How wide is enough - Lens choices - Wide angle question

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

I was just wondering how many of you go wider than 16mm (on a 5D) for a wedding

(in and out door)?

 

I am hesiting between the 14 and the 15 fisheye.

 

The 15 fisheye has good ratings and distortion can be corrected.

The 14 has an L and the price tag...

[kiva]

The canon 15mm fisheye is lovely. Don't correct the distortion because if it's used in the correct situations it's Lovely just as it is.

 

It's a lens Not to be overused but when used is creates a nice dynamic photo or two that add a creative element to a set of wedding photos for a bride and groom.

[russ_butner___portland__or]

In the 35mm film format, I regularly use my 20mm glass.

 

Russ

[fotografz]

The Canon 14 produces a much higher quality image than the 15.

 

IMO, the distortion of a 15 is a novelty that wears thin pretty quickly ... but for the price it

can linger in the bag and just come out from time-to-time.

 

The 14 is spectacular for shooting church interiors, sweeping shots of reception halls and

fun overhead table shots. The better image quality and extra field-of-view over the 16

end of the 16-35 allows a bit more perspective correction in PS, and displays less barrel

distortion than the 16.

 

The previous 14 is still better than the 16-35/2.8L MKII, so if you decide on it, look for a

clean used 14/2.8L which should be about $1,000 to $1,200., as opposed to the hefty

$2000. price tag of the MKII version.

[edrodgers]

There is a big difference between the 14 and 15. The 14 is rectilinear, the 15 is not. Basically that means that any straight lines in the image will remain straight with the 14, while the 15 will turn straight lines into curves.

 

The 14 is great for Architecture for this reason.

 

The 15 is good for a few creative shots, but can be easily overdone, and should be used sparingly. To me, the curvature distortion is more natural than the straight line distortion. I don't have a fisheye in my kit because it isn't my style. I love wide, which was one of my main reasons for going with the 5D, but not curvature.

 

The problem with the 14 is that it is still very distorted, and in a very strange way. Things get stretched out as they approach the edges of the frame. Here is a very mild example. Notice the straight lines. The stretching at the edges is not very prominent in this, and that's why it squeaked into the portfolio.

 

http://www.endearingreflections.com/#mi=2&pt=1&pi=10000&s=0&p=1&a=0&at=0

 

I used the 14 at a few weddings, but soon dumped it for the 16-35. The 14 made me nauseous if a human got close to the edge, and the distortion is hard to manage. The glass sticks out like a tennis ball and is very hard to keep protected. A filter cannot be mounted on the front, and the lens cap is like a tuna can with felt. Filters are mounted internally by the bayonet mount.

 

The 14 is also just 14. It's a prime that must be used sparingly, and therefore not versatile enough for me. I get a lot more use out of the 16-35 because I can go to 16 for a mild version of the same linear weird stuff, and then back to 35, which is practically normal on the 5D. Saves a lot of lens swapping, and I have a nice filter on the front to protect it.

 

I don't regret moving to the 16-35.. It's cheaper than the 14, is extremely versatile, and is one of my main 3 lenses: 16-35, 24-70, and 70-200.

[edrodgers]

Marc,

 

Maybe I had a bad copy of the 14 II. The images were a tad soft, which I thought was normal for something so wide, but I see very similar sharpness results at the 16 end of my 16-35 II. Neither could match the 24-70, (or even the 50 1.4), for sharpness as I saw it, but that's to be expected. I'll go back and compare my images to make sure it isn't just my memory failing on me.

 

Omega,

 

Another thing.. with the 14 I got a bunch of shots of my feet and the other 5D hanging around my neck! :)

 

I'm not saying that's the lens' fault.. Just that the 14 requires care and discipline to get the amazing results it is capable of. Like the 16, only more so. In the shot I provided above, you can see that I was shooting down slightly. (I'm 6' 4"..) It's important to shoot perfectly perpendicular to the horizon, or the stretching will be uneven. Those amazing church interiors will look pretty strange if you aim at the corner of the ceiling.

 

One cool thing about the 14.. Remember the rule of thumb about shutter speed and the reciprocal of the focal length? So really, 1/15th is a very safe hand-held speed with this lens. It's helpful when you want to get the aperture down to f8 or so for sharpness.

[grant g]

12mm with the sigma 12-24 on the 5D:<div></div>

[wedding-photography-denver]

I am with Grant on the sigma 12-24. It works some cool stuff on FF cameras. I also have a fish, and pull it out once in a while too, though not nearly as much as the rectilinear types.

 

Currently using a Nikon 14-24 and finding it about as good, if not better than the Canon. YMMV.

[thierry nguyen cuu - nomad]

Thank you all for your posts.

 

The (dream) ideal situation is to have them all :)

 

The 16-35 combined with the leg zoom is the best option so far.

 

BTW, I had the 10-22 on a 30D and found it womehow wider than the 16-35 on a 5D ...? Distorsion with the 10-22 is also more pronounced than of the 16-35.

Has anyone observed the same?

[William Michael]

I have never used wider than 24mm on 135 format.

 

 

I have used (sparingly) 45mm on 6x7.

 

 

If I had the choice I would choose the EF14mmL over the EF15mm Fish for my Canon gear: I believe it would be a more efficient and effective tool and an overall better business decision.

 

 

Either tool needs to be disciplined and in the hands of a disciplined photographer, IMO.

 

 

In this regard, FYI:

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MUtk

 

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00MrcU

 

 

WW