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

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.

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...
https://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.

Wilt wrote in post #18501588
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.

mdvaden wrote in post #18501594
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
  

Wilt wrote in post #18501861
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.

mdvaden wrote in post #18502173
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
   

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.

Wilt wrote in post #18502177
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.

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

memoriesoftomorrow wrote in post #18504780
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

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.

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

Full frame

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

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

Tigerkn wrote in post #18508414
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

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.

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