EF 24mm F1.4 for group shots

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p> Long story short.. I shoot about a wedding a year for family and friends. Each time I shoot one I use the money to upgrade my gear. Over the last two weddings I've been really disliking my 17-40 F4L (on 40D) for group shots on the wide side. I've been trying to force myself to shoot no wider then 20-24mm but am still finding more distortion (color also) then I like for the people at the edge of the pose. People appear long and skinny and the color tends to look off a little too for those standing at the edge. If I use DPP settings to correct the distortion it tends to make the photo softer. I've been able to save most pictures in Adobe.</p>

<p> I've tried not putting people as close to the edge of the frame as well but still find I don't like the results. Suppose I'm a little picky but I just feel like giving people what they pay for. I could have a bad lens but am finding the lens to be really good for everything else. I'm guessing it is just the nature of a wide angle zoom. For the next wedding I'm considering getting a 24mm f1.4 II. This will not only take care of this distortion issue but will also give me sharper group shots. Has anyone been able to use this new 24mm f1.4 II in wedding or group photo applications to give me some feedback? Just wanting to spend my money wisely.</p>

<p>Chad</p>

 

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>24/1.4 is a fine lens. I'm sure it'll do the job. But folks who have it will tell you that this lens really shines for shallow-dof work on full-frame gear. You don't need a f/1.4 lens for group shots where you'll be stopping down for sufficient dof.</p>

<p>How about a 17-55/2.8 IS used in the 24-35 mm range.</p>

[blockphoto]

<p>Or the 24-70, which is great at 24, or rent one (or both) and see which you prefer.</p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>I'm trying to stay away from zooms. My current lens selection is 17-40 f4L, 50 f1.8 II, 85 f1.8, 100 f2.8 macro, and 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS. The 24 f1.4 II was sort of my next logical choice seeing as I'll be using it mainly for formals. I was debating full frame but the 5DII isn't where I would like it to be for that kind of money. When I go full frame I'll probably by going to the 24-70 f2.8 as my primary wedding zoom. Until a full frame comes out with the focusing and metering upgrades that the 7D (in the $3000 +/- range) has I'll just keep on working on getting good glass.</p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>If you have room, like outside, use the 50 or 85 you'll see a vast difference. Too many folks have on their mind groups/wideangle. On the Hasselblad I used to shoot many groups with the 100 and even 180 which is about like the 50 and 105. I have not used the 24 but I would venture you'll get some great results and having the 1.4 is a huge plus overall. I use a 28 on my Nikon, but have not yet found a wider lens I'm happy enough with to actually drop the cash. I'm not rushing, I'll get what I want when I go for the D700, so I can relate to your tale well.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>I would say that buying a 24mm f1.4L is not necessarily going to solve your distortion problem. This is because you are using a cropped sensor camera. The distortion present in a wide angle lens (as part of its design) will not go away just because you are using it on a cropped sensor camera as a 38mm focal length. I noticed this when I was shooting group shots that had strong horizontal linear elements on a 20D.</p>

<p>Also, go to photozone and compare barrel distortion between the 24mm L and the 17-40 at 24mm. They are described as "slight" and "very slight", respectively, even though prime lenses are supposed to have a little less distortion than a zoom at comparable focal lengths.</p>

<p>As for sharpness, at the f stops needed for DOF for group shots, I doubt the difference between the prime and zoom is going to be much.</p>

<p>At the very least, rent one before buying to be sure you are getting what you expect.</p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>I try to shoot groups in shade, subdued light or with their backs to the sun to avoid squinting. I have two 550 EX and one 580 II EX flash that in a pinch if faces are to shaded can be used for fill. If I don't use wide angle then all fill lighting needs to get moved back so as not to appear in the picture thus rendering it useless on a bright day. If I used my 50mm with a 40D for group shots then I'd be a mile back. I also pose while looking over the camera, so if I move back to far I might miss posing problems (crooked ties, etc.) that I would have caught closer up. I guess another option would be a 35mm f1.4 L. </p>

[picturesque]

<p>Try posting a shot where you've moved people in from the edges and you still are getting the distortion you are talking about. If it were me, I'd keep a healthy distance from the sides of the frame, and try not to have groups spread out width-wise so much. Use of chairs or steps to create more rows (staggaring faces, etc.) might help.</p>

<p>Using a 35mm (50mm) lens for group shots outside against bright sun, when you need strong fill, is going to be difficult.</p>

[ejder]

<p>You will get 0 difference in distortion between 24mm on the 17-40 and 24mm on the 24L. </p>

<p>Formals look much better with longer focal lengths. When I have adequate working distance, I use the 85L for formals.</p>

<p>The 17-40 isn't any benefit over a 17-55 IS to a 40D owner. For only a few hundred $$ more you can have f/2.8, IS, and up to 55mm on the zoom, plus equally sharp or sharper optics. Top quality lens for your camera.</p>

<p>24L has other great uses (creative DoF control and perspective, low light photography), but it would not provide any significant advantage for formals.</p>

[fotografz]

<p>A couple of ideas:</p>

<p>1) Compose the formals to fit with-in a 8"X10" aspect ratio rather than the 7" X 10.5" one the camera takes. That will eliminate some of the edge distortion and vignetting that shifts colors at the edges ... while providing more room around the image to correct any remaining distortion using Photoshop. Most super wide-angle lenses are softer at the edges anyway.</p>

<p>2) The only wide angle lens that would solve this issue in any way is a Canon Tilt-Shift TS-E Manual Focus Lens used on a tripod mounted camera ... a 24/3.5L TS-E is currently still available as new stock in the first version for $1,199. from B&H ... which is a lot more economical than a new 24/1.4L-II @ $1,700. You would need to learn how to use a T/S-E lens, but it isn't all that difficult ... and actually is fun.</p>

<p>This lens would also solve many of the DOF issues when shooting groups since you can use the tilt function to increase depth of field without having to stop down as much as with a normal lens. BTW, a TS-E lens would be killer for church interiors and exteriors since its primary reason for existing is for architectural photography.</p>

<p>Canon now also makes a 17/4L TS-E which would be better on a crop frame camera by providing a perspective corrected 28mm field-of-view, but at its $2,500. price tag, you could get a 5D-II to use for full frame capture instead. </p>

<p> </p>

[zlatko]

<p>Chad, it sounds like you are describing two problems: softness along the edge and wide angle distortion. The 17-40 should give you very sharp images. Perhaps your lens needs adjustment.<br>

<br /> To avoid wide angle distortion, you should avoid the wide angle. Shoot with as long a focal length as is practical for the subject matter and the available working distance. Ideally, shoot formals with about a 50mm equivalent focal length. 24mm on the 40D camera is about as wide as you should go for formals (unless there's really no room to backup). A little longer would be better. If you shoot with a longer focal length, you won't need to use DPP to correct distortion.<br>

<br /> I don't understand your comment about people along the edge looking skinny. Wide angle lenses (except for fisheyes) do the opposite; they make people look fatter and wider along the edges. Perhaps you are overdoing the software correction.</p>

[mark_t5]

<p>i would say no to the lens. there is really no point of slapping $1.6k for a lens for something as easily solved as looking for a better spot and shoot further back.</p>

<p>its a group shot..so you can pretty much dictate where the shot can happen.</p>

<p>and the 1.4 aperture not gonna buy anything useful for you when it comes to group shot..you'd be most likely be shooting in a lower aperture anyways unless you want only their nose tips to be in focus.</p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>sorry my mistake... yes people looked shorter and wider.... it's been a few months since I edited the last wedding</p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>I just like the idea of having a wide or semi wide angle lens to slap on the camera for formals so I don't accidentally go wider then 24mm. It wasn't often that I didn't have the room, I was just staying close enough to make sure everyones clothes and positioning looked good (not through the lens) and that I was close enough for fill flash. Unfortunately I live in the foothills of the Rockies so not much shade from trees and not many cloudy days (last wedding was a killer). Not trying to per say justify another purchase just find ways of improving my photography (although I do like buying new equipment).</p>

[ejder]

<p>There's limited danger of "accidentally" going wider if you keep your hand away from the zoom and are a self-aware human being with no psychomotor disorders.</p>

<p>Since you have $1600 burning a hole in your pocket, invest the money in a set of strobes powerful enough to compete with sunlight, plus a battery pack and some large modifiers (like PCB's new parabolic reflectors). $1k for the strobes and battery, another $500 for stands, modifiers and radio triggers...then you can use whatever lens you want, and handle outdoor formals easily and consistently.</p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>If you like primes then how about 35/2. Save yourself some $$. I don't have this lens but I hear good things about it. I tested it in-store against a 17-40/4 and it easily outperformed the zoom. Great color, contrast, and sharpness when stopped down a tad.</p>

[picturesque]

<p>There is an easy way to tell if a prime, fixed focal length will help. Rent them and you will know.</p>

<p>As for the fill flash problem. The less costly way is to make your groups less wide, as both Marc W. and I have suggested. About the only cost might be investing in some folding stools. Six of them could help a lot for moderate groups. I get mine at Walmart--black metal, folding, for about $12-15 as I recall. Most kids and young men are used to being told to sit or kneel in front. Intelligent placement of back rows so faces show and knowing how to compact groups also help.</p>

<p>You could get more powerful/off camera flashes. A used Norman 200 or 400B might cost you less than the triggers you'll need for them. A used Metz 60 would buy you another length of subject distance--you might be able to do groups at f11, ISO 100 at 18-20 ft. (for 1 stop less fill). I use Sunpak 120Js. I don't think PLMs would be good outside though--the wind would knock them over. With the Metz, you can just swap out your regular on camera flash with it for just the formals. And remember that if you're using a more tele focal length, you aren't going to run into the problem of a forward placed flash being in the frame as often.</p>

<p>I have the 35mm f2. At the f stops you will need for groups, it will be more than fine.</p>