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

All the OP needs to do is place a huge mirror where he was originally standing to take the shot then take the shot from the back row of the group, of the group reflected in the mirror, then flip the image in Photoshop. He'll need to make sure he wears a cape the same colour as the background though.

Bob_the_bobcat wrote in post #16699824
All the OP needs to do is place a huge mirror where he was originally standing to take the shot then take the shot from the back row of the group, of the group reflected in the mirror, then flip the image in Photoshop. He'll need to make sure he wears a cape the same colour as the background though.

Did you join the forum just to say that?? go outside and take some snaps..

If you're unhappy with your 16-35mm can I have it?

Could you have maybe done a pano with the 50mm? It would require some post-processing afterwards (which I know you mentioned you don't like doing). You're being paid, though right? Shouldn't you be doing some kind of processing on the photos anyway?

rivas8409 wrote in post #16699877
If you're unhappy with your 16-35mm can I have it?

Could you have maybe done a pano with the 50mm? It would require some post-processing afterwards (which I know you mentioned you don't like doing). You're being paid, though right? Shouldn't you be doing some kind of processing on the photos anyway?

post processing is good (And Of course I am doing Post processing...) .. But as we say in the UK "Nip it in the bud" try and get it done in the first take..
Or as we used to say in the British Army back in the 80s..
Prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16699886
post processing is good.. But as we say in the UK "Nip it in the bud" try and get it done in the first take..
Or as we used to say in the British Army back in the 80s..
Prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance

You can fix distortion pretty easily in Lightroom or Photoshop, I don't know what the big deal is. Experience with the lens and figure out what height and angle is best for your Distortion needs. Otherwise just sell it and move on.

No need for me to go outside, with my huge mirror I can get distortion free shots indoors

DJHaze596 wrote in post #16699890
You can fix distortion pretty easily in Lightroom or Photoshop, I don't know what the big deal is. Experience with the lens and figure out what height and angle is best for your Distortion needs. Otherwise just sell it and move on.

I can buy a pair of jeans and take them to the tailor to shorten the length.
I can add to much salt to my cooking and try to recover by adding sugar or water it down and recover that way.
I can put diesel in my petrol car and completely F**k it up..
and and and...............

Come on.. try to get it correct in camera, or not?????????????

Bob_the_bobcat wrote in post #16699893
No need for me to go outside, with my huge mirror I can get distortion free shots indoors

Second post and being a cheeky monkey (troll)

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16699886
post processing is good (And Of course I am doing Post processing...) .. But as we say in the UK "Nip it in the bud" try and get it done in the first take..
Or as we used to say in the British Army back in the 80s..
Prior preparation and planning prevents piss poor performance

And in the US Navy we say Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance....what's that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Having to post process an image doesn't mean you didnt prepare or you didn't plan properly. It sometimes means (as I think it would in this case) that you know the limitations of the gear you're using but you can overcome it in post IF you're after a specific shot. Or maybe knowing that you just can't get the shot with "acceptable results" and not taking it.

rivas8409 wrote in post #16699914
And in the US Navy we say Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance....what's that have to do with the price of tea in China?

Having to post process an image doesn't mean you didnt prepare or you didn't plan properly. It sometimes means (as I think it would in this case) that you know the limitations of the gear you're using but you can overcome it in post IF you're after a specific shot. Or maybe knowing that you just can't get the shot with "acceptable results" and not taking it.

of course post processing is great, but the less the better. Don't you think??

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16699924
of course post processing is great, but the less the better. Don't you think??

Of course, but there are times when you just need to process and thre's no way around it to get the "acceptable results" that you're after. Shooting at 16mm you're going to get distortion, there's just no way around it unless you step back. If you get better results, in your opinion, from the 17-55 then maybe that's the one should have used. BUT, if space is an issue (which you've indicated it was) then you might not have a choice but to shoot at 16mm close up....which will cause distortion. It's 1 click in LR to fix the distortion. 1 click...that's pretty minimal processing if you ask me. OR as I suggested maybe, you could have shot a 3-4 shot pano in quick succession and stiched in PS. Again, sometimes you just can't get away from processing to get "the shot".

All of our gear has limitations. All our gear does is gather light...light is unlike anything else in the universe and is the the only constant thing in the universe. We can't change it, we can't change what it does. We can't prevent light from refracting in water (for example), but we can minimize it and essentially that's what our lenses do. They minimize the amount of refraction by using additional optics...but there's only so much we can do physically. For the rest...we can do it artificially, with pretty advanced algorithms, on a computer.

rivas8409 wrote in post #16699955
Of course, but there are times when you just need to process and thre's no way around it to get the "acceptable results" that you're after. Shooting at 16mm you're going to get distortion, there's just no way around it unless you step back. If you get better results, in your opinion, from the 17-55 then maybe that's the one should have used. BUT, if space is an issue (which you've indicated it was) then you might not have a choice but to shoot at 16mm close up....which will cause distortion. It's 1 click in LR to fix the distortion. 1 click...that's pretty minimal processing if you ask me. OR as I suggested maybe, you could have shot a 3-4 shot pano in quick succession and stiched in PS. Again, sometimes you just can't get away from processing to get "the shot".

All of our gear has limitations. All our gear does is gather light...light is unlike anything else in the universe and is the the only constant thing in the universe. We can't change it, we can't change what it does. We can't prevent light from refracting in water (for example), but we can minimize it and essentially that's what our lenses do. They minimize the amount of refraction by using additional optics...but there's only so much we can do physically. For the rest...we can do it artificially, with pretty advanced algorithms, on a computer.

Ok thanx. Can photoshop do that as well?

rivas8409 wrote in post #16699955
Of course, but there are times when you just need to process and thre's no way around it to get the "acceptable results" that you're after. Shooting at 16mm you're going to get distortion, there's just no way around it unless you step back. If you get better results, in your opinion, from the 17-55 then maybe that's the one should have used. BUT, if space is an issue (which you've indicated it was) then you might not have a choice but to shoot at 16mm close up....which will cause distortion. It's 1 click in LR to fix the distortion. 1 click...that's pretty minimal processing if you ask me. OR as I suggested maybe, you could have shot a 3-4 shot pano in quick succession and stiched in PS. Again, sometimes you just can't get away from processing to get "the shot".

All of our gear has limitations. All our gear does is gather light...light is unlike anything else in the universe and is the the only constant thing in the universe. We can't change it, we can't change what it does. We can't prevent light from refracting in water (for example), but we can minimize it and essentially that's what our lenses do. They minimize the amount of refraction by using additional optics...but there's only so much we can do physically. For the rest...we can do it artificially, with pretty advanced algorithms, on a computer.

you are talking about lens distortion, TS has an issue with perspective distortion of being too close.

the solution is pretty simple, rearrange people/make space, or live with it.

You must have some of those DO lenses then! I'm pretty sure all my lenses have been designed to make full use of refraction, not to minimize it.

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16699904
I can buy a pair of jeans and take them to the tailor to shorten the length.
I can add to much salt to my cooking and try to recover by adding sugar or water it down and recover that way.
I can put diesel in my petrol car and completely F**k it up..
and and and...............

Come on.. try to get it correct in camera, or not?????????????

You come on Bro!, 16mm on Full Frame is pretty damn wide, Just because you can do one thing in camera doesn't mean you can do another. Get over it. The only thing to slightly fix the distortion in camera is to experience with angles like i said. other than that, what else is there to say? Get a 70D and Go Crop.