I need help picking wide lens for landscape and portrait.

I want to get a lens for landscape and portrait. I've had the 17-40 and it was ok but I wasn't happy because I wanted wider. If I went wider with the tokina 12-24 would that work with some portrait pictures of my kids? I would like to keep this lens on the wider side. I've had the sigma 17-70 also and dumped that lens as well. Any ideas or suggestions are welcome. I need help on this and can't sleep well at night because I know I'm missing out on potential shots.

Your nifty fifty or 70-200 is better for portraits. For really wide try Canon 10-22

Wide lens for portrait is a bad idea..

The only other zoom lens that has a great reputation for portraits is the 24-70, which as you have noted is not wide enough for many landscape situations. The 10-22 is probably a good fit for you, seeing that your other lenses are more than good for portraits.

mdm wrote in post #2028399
I want to get a lens for landscape and portrait. I've had the 17-40 and it was ok but I wasn't happy because I wanted wider.

Generally-speaking, landscape and portrait lenses are different beasts. The former usually are not speed demons and you want great DOF; the latter are generally f-a-s-t g-l-a-s-s that give you shallow DOF and nice bokeh. But again, that's generalizing.

I suppose for creative portraits, you could use an UWA, but you need to really know how to make it work. And the results won't be "traditional". But kids might be the one area that you can get creative portraits using a UWA. It's not an easy act, however.

If you want wider than your 1740, then obviously go for one of the UWAs out there. It looks to me your bag could use one or all of the folllowing: UWA, standard zoom, and the 85f1.8. Lots of good choices out there.

UWA zooms are usually never used for portraits because they produce unwanted/unflattering distortion. Tokina's 12-24 is a competent landscaping lens. For portraits, your nifty fifty is a good candidate, a better one would be the EF 50 f/1.4 . Your 70-200 f/2.8L set at 85mm should do okay, but a 85 f/1.8 would give you better bokeh.

sigma 8mm!

Jaetie wrote in post #2029361
sigma 8mm!

Mmmm... I think he jests

As others have said, A wide-angle is NOT a good choice for portraits, and certainly not an ultra wide like a 10-22. (Not unless you want to upset the subject!)

kevin_c wrote in post #2029768
Mmmm... I think he jests

As others have said, A wide-angle is NOT a good choice for portraits, and certainly not an ultra wide like a 10-22. (Not unless you want to upset the subject!)

kevin is right.

wideangles are not that good for portraits. but if you want that one or two occasional fun shots, then i guess its fun. but for flattering, nice portraits, get a longer focal length - 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm.

Hmm... not necessarily... if used right, a 10-22 can work as a candid lens... I just wouldn't call it "portrait". I'm basing that on the presumption that these other guys are off on the fact that you 'want' the wide angle look in your candids. I second the 10-22 because of the 1.6x... but more for the landscape and WA abilities. You might want to consider a 16-35 if you can get one. Based on your description, that might be a good choice.

I thought that too, but I did a recent set of a child with the 35mm and they came out fantastic! The wide angle added a very fun effect to the photos I also use the 35 for landscapes so if you have a FF camera that is my recomendation

Photographers have historically been able to use wider angle lenses on children in portraiture as a child's face has much less relief than an adult's, so the WA exaggeration of perspective is less disturbing. But if you're shooting anyone from teens on up, that perspective will be unsettling to the viewer unless you're very careful.

Maybe "candid" is a better description of what I'm looking for. I keep clicking on the Sigma 15-30mm. This may be the ticket for me. Good for landscape and candid shots of the kids.