon 50D IR modified | Canon EF 70-200mm 2.8 IS L | Canon FD 500mm 8.0 Reflex | Canon EF 85mm 1.8 | Canon EF 50mm 1.8 mk I | Canon EF-S 10-22mm | Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 | Meade 645 (762mm f/5)
Model Mayhem (external link) | DeviantArt (external link) | Lisa On Location: New Braunfels Photography (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jra
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
6,562 posts
Likes: 34
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Ohio
     
Oct 31, 2012 18:17 |  #12

24-70 here also.....IMO, it's usually the best "go to" lens for weddings :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
behindtheglass
Senior Member
Avatar
413 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: San Jose, Ca
     
Oct 31, 2012 18:19 |  #13

I personally use the 16-35 paired with a 70-200. So for wide angles I use the 16-35... :X


|Gear list// 500PX (external link)// FlickR (external link)// G+ (external link) //Facebook (external link)// Site (external link)|
"I bet you have an idea for a single photo or a photography series or a behind the scenes video that you have been thinking about for literally years. Turn off your computer and your TV and actually do it." -Lee Morris (FStoppers)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Pearlallica
Goldmember
Avatar
1,302 posts
Joined Aug 2008
Location: Great White North
     
Nov 01, 2012 08:03 |  #14

i would just like to add that the main reason that I ditched the 24-70 (beside how I found the focal range awkward/limiting) was the aperture. Being locked at F/2.8 either meant flash or high ISO because of the poor lighting I constantly found myself shooting in. The extra stops that primes gave me were life saving. I'm at the point where I don't settle for second best when it comes to my work. I tried that for several years and while bounced flash produced better results under some conditions, not all rooms had low/white ceilings to help me get around those impossible conditions that would always pop up.

At this point I usually get told how primes and lens changing cost shots. I believed this to be a solid point of debate when I was a zoom guy. Experience has told me this is not true. I work with a think tank lens changer messenger style bag which holds my 3 main primes, facing down, lens hoods on, and all lens caps off. I wear a lowepro belt with a two lens cases, each housing my two zooms. I can turn the camera off, pull off a lens, put a new one on, turn camera back on in about 7 seconds if need be. After years of trying out cumbersome, bulky walkaround-with-gear combinations, I've found this to be the most efficient, light and convenient method to shooting weddings without being weighed or slowed down. (yes I've even ditched the 2 camera technique) In this approach I can grab a 24mm prime or 16-35mm zoom depending on how I want to tackle a particular shot.


jonathan @ tlcphoto.com (external link) - pro wedding and portrait photog
5d2 5d3 50L 16-35 70-200 ElinchromRX600 580EX 600EX VIV285

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
behindtheglass
Senior Member
Avatar
413 posts
Joined Aug 2012
Location: San Jose, Ca
     
Nov 01, 2012 12:15 |  #15

Pearlallica wrote in post #15194035 (external link)
i would just like to add that the main reason that I ditched the 24-70 (beside how I found the focal range awkward/limiting) was the aperture. Being locked at F/2.8 either meant flash or high ISO because of the poor lighting I constantly found myself shooting in. The extra stops that primes gave me were life saving. I'm at the point where I don't settle for second best when it comes to my work. I tried that for several years and while bounced flash produced better results under some conditions, not all rooms had low/white ceilings to help me get around those impossible conditions that would always pop up.

At this point I usually get told how primes and lens changing cost shots. I believed this to be a solid point of debate when I was a zoom guy. Experience has told me this is not true. I work with a think tank lens changer messenger style bag which holds my 3 main primes, facing down, lens hoods on, and all lens caps off. I wear a lowepro belt with a two lens cases, each housing my two zooms. I can turn the camera off, pull off a lens, put a new one on, turn camera back on in about 7 seconds if need be. After years of trying out cumbersome, bulky walkaround-with-gear combinations, I've found this to be the most efficient, light and convenient method to shooting weddings without being weighed or slowed down. (yes I've even ditched the 2 camera technique) In this approach I can grab a 24mm prime or 16-35mm zoom depending on how I want to tackle a particular shot.

That's an interesting style Pearlallica, I don't know if I'm able to do that kind of thing lol. I lamost have to have two cameras all the time, unless ofcourse I'm shooting street, then it's just me a mark II and a 35L :P


|Gear list// 500PX (external link)// FlickR (external link)// G+ (external link) //Facebook (external link)// Site (external link)|
"I bet you have an idea for a single photo or a photography series or a behind the scenes video that you have been thinking about for literally years. Turn off your computer and your TV and actually do it." -Lee Morris (FStoppers)

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

4,222 views & 0 likes for this thread
Wedding photographers...
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
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 shawnpan
826 guests, 220 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.