Using a canon 10-22mm wide angle for wedding work?

<p>I am currently shooting with the tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 on my crop sensor camera and am wondering if anyone is using the canon 10-22mm with great success. I know this question is somewhat silly as i'm sure many of you are using it well but i am not sure it is worth the investment. How often do you have it mounted and for about how many shots? Do most clients prefer these super wide angle views? Before i spend the cash, <strong>i would really value your opinion</strong>. I am currently shooting with the 40D and a 20D as back up. as of now, i tend to keep the 17-50mm or a 24-70L on one body and either a 70-200mm or 85mm prime on the other.... thanks for your help!</p>

<p>I don't have the 10-22mm, but your question actually isn't about that particular lens but about the necessity of having a super wide choice. I use full frame, and I have a 16-35mm which I do use from time to time. It is good for scene setting shots (view of the reception room) or in places where space is tight. Sometimes I use it more than others. Some people would use it more than I do, since I tend to be more on the other side of the spectrum. I don't use super wides for shots of individuals and couples because I don't like the distortion--others like it.</p>

<p>I can see shooting entire weddings without the super wide choice and clients will probably not miss the super wide shots. No one will say, "Gee, I really wanted that wide shot of me." On the other hand, it is nice to have variety. I'd say a super wide is like salt--used sparingly, it gives a nice flavor to your product. Whether it is worth it is going to be up to you.</p>

<p>I have the 10-22 and it's honestly one of my favorite lenses. Even though I upgraded to a 5d and can only use it on my 40d. It's the only reason I'm keeping my 40d is because of that lens. The colors are so much richer in this lens for some reason and everything pops. I took the following shot with the 10-22:<br>

<a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9015335-lg.jpg">http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9015335-lg.jpg</a></p>

<p>Actually Nadine, my question is about the canon lens....The only bodies i have are crop sensors and that i am getting ready to purchase the 10-22mmm which is why i have asked if others use it and the frequency with which they use it at weddings....I do appreciate your input on the 5d however because the 16-35mm is the equivalent on full frame. I'd say opinions are like salt, use them sparingly or they spoil the meal.....<br>

Kay, thank you also for your input... i love the pic you attached of the couple on the beach. I think the angle of view is trememdous.</p>

<p>Mat,<br>

Here's another pic I took on Sunday with the 10-22mm. This shot would only have been possible with this lens (or 16-35mm) lol</p>

<p><a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2453/3676515969_d210234d87.jpg?v=0">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2453/3676515969_d210234d87.jpg?v=0</a></p>

<p>Myself.. I'm a prime shooter. Judging by what you're saying I'm guessing your on a crop body unless you like shooting fisheye. Myself I think that the 24L is a GREAT choice for wide angle shooting though we find it a bit wide for our taste and use the 35L primarily on a full frame body.. :)</p>

<p>Mat--I did read carefully--I read your question twice, actually, and determined that the thrust of the question was not necessarily about that specific lens, but about the frequency of using that extreme wide angle range at a wedding and whether it was worth it to spend money on a lens in that range--or so I thought. </p>

<p ><strong><em>"How often do you have it mounted and for about how many shots?</em></strong> <strong><em>Do most clients prefer these super wide angle views?"</em></strong> </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I too, do NOT have the particular lens you cite, but I have, indeed, read your question quite carefully. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I can comment upon: <em>wide angle view</em>, <em>how often I capture at extreme wide angle; and how many clients respond to those shots</em>: as I also use a 16 - 35 on a 5D. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I use extreme wide captures during a Wedding Coverage, sparingly, like salt. </p>

<p >But I do not agree with you, that opinions are like salt and should be used sparingly. Actually that seems to me quite a strange comment, when one asked for opinions, in the first place. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I do not capture many images wider than what a 15mm lens would be on your 40D, but occasionally I do, yes: I find the very wide is a good scene setter and perhaps at the formal shoot a sweeping landscape is great and dancing too – but using the extra wide is not my main focus.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >It seems from your second post there is a little trepidation about spending the money . . . IMO, it all depends on whether that money spent, will likely make more sales for you, either directly, or as a result of a more impactful portfolio and or marketing tools with which to draw Prospects.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have found that the print results of an extreme wide angle (and Fisheye) at a Wedding are better as a marketing tool, than any immediate WOW! Factor from the particular client which results in a single Purchase or bigger, overall purchase.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Steve C might post some of his thoughts: it seems to me he uses the extreme wide a bit more than most and I think it sells a bit for him – and I, personally would appreciate his comment on how much he uses those extreme wide images as a marketing and eye-catching tool. </p>

<p ><br />BTW: although the 16 to 35 on a 5D is "equivalent" in respect of FoV to using the 10 - 22 on a 40D . . . it is not equivalent in respect of Av - which for my style of Wedding work, makes an huge difference.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW</p>

 

<p>William,<br>

thanks for your input.... it's an interesting pov to see it as a marketing tool... i do agree that it can give a wow factor ..... as for opinions, i am not interested in the 16-35 on the 5D because i don't have that lens and will not be looking to purchase it now... that is why i am looking for the 10-22mm users.... i do understand that the 5D with 16-35mm is different than the crop... with the creamy background and low light capability....</p>

I kind of like wide angles better than long telle's or long zooms. I'm shooting full frame and love and use the 16-35mm at most wedding receptions, for such things as the dancing shots, the table shots, group shots in the tight confines of reception rooms. Aside from weddings this is also wonderful for photographing interiors. You can't beat this lens for landscape work.

 

I also use a fish eye. Most people don't own this lens so let me say you can get really creative with this. There are no limits with this lens. The more creative, goofy, or crazy you are the more fun you will have. Your art work will really stand out from others. I enjoy how distorted everything looks! It's a wacky lens.

 

The cool part of the 10-22 in the distortion isn't bad and the Canon software is very good at correcting any unwanted angles.

<p>Ultra-wide can be great, and it's especially good at drawing lines inward. Fisheyes produce rather neat effects when used correctly. I have a sigma 10-20 that occasionally sees use during the daytime or when I want a broad photo of the reception hall or church.</p>

<p>It's my personal opinion that the best ultra-wide lens to compliment the standard zoom is the Tokina 11-16 f/2.8, since it ends where the 17mm lens begins and has the f/2.8 fast aperture.</p>

<p>joey,<br>

do you have any samples of the sigma lens pics?</p>