 Andrew Laverghetta |
not sure what to do about a wider lens for digital Ok, in my search I have seen a bunch of lenses that I like and such but I'm really disliking this ridiculous 1.6x field of view crop on my camera. It's fine for most things but others, it just stinks. I shoot for my university's newspaper and I had an assignment that I went to along with 2 other photog's from the paper. It was a senior farewell put on by the alumni association and was in a very cramped location, especially with all the people there. The paper has Nikon D1's with the 17(or so)-35mm f/2.8 lens and 70-200mm f/2.8 with each of their kits. There are a limited number so it's not always possibly to get a camera. Plus I have my 20D so it produces much better pictures than the D1 and is a lot faster. I haven't gained very many lenses yet and what I do have aren't that good. I have the kit lens that came with my Canon Rebel GII at 35-80mm f/4.0-5.6, 80-200mm f/4.5-5.6, 50mm f/1.8, and 200mm f/2.8L. The widest effective view I had was around 56mm with the slow kit lens from my Rebel. I have been looking for wide to medium telephoto zoom lenses with fast maximum apertures so I don't have so much subject motion blur. I need to have something pretty wide for most indoor applications. I used the wide zoom with the Nikons and I NEVER used it at the full wide setting because it was just insane unless for special effects. Right now I really am thinking about starting photographing some weddings because it seems like my kind of thing. I know Monte Zucker is amazing and uses Canon's 28-135 IS and his pictures don't seem to have any problems not being taken with 'L' lenses. I believe he used the 10D for a lot of his stuff as well with also has the 1.6x crop. I'm trying to stay away from EF-S lenses because they're worthless on my film camera. I would really like the 28-135 IS but how wide have you needed for certain weddings and specifically group or whole family portraits? You may not be able to back up at certain locations. I also enjoy shooting for the newspaper but I know it would have really helped having something wider, around 28mm or 35mm, at this thing but this is the only time that I have really NEEDED that wide of a field of view. What do you think? Since I haven't had need for many things wider than around 50mm with my tastes, would the 28-135 be acceptible for photojournalism with the IS and would it work for group wedding portraits? I do assume that I could use film for these group portraits if I needed to? I don't have anything against film. Film could probably also give me better enlargements for photos like this, couldn't it? Provided I used a slow film. I know this probably sounds like me thinking out loud but I'm just trying to give what all I am thinking about so you have an idea of what I do. I would be using studio strobes for the weddings too, the posed portraits at least. Thank you so much!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Believe me, 28mm is plenty wide for a wedding. In fact, you probably won't need to use the wide end of your zoom. 35mm is usually plenty for a wedding. 28mm just gives you a little extra room, just in case. The 28-135 should handle anything you need at a wedding.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Considering the relative performance for the price, for wide-angle with the 20D it is hard to beat the ~$140 EF-S 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 (USM or regular). Yes, it gets a bad rep for being cheap, plastic, poor manual focus ergonomics, but is not bad optically. For a little less is the Sigma 18-50 f/3.5-5.6 DC. If you want wider aperture, then there is the Tamron 17-35 f/2.8-4 LD Di (~$450) or Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 EX DC (~$500).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
I know I keep going on & on about my cousin's wedding, blah, blah, blah. But it's my entire wedding-photographer experience base at the moment, so that's what I have to work with. I have the Digital Rebel, with the same 1.6 factor as yours. I took all of the reception group shots with my Sigma 28-300 lens and it worked fine. Then the groom's mother said she wanted a big group picture with her parents, brothers, sisters, nieces, nephews, etc. After arranging about 40 people, I couldn't back up enough. I quickly switched to the only wider option I had - the 18-55mm Rebel kit lens. I said a prayer, set f8 and took a few shots. I ended up with a good shot where every single face was looking forward and was in focus. Even her ex-husband, who had slipped in. Sure this lens is cheap, but it still works. And it also has a very short minimum focus distance (11 inches!) which makes it handy in a crowded room.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
Just wanting to make sure, saying you used f8, I'm assuming you used flashes? Or were outside? Thanks! Kerry: were you saying 28-135 would be all I would need based on having the digital 1.6x crop? (44.8-216mm) What about using the digital for most pictures and when I can't back up for large group shots, like the possibility of Chris's situation, use the 28-135 with a low speed film? I use a 50mm lens on my film camera and I really like it and I don't usually need to go wider for most things. Agg, it's frustrating! oh well. Thanks for getting back to me!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Christopher A. Vedros |
Yes, I was using a flash on a bracket. The room where we did the group shots was also very well-lit. In my situation, since the camera was mounted in a bracket, and the flash was mounted on the bracket, with the hotshoe cord, etc. it was very quick & easy to just switch lenses and still have everything set up on the camera. The lens was in a Tamrac pouch on my belt and the crowd probably didn't even notice that I switched lenses while they were getting into position. If I had switched to a different camera body, it would have taken some time to swap the flash bracket, etc, unless I had duplicates of all those accessories.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Kerry L. Walker |
Sorry Andrew. I'm still living in the world of film where 28mm means 28mm. For digital with the 1.6 crop, I would suggest something in the 20mm range for large groups where the shoe leather zoom range is very limited. However, you should still be able to handle most of the shots in a normal wedding with what you have.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
No prob. I'm just looking for a better lens because I would really like to make sure that I at least have my equipment to where I know that it's me that would be holding back my work. Maybe that's not the right way to say it....I think so. Now, I've found a Sigma lens that's the same as the Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L. I'm really thinking about that now. I'm thinking if I need any wider I can switch the lens to my film camera. I would figure this out before the actual time I would need to take the pictures. Then I could turn down the flash and use it to fire the strobes as a slave. I'm hoping to get Alien Bees strobes sometime this summer. Do you think their B400 should be enough for wedding portraits? http://www.alienbees.com/b400.html Any reason as to why the 24-70 wouldn't be good on the 20D? The widest would be around 38mm I think? Thanks for sticking with me!
|
|
|
|
||
|
Samuel Smith |
ok, and i'm still confused?28mm.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
not sure what to say... I have a Canon 20D and that means that all lenses put on it will have their focal lengths multiplied by 1.6 because the sensor is smaller and the extra image that these lenses project are cropped off. 28mm is acting as a 45mm lens on my camera and that's too narrow of a view for what I want to do with my photography.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jon Close |
Re "i'm still confused?28mm." Technically, there is no multiplication of the focal length. The 1.6x is an equivalence factor. While the digital SLRs use the same lenses as 35mm film SLRs, they are a smaller format: 15mm x 22.5mm image capture instead of 24mm x 36mm. So a lens that would provide a wide angle view on the film camera gives a narrower "normal" view on the digital - just as a 50mm lens on a medium format camera gives a wide angle view, but on a smaller 35mm film camera 50mm is the "normal" focal length. The 1.6x is also called a "crop factor" since the 15mm x 22.5mm digital image is cropped from the center of the 24mm x 36mm image that would be captured on film with the same lens. Similarly, 28mm on the 35mm film camera is wide angle, but on the 20D it gives the "normal" perspective. Because most people are very familiar with the angle of view given in the film format, the difference is expressed with the x1.6 equivalence: the 28mm lens on the 20D has the equivalent angle of view as a 45mm (28 x 1.6 = 44.8) on a film EOS. Going the other way, if you want a lens on the 20D to give you the same view as a 28mm does on a film EOS, then you need a 17mm or 18mm lens (28 รท 1.6 = 17.5).
|
|
|
|
||
|
Andrew Laverghetta |
Yeah, it would be nice to have something that wide but for now I just need something that's decently wide. I see there are lenses that zoom from around 17-35 or to 40 but I've had that with the nikon and I didn't use it very much at all, especially at the wide end. The Sigma 24-70 f/2.8, I think that should be around 38mm, I think I could do with that because I rarely used the full wide angle on my 35mm zoom on my 35mm camera. How does that sound? I may just end up getting the kit 18-55 incase I really NEED wider. Making sure to use it at a smaller aperture of course. I have been really trying to get into better lenses but the prices to a college student...haha. How does this all sound? Thanks again!
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||