Need help choosing super wide zoom for idoor wedding reception shots

[jay_d.__los_angeles_]

Thanks to anyone reading this. My 24-70L will not cut it when it comes to a

1.6 crop factor. Need something WIDE, good in low light. Do I even need to

go wider than 16 or 17mm? Thanks

[grant g]

10-22 if you have an EF-S compatible camera. Otherwise look at the 3rd party offerings.

[m_barbu1]

A lens with a variable maximum aperture of f/3.5-4.5 is not a good choice for low-light photography. I'm in a similar situation with my 20D. I'm leaning towards getting the EF 14mm f/2.8L USM to supplement my 24-70 f/2.8L USM.

 

I would also try to determine just how wide you need to be, before making any purchase decision. You may find that you really want a fisheye lens, depending on your needs.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Did you use the 24-70 on a film body? If so, how wide did you use it? If you needed to go all the way to 24, then the 16-35 won't quite cut it; 16 gives you about 26mm equivalent. If you didn't need those last couple of mm, on the other hand, the 16-35 will be wide enough. Or the 17-40, if you can deal with f/4 instead of f/2.8.</p>

[grant g]

"I'm leaning towards getting the EF 14mm f/2.8L USM"

 

f/3.5 is fast enough. I rarely shoot wide angles wide open anyway. The 14/2.8 is an IMPRACTICAL AND EXPENSIVE solution on a crop camera. Let us know if you think it's worth it after you actually get it.

[iori]

If the wedding reception is held indoors, and you want to capture people dancing and moving about, personal experience tells me that anything slower than a f/2.8 will not cut it, even with the ISO cranked up to 1600. My 17-40 f/4 was useless for such application, both from a FOV and speed standpoint, on a crop camera.

[jay_d.__los_angeles_]

Thanks for the great advice my fellow photographers, but to have a big group in nice focus, won't it be a challenge at 2.8, concidering the depth of field is like 4 inches? LOL. Maybe I'm wrong, what do you all think?

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>f/3.5 is fast enough</i></p>

 

<p>No, it's not. At least not for Jay's original criteria of "idoor wedding reception shots" [sic] and "good in low light". I just shot a wedding at a church where even at f/2.8, without flash (which was forbidden), ISO 1600 barely cut it. Until we went outside, I never reduced my aperture beyond f/2.8. When it came time to shoot the reception, I wasn't able to get any decent shot without flash (even with ISO 3200 and f/2.8). Keep in mind that at receptions, people are not standing still. You're looking at minimum shutter speeds of about 1/250 sec, if you hope to freeze the action.</p>

 

<p><i>The 14/2.8 is an IMPRACTICAL AND EXPENSIVE solution on a crop camera.</i></p>

<p>To you, maybe. To someone needing to shoot in low light situations <b>and</b> low light conditions (like Jay -- and me), the choice is not as clear.</p>

 

<p><i>Let us know if you think it's worth it after you actually get it.</i></p>

<p>The only reason I haven't gotten the 14mm lens yet, is because I'm still deciding whether or not to use the cash to get a 5D, instead. With the 24-70mm, and without the crop factor, I'd be looking at only a 1.6mm difference between the 24mm on the 5D vs. the 14mm on the 20D. I have not yet determined whether or not the 1.6x crop factor is something I am going to miss at the long end of my 70-200mm lens. Once I decided that, the wide lens choice will be easier to make.</p>

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>Thanks for the great advice my fellow photographers, but to have a big group in nice focus, won't it be a challenge at 2.8, concidering the depth of field is like 4 inches? LOL. Maybe I'm wrong, what do you all think?</i></p>

 

<p>Have you actually tried calculating the depth of field? Are you planning on being only 2 feet away from the group? Using <a href="http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html">this calculator</a>, I yielded a depth of field of 5 feet, at 14mm, f/2.8, and 5 foot distance to the subject. When you increase that distance to 10 feet, the depth of field becomes 54 feet. The depth of field becomes ∞ when you move only 2 more feet away from the subject (total of 12 feet).</p>

[iori]

>>The only reason I haven't gotten the 14mm lens yet, is because I'm still deciding whether or not to use the cash to get a 5D, instead.

 

I opted for the 5D and a 28mm f/1.8. I can now use the 17-40 and 24-105 the way it was intended.

[grant g]

"You're looking at minimum shutter speeds of about 1/250 sec, if you hope to freeze the

action."

 

Ludicrous. That's your problem right there.

 

Look, if you're gonna suggest that somepody pick up a $1800 lens, you might as well

suggest the 5D which will essentially make the 24mm end of the 24-70 the same FoV and

have the benefits of the 5D's high ISO performance.

[m_barbu1]

Grant, you really need to settle down. This isn't a personal attack against you -- don't act like it is. <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp">The 5D has virtually identical high ISO performance to the 20D</a>. The difference in cost between selling the 20D and buying the 5D is also more than the cost of the 14mm f/2.8 lens.

[m_barbu1]

Also, I wasn't suggesting he necessarily buy it -- I was only telling him where I was in my decision process. Certainly, it's an expensive lens. But, it can also be bought used (as low as $1285 on eBay) or rented (<a href="http://www.pictureline.com/product.php?id=12424">as low as $25/day</a>)! Renting would make a lot of sense if he's only going to need to go that wide for a few days per year. Finally, there's a higher likelihood that a used 14mm f/2.8 lens is in better shape than a used 5D.

[JeffOwen]

My 10-22mm lens on a 20D is fantastic for indoor shots and coupled with a wide flash will work just fine. A small point of warning though for those wedding shots people close up and at the edges of the image are not dealt with in a very flattering manner i.e. perspective distortion tends to make people look fat!

[picturesque]

I don't even own a wider lens than my 16-35mm zoom for my 20D, and I shoot indoor wedding receptions all the time. Wide and fast is not easy to come by in Canon lenses. f2.8 is not exactly fast. Whether or not you need something wider than 16 or 17mm is up to you and what you shoot. For indoor wedding receptions, you don't need the widest apertures for two reasons. First, you need to use flash most of the time. Most venues, especially if the event is at night and the lights are turned down, are too dark to make it reasonable to go without flash. Second, you can drag the shutter while bouncing your flash. With this technique, you freeze action, retain some ambient feel and get soft lighting without resorting to the highest ISOs, all in one. Plus, a little DOF is necessary when shooting fast action, where you can use zone or pre focus to catch unpredictable subject action.

[lovcom_photo]

I shoot weddings. For indoor ceremonies (most), F2.8 is often barely fast enough. And to suggest any zoom slower then F2.8 is plain wrong for weddings.

 

I use primes during the ceremony, Canon 35L F1.4 primarily; not that I use F1.4 but I have the benefit of F1.6 through F2.8 and of course beyond that.

 

For the 20D I'd look at a 24L, or one of the Canon non-L primes that are wide and F2 or faster.

 

To use anything slower then F2.8 for a wedding is to bump up the ISO, and even with a 20D, whose high ISO provides most excellent noise reduction, ISO 800 and faster will certainly bring down quality. With any of the Nikon's this issue is even worse. Why anyone would use any Nikon for weddings is beyond me, given their less then good ISO noise performance, but this comment is better saved for another post.

 

If you're going to be shooting paid weddings, I would strongly suggest you get yourself fast primes, or worse case, F2.8 zooms, and definately nothing slower then F2.8, even with flash.

[m_barbu1]

Dan, if 24mm has been deemed to be not wide enough, and a minimum aperture of f/2.8 is required, what would be the best lens choice(s), in your opinion?

[lovcom_photo]

For a 1.6 crop body, the Canon 16-35L is the best I can suggest (for wide FL) but now we have that darned F2.8...16mm may still not be wide enough for 1.6 crop. I personally would not want the Canon 14L however.

 

Well, I would suggest the OP sell his 1.6 crop and get a 5D....this may not be a viable alternative given the price of the 5D...but for a 1.6 cropper, one finds himself in "wide-fast hell", so it seems.

 

I'm lucky to have the 5D since 24mm is generally more then wide enough.

 

Ok, it boils down to this....get a 5D and 24L and call it a day.

[grant g]

"And to suggest any zoom slower then F2.8 is plain wrong for weddings. "

 

Then I'd stick with being wrong.

 

Dan, you're suggesting to get a 24L when the Jay already has a 24-70 is asking for a WIDE recommendation.

 

I have lots of f/2.8 equipment and a handful of f/1.x primes.

 

But there are two slower lenses that I highly recommend for weddings:

 

10-22

 

24-105/4IS

 

Both are excellent and perfect for wedding use.

 

I used to be an f/2.8 snob too. I got over it.

 

I suppose if I recommended a 17-55/2.8IS (which I also have), somebody would have a problem with that too.

[m_barbu1]

<p><i>I used to be an f/2.8 snob too. I got over it.</i></p>

 

<p>Well, you certainly got over the f/2.8 part.</p> However, you're still ignoring Jay's original request by suggesting something slower. If that's not being <a href="http://www.answers.com/snob">snobby</a>, well then it's just <a href="http://www.answers.com/contempt">contemptuous</a>. He already has an f/2.8 lens. He specifically stated that he needs something wider, but that it should be good in low light.</p>

 

<p>The fact that he got the 24-70 f/2.8L USM, should illustrate that he already decided f/2.8 is what he needs for low light. If he didn't, why wouldn't he have bought the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM instead? Maybe that lens wasn't around when he decided on the 24-70. Maybe he couldn't afford the extra $100.</p>

 

<p>Well, then why wouldn't he have bought the EF 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 USM? Heck, that's more than $800 cheaper, to boot! He likely didn't get it, because he knows that variable maximum aperture lenses aren't good in low light -- the same reason he didn't get an f/4 lens.</p>

 

<p>Put away the <a href="http://www.answers.com/topic/kool-aid-drinker">Kool-Aid</a>. We're not thirsty.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

...another vote for "anything slower than f/2.8 in low light and you're kidding yourself" if you are shooting people. And the more people you shoot in the same pic, the faster the shutterspeed better be.....somebody is bound to move.<br><br>

 

Jay....as far as "how wide"? This <a href="http://www.dudak.baka.com/fovcalc.html"><u>field of view calculator</u></a> should help. It doesn't have the crop factor, so just make a 17mm on a 1.6x cam 28mm, and follow the rest of the directions on it

[jay_d.__los_angeles_]

Wow, I respect all the amazing info and help you all have given. Kinda' makes me wish I did have a full frame body, lol.

[grant g]

Jay, I shoot with the 10-22 without flash down to about LV4. If you don't need to go that

wide, the 17-55IS also excellent for weddings and I shoot with that to about LV1 on the

wide end. For reference I would use my 28/1.8 down to about LV2 on a crop camera. And

I really hope you got *something* useful out of this thread.