whats the widest lense would i need?

<p>i know ive already posted a question, but what is the widest lense for group photos , on my 5d mark 2? would i get away with the canon 24 - 105? i havent used a full frame camera before as ive only just reviced it and have always used a 40d and a 50d.</p>

<p>thx for any suggestions</p>

<p>IVE JUST SPOTTED THE tamron 17-55 2.8.vc....IS.........has anyone used this lens?</p>

<p>I love my 17-35 on 35mm camera for architecture and wild, get close, dancing shots, but I find anything wider than 24mm distorts people too much for most of the portraits I'm doing at weddings.</p>

<p>I use a Sigma 18-50 2.8 a lot at weddings. I'm in the UK though and do a lot of small churches and boutique hotels so the 18mm can be very useful.</p>

<p>The Tamron 17-55 is meant for APS-C format cameras. The 5D is a "full" (35mm) format body that can't use that lens. A 24-105 is going to feel the same on the 5D as an 18-70 will feel on your cropped sensor bodies.</p>

<p>I love my 16-35 2.8L on my 5d II. One of my more frequently used lenses. you do have to be careful of what you put on the edges of your frame cause it does have some gnarly barrel distortion @ 16mm, but it's wonderful otherwise.</p>

I have a 5D. I have the 24-105 f4 IS L and I also have the 17-40 f4L. The 17-40 is a good match for a full frame body and gives a satisfying wide angle image. Having said that it also gives significant barrel distortion and vignetting at around 17 mm wide open. This is ok for landscapes but makes buildings look a little weird. However, I can correct these faults in both PS and Lightroom. I personally prefer mostly not to go wider than 20mm for most pictures. The 24-105 has similar problems to a lesser degree at around 24mm. My copy of the 24-105 is extremely sharp and not withstanding what I have said I think both of these lenses are highly useful and do a really good job compared to all the rest. I use the 24-105 for a high per centage of my pictures but the 17-40 is great when you really need it to go wide inside and is also a great walkaround lens on a 1.6 crop body but only gives the equivilent of a 28mm at its widest. I do pretty good sized groups like thirty or forty people with the 24-105 at 24 mm. I have four L lenses to compliment my full frame body that cover 17 to 400 mm. If you only want to buy one lens based upon my anecdotal usage the 24-105 satisfies a great per centage of what I photograph.

<p>thanks for all your comments, Matt, i know the tamron is for APS-C format but tamron has released a full frame version 17-50 VC 2.8......as ive just bought the 5d mark 2 and i spoke to the camera shop manager this morning , he was recomending it but i want some reviews first before i buy. Theres a wedding photographer ive been speaking to on YOUTUBE and all he uses for his weddings is the canon 17-40 f4 and his 70-200 2.8 IS...look at him here ( daveNunnweddings ) on youtube and he swears by his 17-40 lense???<br>

Also Hi to ANNA, im also in the UK</p>

I find the IS on the 24-105 extremely useful in low light and at low shutter speeds.

<p>If your question is really about a wide angle lens for group shots, then the discussion has veered away from answering your question. Generally speaking, a 35mm angle of view on a full frame camera is a good wide angle focal length. Going wider will begin to distort people on the edges of the frame/group. This can be helped by allowing lots of space on the sides in the frame, and if so, you can use a 28mm without too much distortion. Wider than than, and it begins to get hard to avoid distortion.</p>

<p>For smaller groups--4-6 people, you can go 50mm on a full frame. For just the couple, you can go 70mm or 85mm, even.</p>

<p>If you are just looking for a wide angle zoom, this is another discussion. Obviously, your 24-105mm zoom encompasses the 35mm angle of view. A prime lens is probably going to be a bit sharper and perhaps more corrected, but it isn't going to be night and day.</p>

<p>I don't see where Tamron has released a full frame version of the 17-50mm VC. They just released the VC version of the 17-50mm--maybe that's what your store manager was referring to. In any case, it isn't going to work on a full frame--either one. The Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 works on a full frame is approximately the same range.</p>

<p>As for the photographer you reference, just because he uses those lenses doesn't mean they will work for you and the way you shoot. The 17-40mm lens is said to be a fine lens, though. Don't know why it wouldn't work--quality wise--if the rest of it all fits for your specific use.</p>

<p>Hi Nadine, its been a while , hope u had good xmas? anyway, all the question started off is that ive just bought my long waited 5d mark 2...........the gear i now own is the 5d mark 2 and a 50d......the lenses i own are a canon 70-200 2.8 IS , a canon 50mm 1.8, and a tamron 17-50 2.8.( for the 50d)........im shooting lots of weddings and normal portrait work.....but for the weddings i want a lens for the group photos ( money is a bit of an issue ) , i was told to get a canon 17-40 f4???? ive read mixed views on it, yet a wedding photographer i was talking to swears by it!........i know sigma do a 17-35 ...2.8 / 4.5 and i was offered that lense for £150? but dont know what to do really.....hope u can advise nadine.<br>

many thx</p>

<p>Geraint--thanks, I had a good xmas... I would advise a Tamron 28-75mm f2.8. It is what I use as a mid range zoom. It is generally equivalent to the 17-50mm on an APS camera, and isn't expensive. You might want to do research on it on these forums. I've written plenty about it before.</p>

<p>The 17-40mm is a nice lens, but it is an f4 lens, and doesn't go very tele on the long end. It is a bit wide for a general purpose mid range zoom on full frame.</p>

<p>Something with about a 720 degree field of view. Twice around ought to do it. Actually, I have always been in love with wide lenses -- you can't go too wide from my point of view. I leave a 10-20 on my DX camera as a prime lens. I'd go even wider, if it were available. I do use other lenses and use them frequently, but well over half my exposures are with the wide lens as wide as it can go. It's all a matter of your point of view. The question to ask is "How do I see things and which lens produces that vision?" It is not the other way around of getting a lens and then adapting your vision to it. 35mm might be plenty wide or a full 180 fisheye might not be wide enough.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>what is the widest lense for group photos , on my 5d mark 2?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I rarely use wider than 35mm, I stretch to 28mm sometimes. I often use a 24mm prime but when I do<strong> I ensure the edges are free from people so I can crop a bit.</strong> Hence my value for money answers to your other question (considering money is so tight): EF35/2 or EF24/2.8 or both.<br />Arrangement of the people for the group shots is the key - not getting a super wide lens like 12mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>would i get away with the canon 24 - 105?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>IMO, apropos Focal Length, yes,</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"all the question started off is that ive just bought my long waited 5d mark 2. . . but for the weddings i want a lens for the group photos ( money is a bit of an issue ) , i was told to get a canon 17-40 f4"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>But Nadine's suggestion about the Tamron 28 to 75 makes more sense to me considering the lenses you already have; the FL gaps you have; and the extra stop of speed, it has.<br />Also, in the Canon range, I would buy the 24 to 70/2.8 before the 24 to 105/4 IS for your purposes.<br />Also the 17 to 40/4 makes better sense than a Sigma 12 to 24, for the purposes you outline and also to fit to fill the FL gaps you have and has the FL range, which will be most used at Wedding (by most Photographers)<br>

But then again: I wouldn't be in such a rush to sell the 50D and buy another 5DMkII if money is so tight. You cite that the 50D cannot handle High ISO - I expect that could be user error causing you to make a rash decision to sell it - but that is another topic - what high ISO do you mean?<br>

I reckon it should be fine at ISO1600 and could be pushed to ISO320 when required.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"IVE JUST SPOTTED THE tamron 17-55 2.8.vc....IS.........has anyone used this lens?"</p>

<p>We have this and use it. It has done about 6 weddings so far and performs close to the Nikon 17-55 in all aspects. Great catchall lens for DX bodies.</p>

<p>I used the 24-105/4 when I shot canon and loved that lens.</p>

<p>thx you for all your kind responses. yes the 50d aint good at high iso......but on the matter of a new lens i think im going to go with what Nadine suggested...the Tamron 28-75 2.8, ive read its quite a cheap build but good quaility photos and sharpness and being at 2.8, i should do me with the group shots also! so great...and the other best thing is that its not expensive either, so thank you Nadine once again.</p>

<p>It totally depends on how you shoot, and what your client base expects out of what you shoot... That being said, I think I'd agree that 'standard' group photos tend to suffer a bit at anything south of 24mm on FF. Distortions starte to appear on everything straight around the edges, and unless you're aiming for something along those lines, I'd stay away. Even 24mm easily can do that also (the noticeability depends on the scene), but practicality often wins out, and I find that I'm comfortable using the 24-70 at it's limits on the 5.</p>

17-35 2.8 zoom or a 24mm prime.