Distortion on the 16-35mm is unacceptable. are 24,28,35 primes better?

I understand that under 24mm the 16-35mm will cause distortion on close ups..
But even over 24mm distortion is present. I shot a christening today and due to limited space a few shots were with the 16-35mm and still distortion at 24mm and above, Even at 35mm.. I know that the more distance from the subject decreases distortion but I need/want close up shots !!!
I also realise that if you shoot down on people(Subjects being shot as whole body shots and I am shooting at their head height) will also give distortion, but should I have to get down on my knees to subject waist height every time to get full body shots to decrease distortion ( I won't remember to do this all of the time in stressy situations and corners will still be distorted to a degree)..
I don't know if I can live with the 16-35 anymore
Do wide angle prime users have the same issues?? or are primes 24,28 or even the 35mm the way to go (the word... EVEN on the 35 meaning that I still have to step back from subject, so still not wide enough in tight situations)??
What are your experiences with zoom 16-35 or 17-40 and prime wide angle? ? ? ?

Please do not hesitate to correct me if my analysis/findings or thoughts are incorrect...
Thanks...............

Can you explain what you mean by "distortion?" If what you mean is what some people call "perspective distortion"--for example, bulbous noses--that is entirely a result of the focal length and distance. If you get it at a given distance with one 24 mm lens, you will get it with any 24mm lens. The solution is to stand farther back. Of course, that will require a longer focal length to get similar framing.

If you mean barrel distortion, which is common in zooms at the short end, you can avoid this with primes, but it is trivial to correct it in postprocessing. In Lightroom, for example, it takes one click. However, I assume you don't mean this, because barrel distortion is usually only noticeable when you have straight lines in the image.

paddler4 wrote in post #16691741
Can you explain what you mean by "distortion?" If what you mean is what some people call "perspective distortion"--for example, bulbous noses--that is entirely a result of the focal length and distance. If you get it at a given distance with one 24 mm lens, you will get it with any 24mm lens. The solution is to stand farther back. Of course, that will require a longer focal length to get similar framing.

If you mean barrel distortion, which is common in zooms at the short end, you can avoid this with primes, but it is trivial to correct it in postprocessing. In Lightroom, for example, it takes one click. However, I assume you don't mean this, because barrel distortion is usually only noticeable when you have straight lines in the image.

What I mean is... a subjects head sloping at a 5-10 degree angle from top to bottom..
Not sure, but.... I prefer to not do so much post processing.. I like to get results at source..

^ What he said.

Personally, I find a 35 on FF a perfect lens to create context with a portrait, but I probably wouldn't get much closer than a head and shoulders shot (in landscape, while showing a good portion of the environment) unless I was okay with the perspective distortion. If you want to fill more of the frame with the subject than that, you need the room to step back and a longer lens.

WhyFi wrote in post #16691766
^ What he said.

Personally, I find a 35 on FF a perfect lens to create context with a portrait, but I probably wouldn't get much closer than a head and shoulders shot (in landscape, while showing a good portion of the environment) unless I was okay with the perspective distortion. If you want to fill more of the frame with the subject than that, you need the room to step back and a longer lens.

Stepping back with all the church seats behind me wasn't an option and outside shots in the rain(English weather) is not happening, so I have to work with close up shots with wide angle.. it is what it is.. (and half spoke Spanish only so communication wasn't great.. LOL)

WhyFi wrote in post #16691766
^ What he said.

Personally, I find a 35 on FF a perfect lens to create context with a portrait

You mean 35mm prime or shooting at 35mm.. ? if prime, which prime are YOU using??

Just to illustrate, this is about as close as I'd personally get with a 35 -

Perspective distortion is unavoidable. The best you can do is try and pick angles that minimize it.

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16691773
You mean 35mm prime or shooting at 35mm.. ? if is the prime which prime are YOU using??

Prime or zoom, 35 is 35 - you'll have the same "perspective distortion" issues regardless. I've shot a lot with the 35L, 17-40L, Zeiss 35/2, adapted Nikkor 35/1.4.

WhyFi wrote in post #16691779
Just to illustrate, this is about as close as I'd personally get with a 35 -

Was this a prime or a zoom.. one subject its not really a wide angle family shot which is completely different..
How far from the subject were you?? metres please, as I don't know much about feet.. (3 feet to 1 metre I think ?? ) sorry I am metric

Find a chair, stand on it to increase your camera distance to subject, and shoot downwards with a longer focal length?

Scatterbrained wrote in post #16691787
Perspective distortion is unavoidable. The best you can do is try and pick angles that minimize it.

There must be another way !! how do people shoot at close range..?

kin2son wrote in post #16691796
FInd a chair, stand on it to increase your camera distance to subject, and shoot downwards with a longer focal length?

I did that, that increased distortion more so.. big heads small bodies.. all wrong..!!
as said in my first post.. waist height is the closest you can get to avoid hardcore distortion..

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16691802
There must be another way !!

If you can find a way to rewrite the laws of optics, you will become a very wealthy person.

Have you got some shots you can put up to show how bad we're talking here?