Wide Angle Lens for Group Photo?

<p>I was asked to photograph a Family reunion. They had requested a group photo of about 150 people! I have a Nikon D90 and a 17-50 lens. The reunion will be held in a park, so space shouldn't be an issue. Will my 17-50 lens be wide enough? Or would you reccomend another lens?</p>

<p>Also if there is no hill, how would you pose everyone so you can see everyone's face? Would you use a ladder and shoot down on them?</p>

<p>trish,<br>

are they all going to be standing side by side or could you have three different levels, one being sat on the floor, another on the bench and the last one upright? this would allow you to think of 50 people at the widest rather than 150.<br>

the d90 is a crap sensor camera so the 17mm would be around 28mm perhaps? i think this is useable as long as you have sufficient distance to go back. what other lens options might you have?<br>

as for shooting, i would like to be the same level as the middle tier.</p>

<p>They are not going to be side by side. I was thinking different levels or rows. The only other lense I have (which I know would not work for this situation) is a 50mm 1.8 and my kit lens 18-105mm. But I may think about renting one to make sure I have a lens that will work for this large group.</p>

<p>If you have the space to back up (i.e., working distance), you can use any focal length. It all depends on what kind of perspective aesthetics you want to archieve -- focal length determines rendering of spatial relations (perspective).</p>

<p>as far as posing, make sure you have lots of levels, not just three. You can usually have the tallest standing, the shortest adults standing in front of them, then a kneeling row and a sitting row. Almost all of the time I find a spot that I can have a row of people standing on something behind the tallest row so you at least have five rows. Just make sure no ones face is hiding behind another head and tirelessly fix it until its right...</p>

<p>once you get that done, the 17-50 is probably fine. I would use anywhere from 28mm to 35mm probably, which is zoomed out enough to not cause much distortion probably but close enough to still command the group. Its important to yell to them to look at you and smile, because as silly as it may seem, some people will forget to do that. Flash is another good idea, even if it isnt doing anything... it keeps attention. A ladder helps too, 9 out of 10 times.</p>

<p>Keep the camera level in terms of the people. Not pointing up or down. Otherwise a wide lens will distort, shortening the part of the body that is furthest away. 17 sounds OK if you have the space to move back.</p>

<p>The lens will probably work. If you have no hill, yes, bring a ladder, but you'd need a tall ladder and someone to hold it for you. Either that or rig up a monopod or tripod with the camera and a cable release or remote release. Pre focus the lens (probably disable the autofocus), raise the camera into the air with the monopod or tripod and shoot a lot of frames, since you will be 'blind' (can't see into the viewfinder). I doubt that you will be able to pose 150 people using rows. Even 4 rows would mean about 40 people per row--way too wide to see faces.</p>

<p>I am a beginner so this is a question that relates - but if you use 17mm, will you not get some distortion on the edges of the photo - is it not better to simply step back and zoom a bit to avoid this effect?</p>

<p>Ellery--the Nikon D90 is a cropped sensor lens, so 17mm is about 26mm, full frame. Even at 26mm to 28mm or so, you will still get distortion on the edges of the frame, for group shots, so the answer is leave some space on the sides.</p>

<p>"Even at 26mm to 28mm or so, you will still get distortion"</p>

<p>Yes, very true. Even at 35mm you get distortion in group photos if you crop tightly.</p>

<p>"so the answer is leave some space on the sides."</p>

<p>Even better: step back a bit and use a longer focal length. Whatever you do, make sure that you focus on the center rows and stop down enough for adequate DOF to get everyone in focus.</p>

 

<p>Lens distortion is not your main problem, you could correct it in post processing. But you will get unpleasant perspective distortion. The people closer to your camera will look larger. So unless you can even out the distances with a high viewpoint, or you want the fun effects of distortion, you are better off with a bit more distance and a normal lens.</p>

<p>Correction noted - thanks for the info everyone :)</p>

<p>This is a special case – it is a LARGE group, in this regard it is very important to think through what advantages and disadvantages there are using different FL lenses, and employ balance and practical applications (not just theory) when making choices about the choice of tools one should use.</p>

<p>One issue about using a "normal lens" - especially with large group - is the required SD (Subject Distance. Could it render the photographer, yelling her lungs out, to communicate?</p>

<p><em><strong>Thinking it through:</strong></em><br />For 150 people and using a 17 to 50mm lens - if we used around FL = 20mm at a Subject distance of about 25ft - maybe even 20ft; and made an arrangement of 5 rows of 30 people. even at SD = 20ft that gives about 1ft width per person, which is tight – but still doable.</p>

<p>A slight horseshoe formation and “tuck the shoulders in” of the person beside. A slight horseshoe formation also allows for Children (on the ground seated) or elderly (on chairs seated) to be in the middle. With a Camera Elevation of about 10 ft the downward angle will be enough to allow the group to look up slightly, without appearing stretched or stressed. This is important, to see each face.</p>

<p>Yes, there might be a little distortion (most likely barrel distortion) at the edges using FL = 20mm, BUT if there is just a little room left at the edges (as previously mentioned) AND careful placement of thinner folk only and none with bare arms (especially females in sleeveless dresses or tops) at the edges, then from experience, I expect very acceptable results using a lens with a FoV equivalent to about 32mm in 135 format (i.e. commonly referred to as: "Full Frame").</p>

<p>Perspective is determined by the Subject Distance and the Camera’s Viewpoint. The Field of View is then determined by choosing the Focal Length of the lens.</p>

<p>That stated, I do understand the comments above about this Perspective "Distortion", but in practical terms, using FL = 20mm on this particular camera, there will be very little Perspective "distortion" IMO: at SD = 20 ft this “distortion” will be mostly inconsequential in the final product, as the viewer's eye will be overpowered by the mass of faces - which is why an higher camera elevation is necessary.</p>

<p>I am not tall, but I can easily pull 10 ft Camera Elevation standing on a milk crate, and shooting over my head, if improvisation is absolutely necessary, for a practical “in a pinch” example.</p>

<p>***</p>

<p>On the other hand - to use around FL = 30mm ("a normal lens"), even for the same very tight formation, one has to bump the SD to about 30ft, maybe even 35ft.</p>

<p>If the group is arranged more ad hoc – the SD could easily blow out to 40ft or 50ft Yes, there will be less barrel distortion, but the down angle of the camera elevation at about 10ft is compromised significantly such that there is either more likelihood of capturing obscured faces or the Photographer needs an higher ladder - high ladders likely mean problems getting a 'pod that high: 10ft is doable usually with a good tripod even if it is necessary to rest the legs on a box, or three.</p>

<p>But at SD = 30ft, one needs about 15ft camera elevation for 35ft about 18ft elevation, at 40ft 20ft elevation etc . . .</p>

<p>IMO, the option of using a normal lens is a no-go . . . the the extra 10ft to 15ft subject distance (or more), and the extra 5 ft needed for the camera elevation (or more) is not worth the very minimum benefit either or both might reap.</p>

<p>For this job, I would use the lens at about 17mm to 20mm.</p>

<p>I would attempt to pose the 150 as best as possible as I described, though this may well prove difficult; in any event I would be aiming for a camera elevation of about 10ft. (not level with the people) and I would be attempting to get all the faces looking slightly up, and at the camera lens – this last point is the fun bit and where the Photographer's personality is more important than their experience, skill, and theoretical knowledge.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p><em><strong>"the d90 is a crap sensor camera so the 17mm would be around 28mm perhaps?"</strong></em><br />I think that is a typo: it had me puzzled for a while - I think it was meant to read: <em><strong>crop</strong></em> sensor.<br />WW</p>