Low cost wide-angle suggestions please

jammy_c

jammy_c

Suspended / Banned
Messages
991
Name
James
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey Guys! Seems like forever ago that I was on here. Hope you're all doing well!
So...
I've been helping out shooting a few weddings recently and have found that the 24-70mm L F2.8 on the 5Dmkii Just isn't wide enough, especially shooting in confined spaces, bridal prep, and receptions.
I havn't got the budget to go for full-frame wide angle glass at the moment. I can't warrent spending more than about £350, so will prob look for used equipment if necessary.
So I was wondering people's opinions on the following choices:
A) An entry level Canon DSLR bodywith a flip-screen/live view, so that I could also hoist up on a tripod or monopod with a remote trigger, combined with something like the Sigma 10-20mm or Canon 10-18mm lens? Obvs this would be a crop-frame sensor body! and keep this as a stand-alone wide-angle setup in the camera bag to grab when needed.
B) Use something like the Sigma 10-20mm or Canon 10-18mm lens on the 5d or 1d? and deal with the enormous vignetting by cropping afterwards in lightroom.
C) Buy a compact like a Canon G11/G12 and use this instead (also on the end of a tripod/monopod with remote shutter) and wireless flash triggers.
D) none of the above because there is a better solution...
What's going to give the best results, bang for buck?
... Cheers in advance guys, and if you have an suggestions on the hardware to go for then that would be awesome also!
 
"deal with the enormous vignetting by cropping afterwards in lightroom." Isn't that just going to defeat the purpose of shooting with a wide angle in the first place?

Obviously everyone shoots weddings differently, but I can't imagine hoisting cameras up on monopods in the middle of the room when the bride's getting ready.

Buying a crop sensor camera just for a wide angle seems silly, unless you can get a really good deal. I'd just save up a bit longer and buy a proper wide angle lens for one of your existing cameras. It's going to last you longer and be compatible with any cameras you upgrade to in the future.

In the meantime, just don't shoot so wide ;) People in small spaces with very wide angles is a pain to shoot without stretching heads anyway. Personally I haven't used wider than 35mm in a long time at a wedding (besides the odd fisheye shot for fun).
 
Jayst84 said:
"deal with the enormous vignetting by cropping afterwards in lightroom." Isn't that just going to defeat the purpose of shooting with a wide angle in the first place?

Obviously everyone shoots weddings differently, but I can't imagine hoisting cameras up on monopods in the middle of the room when the bride's getting ready.

Buying a crop sensor camera just for a wide angle seems silly, unless you can get a really good deal. I'd just save up a bit longer and buy a proper wide angle lens for one of your existing cameras. It's going to last you longer and be compatible with any cameras you upgrade to in the future.

In the meantime, just don't shoot so wide ;) People in small spaces with very wide angles is a pain to shoot without stretching heads anyway. Personally I haven't used wider than 35mm in a long time at a wedding (besides the odd fisheye shot for fun).
Click to expand...
I know what you mean about cropping, but from what I've read it's good from about the 13mm mark on a FF body. I know when that's translated from aps-c to FF that doesn't give much over the 24mm I've already got, but I didn't know if it would perhaps be enough to make the difference.

Almost ever wedding I've shot this year (nine) I have wished I had a wide angle to hand. Whether that's in a church or small ceremony room.

Hoisting the camera up on a pod, I was referring to shooting right in the top corner of a room for either bridal prep or evening function/disco primarily.
 
Jayst84 said:
I stand corrected. Forgot about the 17-40, good option if you're happy with f/4.
Click to expand...
F/4 wouldn't be an issue as it would be mainly for deep DOF shots and buildings. Hopefully winding up the ISO a little for reception shots would work and I've got a 50mm f1.4 for detail and low-light stuff.
 
The 17-40 sounds like a versatile lens you could shoot a good chuck of a wedding with one I would imagine.

The tokina 16-28 is meant to be great if you want something faster and good value. It's one at auction on eBay at the moment ending in 3 days some go for under £300.
 
Last edited:
Samyang 14mm is cheap and sharp lens! I love mine
 
jammy_c said:
I know what you mean about cropping, but from what I've read it's good from about the 13mm mark on a FF body. I know when that's translated from aps-c to FF that doesn't give much over the 24mm I've already got, but I didn't know if it would perhaps be enough to make the difference.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "translated from APSC to FF", 13mm is 13mm no matter what size sensor
 
rpsmith79 said:
What do you mean "translated from APSC to FF", 13mm is 13mm no matter what size sensor
Click to expand...
Pretty clear what he means.[edit, maybe not so clear to someone like me who can't read properly] He's comparing 13mm on his (hypothetical) crop sensor, to 24mm on his 5D. So he only gets a field of view equivalent to about a 3mm shorter lens on his 5D.
 
Last edited:
Jayst84 said:
Pretty clear what he means. He's comparing 13mm on his (hypothetical) crop sensor, to 24mm on his 5D. So he only gets a field of view equivalent to about a 3mm shorter lens on his 5D.
Click to expand...

I thought he was meaning fitting that lens onto a FF body, it would be good from 13mm upward, which would still be 13mm, maybe i read it wrong o_O

jammy_c said:
but from what I've read it's good from about the 13mm mark on a FF body
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
rpsmith79 said:
I thought he was meaning fitting that lens onto a FF body, it would be good from 13mm upward, which would still be 13mm, maybe i read it wrong o_O
Click to expand...
I mean there's no major vignetting at FLs greater than 13mm. The field of view will be tighter though. So, if my maths is correct you need to take 13mm x 1.6 to get the relative FF equivalent. Is that right...? I'm not certain.
 
13mm is 13mm no matter what sensor you put behind it, i bought my Tokina 12-24mm off a chap who had a FF body (i have a crop body), but he only ever used it above something like 14mm as there was no vignetting at that point, but it is still 14mm
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
But the effective FOV isn't.
Click to expand...

If you fit a Sigma 10-20mm lens (designed for crop body cameras) to a FF body and shoot at 13mm, you will get the same FOV as if you used any other 13mm lens designed for FF.................. or am i missing something
 
rpsmith79 said:
If you fit a Sigma 10-20mm lens (designed for crop body cameras) to a FF body and shoot at 13mm, you will get the same FOV as if you used any other 13mm lens designed for FF.................. or am i missing something
Click to expand...
You're correct.

The focal length of a physical property of a lens. It does not change depending on what type of camera the lens is connected to.
The field of view is determined by the focal length and the sensor size, nothing else.
So you are right and @minnnt is wrong.
 
StewartR said:
You're correct.

The focal length of a physical property of a lens. It does not change depending on what type of camera the lens is connected to.
The field of view is determined by the focal length and the sensor size, nothing else.
So you are right and @minnnt is wrong.
Click to expand...

Cheers, i thought i was going mad there for a second, i know it's still early but..........
 
rpsmith79 said:
I thought he was meaning fitting that lens onto a FF body, it would be good from 13mm upward, which would still be 13mm, maybe i read it wrong o_O
Click to expand...

Sorry, yeah, I really should just stop responding to this thread :D or at least read it properly. Got thrown by your comment about sensor size, but yeah, OP is saying about putting it on a FF body, so 13mm would of course be 13mm (as it always is) and would give the same field of view as a 'full frame' 13mm lens.
 
Jesus
 
minnnt said:
If the guy was using it at 14mm on his FX and you're using it at 14mm on your DX then you will be seeing a 21mm (or 22.4mm on Canon) FOV.
Click to expand...

Yes, but that is not what we are talking about here, i wasn't trying to say you get the same FOV between crop and FF, i was saying that a 14mm lens designed for a crop body is still a 14mm lens on a FF body
 
minnnt said:
If the guy was using it at 14mm on his FX and you're using it at 14mm on your DX then you will be seeing a 21mm (or 22.4mm on Canon) FOV.
Click to expand...
That's how I understood it, but then I've never actually used the same lens on crop and FF so can't speak from experience.
 
rpsmith79 said:
I thought he was meaning fitting that lens onto a FF body, it would be good from 13mm upward, which would still be 13mm, maybe i read it wrong o_O
Click to expand...
Yeah, I meant at between 10mm and 13mm the black border/vignetting means it's effectively useless and needs to be cropped in anyway. So, it's only really usable at 13mm or more zoomed in. And that 13mm on FF will give a different FOV than it will on a crop body. Is that correct? I seem to have caused a riot. Sorry.
 
I think we had crossed wires mate. I wasn't trying to be a dick (surprisingly as it seems to come naturally :D ) so we were looking at it from different ways.

It's always good to have a spare camera for weddings but an entry level body and 10-18 will more than likely be over budget and the body imo won't cut it. I'd build your lens collection if i were you and go for the 17-40. It's a FF lens and a very popular one at that. They're a great price now second hand.
 
And to settle the other argument, do we all agree that a fixed focal length lens (50mm for example) will give a different FOV on crop frame than it will on a FF, despite still being "50mm" on both cameras. That's the point I was trying to make. Sorry guys.
 
Last edited:
minnnt said:
I think we had crossed wires mate. I wasn't trying to be a dick (surprisingly as it seems to come naturally :D ) so we were looking at it from different ways.

It's always good to have a spare camera for weddings but an entry level body and 10-18 will more than likely be over budget and the body imo won't cut it. I'd build your lens collection if i were you and go for the 17-40. It's a FF lens and a very popular one at that. They're a great price now second hand.
Click to expand...
Seems a logical choice at that price. :)
 
Lenses are always referred to in FF terms so the 10-18 is 10-18 on a FF sensor but it is an APS-C lens so the effective field of view is 16-28.8mm (on a crop body). If that lens works on a FF body at 13mm then it's a good shout although 13mm is very very very wide.
 
jammy_c said:
And to settle the other argument, do we all agree that a fixed focal length lens (50mm for example) will give a different FOV on crop frame than it will on a FF, despite still being "55mm" on both cameras. That's the point I was trying to make. Sorry guys.
Click to expand...

I think my brain is failing now. :LOL:

50mm is 50mm. It will give the perspective of 50mm if a shot is taken at the same camera to subject distance. The field of view is similar to 80mm when used on a crop body.

I think...

:D
 
jammy_c said:
That's how I understood it, but then I've never actually used the same lens on crop and FF so can't speak from experience.
Click to expand...
jammy_c said:
And to settle the other argument, do we all agree that a fixed focal length lens (50mm for example) will give a different FOV on crop frame than it will on a FF, despite still being "55mm" on both cameras. That's the point I was trying to make. Sorry guys.
Click to expand...
You understand it correctly. The two images below were shot using the same lens from the same position (on a tripod) the only thing that changed was the camera body, one was a Nikon D70 (crop) the other a Nikon D600 (FF), the lens was a Nikon 50mm f1.8g (if it matters) ... sorry for the poor subject matter but I needed something quickly to demonstrate effective field of view when I shot these (2012 I think).
Crop_Demo_D70-4286 by Paul, on Flickr Crop_Demo_D600-0179 by Paul, on Flickr
 
We get the same problems as focal length and angle of view equivalences in light bulbs of different technologies. So you get a compact fluorescent of 20Watts which is described as tungsten equivalent 100Watts. Which of course doesn't mean tungsten halogen, which is more efficient than plain old tungsten, neglecting of course the fact that we're now standardising tungsten bulb running temperatures based on European common voltages. All these problems would disappear if people would just use the proper units to describe what they're talking about, such as FOV degrees when discussing how wide the angle of view of a lens is. For example a rather critical angle of view when we shoot so often in rectangular rooms is 90 degrees. It's very useful to know if a specific lens and camera combination has a horizontal angle of view of more or less than 90 degrees. All this talk about focal length equivalents just confuses the issue.
 
minnnt said:
I think my brain is failing now.[emoji38]

50mm is 50mm. It will give the perspective of 50mm if a shot is taken at the same camera to subject distance. The field of view is similar to 80mm when used on a crop body.

I think...

:D
Click to expand...
Haha. Sorry. I meant to say 50mm. This us what working nightshift does to you!
 
PaulButler said:
You understand it correctly. The two images below were shot using the same lens from the same position (on a tripod) the only thing that changed was the camera body, one was a Nikon D70 (crop) the other a Nikon D600 (FF), the lens was a Nikon 50mm f1.8g (if it matters) ... sorry for the poor subject matter but I needed something quickly to demonstrate effective field of view when I shot these (2012 I think).
Crop_Demo_D70-4286 by Paul, on Flickr Crop_Demo_D600-0179 by Paul, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Cheers Paul. Good demonstration :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top