Reviewing my lenses... do I need an ultra wide one?

Vikingblue

Vikingblue

Suspended / Banned
Messages
115
Name
Shaun
Edit My Images
Yes
I've been reviewing my lenses, partly as I'm photographing a friends wedding next year, and trying to decide whether I have any gaps or more importantly what new toys I can buy next :lol:

I currently have:
Canon 24-70mm f2.8 L
Canon 70mm-200mm f4 L
Canon 50mm f1.8
Canon 100mm f2.8 macro

I'm thinking of changing my 70-200mm for the f2.8 (IS or non-IS still debating) but have always thought I might need a wider lens, such as the 17-40mm L. I mainly shoot cityscapes, landscapes and portraits of my kids, with the odd bit of macro thrown in. Use my 24-70mm as my walkabout lens, and generally find it wide enough, accept when for some architecture shots. Is a 17-40mm L a sensible lens to get or is it too close to my 24-70mm?

Thanks in advance.
 
How about you give me all of them and start fresh? I'm after what you already have lol
 
What body do you have? Also what flash?

Lens-wise unless you are a pro shooting multiple weddings I'd say you have more than enough. It's currently what I carry to weddings albeit Nikon equivalents. I do have the 70-200 f2.8 but I'd say if you are only doing to odd wedding as a favour for friends then the f4 is fine.
 
The other thing for me was weight,it maybe not a problem for you ?

I had the Nikon Holy Grail 14-24 24-70 70-200,and the thing was i just couldn't carry them all,going out for a day was :eek:.

Maybe i would add an fixed ultra wide :)
 
For cityscapes and landscapes have you considered a tilt shift? It won't be a lot of use for the wedding but for those uses they're fantastic. If you get a 24mm TS-E you can use your existing filters (the 17mm needs a different holder) and if you need a wider angle you can use shift to stitch a set of images.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mark, hadn't thought about a tilt shift, but that could be a really good shout :clap:I'm not great at PP so haven't really tried stitching pictures before, but something to think about.

What body do you have? Also what flash?
Click to expand...
Sorry, should have said I'm shooting ff on a Canon 6D. Have a Canon 430 EXII flash. Was told f4 would be too slow in the church, so hence thinking of switching to the f2.8.
 
For cityscapes and landscapes have you considered a tilt shift? It won't be a lot of use for the wedding but for those uses they're fantastic. If you get a 24mm TS-E you can use your existing filters (the 17mm needs a different holder) and if you need a wider angle you can use shift to stitch a set of images.
Click to expand...
Thanks Mark, hadn't thought about a tilt shift, but that could be a really good shout :clap:I'm not great at PP so haven't really tried stitching pictures before, but something to think about.

What body do you have? Also what flash?
Click to expand...
Sorry, should have said I'm shooting ff on a Canon 6D. Have a Canon 430 EXII flash. Was told f4 would be too slow in the church, so hence thinking of switching to the f2.8.
 
Yeah, you should get an ultra (ULTRA!) wide. They do amazing things and really give a different perspective to the world.
 
For FF and ULTRA wide, I would recommend the Sigma 12-24. Incredibly well corrected as far as distortions go but watch out for converging verticals! As to whether you NEED one in your bag, only you can answer that. If you want one and can afford it, see if you can pick one up 2nd hand, that way, if you decide you don't need it, you should be able to sell it on at little or no loss.
 
Nod said:
For FF and ULTRA wide, I would recommend the Sigma 12-24. Incredibly well corrected as far as distortions go but watch out for converging verticals! As to whether you NEED one in your bag, only you can answer that. If you want one and can afford it, see if you can pick one up 2nd hand, that way, if you decide you don't need it, you should be able to sell it on at little or no loss.
Click to expand...

Yep was going to suggest the same, have read a lot of good reviews of the 12-24mm.
 
Vikingblue said:
Was told f4 would be too slow in the church, so hence thinking of switching to the f2.8.
Click to expand...

Is your mate paying you to photograph his wedding? If not then it's a hefty upgrade fee to get an extra stop of light for his wedding. Given how good modern cameras are with ISO, I'd be tempted to up that by a stop and save the money.

Of course if you are possibly thinking about going pro at some point then yes....the 2.8 would be a wise investment over a longer period.
 
f/2.8 lenses may help AF speed and accuracy in dim light.
 
Joeturner11 said:
What about the Canon 8-15mm f/4 Fisheye, I here it has amazing reviews and is small and light and offers something Different to your Photography bag...
Click to expand...
Yeah was looking into a fisheye, as like that technique. Thanks.

Nod said:
For FF and ULTRA wide, I would recommend the Sigma 12-24. Incredibly well corrected as far as distortions go but watch out for converging verticals! As to whether you NEED one in your bag, only you can answer that. If you want one and can afford it, see if you can pick one up 2nd hand, that way, if you decide you don't need it, you should be able to sell it on at little or no loss.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, will have a look into it, must admit I hadn't thought THAT wide, but worth a look.

gadgeteer said:
Is your mate paying you to photograph his wedding? If not then it's a hefty upgrade fee to get an extra stop of light for his wedding. Given how good modern cameras are with ISO, I'd be tempted to up that by a stop and save the money.

Of course if you are possibly thinking about going pro at some point then yes....the 2.8 would be a wise investment over a longer period.
Click to expand...
I did wonder whether the 6D, given how good it is in low light, might be ok in the dim light. Might wait and try some test shots in the church/castle before investing in the f2.8.

Great comments all, some lenses to consider I hadn't even considered!
 
Samyang 14mm f/2.8 is what I went for. You can pick them up for about £200 ish used.
 
If you are finding during the course of your photo sessions you NEED a wide angle often (more than a 24mm!) then yup, you need one. If you don't then you don't. You're the only one that can answer that.
Before trying to cover every possible focal length gap you have (you really don't by the way), I'd focus more on your technique - for instance basics like your camera holding technique that's demoed in your avatar is far from stable etc. etc.
Also, when you do find you need to go a bit wider or a bit tighter, can you shift your position forwards or backwards to get that shot or change your approach? 95% of the time it'll be a yes.
For the majority of weddings I shoot a 35mm, 85mm and 135mm - your 24-70mm and 100mm would be more than enough.
Hope that helps and saves you spending unnessesary dosh :-)
 
Before trying to cover every possible focal length gap you have (you really don't by the way), I'd focus more on your technique - for instance basics like your camera holding technique that's demoed in your avatar is far from stable etc. etc.
Click to expand...
Thanks Christo,,useful advice. Thankfully, (or not) the pic on the Avatar was taken a fair few years ago, with my first SLR, a basic Sony. My gear has moved on from then, hopefully my technique has too! Lol.
 
Vikingblue said:
Yeah was looking into a fisheye, as like that technique. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I got my 8-15 almost exactly a year ago - on a whim - I thought it would be great for a starscape project I had in mind.
However - it's turned out to be one of my most used lenses this year.
The occasional landscape, but most have been social situations - fund-raisers, festivals, parties.
I'm proud of the images I've taken with this lens.
For example, one I took a couple of weekends ago of a food festival was used in a glossy magazine and is due to be republished in a feature about the venue.

But I totally get that the 8-15 is not for everyone :)
I think Christo sums it up nicely - that's a great post.

Oh - and he's also right about 'needing' the wide angle - you don't - it's a sod to work with.
Which is why I've been making the most of my 135 f2 (at f2) or 300mm f4 (at f4) and on the second body the 8-15.
Just got to get on with it when you have no choice - and the 8-15 forces the photographer to think out the box and be creative.
The results have proven this works for me.
Yup - I love it :)

Edited to add - I've been really slack recently - very few of the 8-15 images are on my website - there's more of them on TP than on my website :)
 
Last edited:
i've been looking for 1 recently and the Tokina 11-16 looks nice
 
Thanks all, great advice. So you've convinced me that a Canon 17-40mm is not what I need next, instead I'm now looking at a 8-15 fisheye and the 12-24 sigma, both allowing me to try some completely different techniques. Do like the thought of a tilt shift, but think that's beyond my budget at the moment!
 
Vikingblue said:
Do like the thought of a tilt shift, but think that's beyond my budget at the moment!
Click to expand...
I also have a 24mm TSE II which I've not used much for people shots, but it's wonderful for landscapes. Heck of a learning curve though!
Like the fisheye - most people simply won't get on with these lenses and will end up being left in the cupboard except for special occasions.
However - if you are thinking of 24mm then there's a cost effective way to see if you will get on with a TSE.
Buy a second-hand Mk I - they hold their value well and if you don't get on with it, then sell it on.
I decided that if I was still using the Mk I regularly after 12 months, I'd treat myself to an upgrade to the Mk II - I was, and I did :)

The image quality reviews might be slightly off-putting compared to the stellar Mk II, but actually it's more than capable of producing decent A3 prints - only the pixel peepers will be disappointed.
Some of the images I created with the Mk I still rate amongst my favourites and the image quality is good enough that I've never regretted my decision to postpone getting the Mk II.

Hope this helped :)
 
I have the Canon 6D and mainly do landscapes and find that my Canon 17-40 is hardly off the body, also have the Canon 24-105 which is used most of the rest of the time. Hope that this helps, Phil
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
I also have a 24mm TSE II which I've not used much for people shots, but it's wonderful for landscapes. Heck of a learning curve though!
Like the fisheye - most people simply won't get on with these lenses and will end up being left in the cupboard except for special occasions.
However - if you are thinking of 24mm then there's a cost effective way to see if you will get on with a TSE.
Buy a second-hand Mk I - they hold their value well and if you don't get on with it, then sell it on.
I decided that if I was still using the Mk I regularly after 12 months, I'd treat myself to an upgrade to the Mk II - I was, and I did :)

The image quality reviews might be slightly off-putting compared to the stellar Mk II, but actually it's more than capable of producing decent A3 prints - only the pixel peepers will be disappointed.
Some of the images I created with the Mk I still rate amongst my favourites and the image quality is good enough that I've never regretted my decision to postpone getting the Mk II.

Hope this helped :)
Click to expand...
Thanks Duncan, am I right in thinking the MK I is manual focus? I'm watching a couple of lenses just now, and there is a MK I in there. I'm happy to go cheap to begin with to see if it's something I like. Thanks for the recommndation :)
 
Vikingblue said:
Thanks Duncan, am I right in thinking the MK I is manual focus? I'm watching a couple of lenses just now, and there is a MK I in there. I'm happy to go cheap to begin with to see if it's something I like. Thanks for the recommndation :)
Click to expand...
LOL - yup...
No auto focus, no stabilistation, and when you shift the metering goes up the spout.
Also - the mental gymnastics and frustration trying to get an extreme level of tilt sharp in all the places you want it to be sharp beggars belief.
But I do also refer to the TSE as my lazy landscape lens; I know from experience that in low light I can get away without a tripod and horizon on the top 1/3; normally needing a small aperture and tripod or stupid ISO. But by using half a degree down tilt even wide open everything will be pin sharp from my feet to the horizon.
 
I've got a 17-40 L and its ok. Wouldn't say its one of Canons greatest lenses. Thought about the 12-24 but on a full frame there is a significant light fall off towards the edges when wide open. It gets better when you stop down but its still there. Also its difficult to use a filter stack as the front element is domed and you need to use the fancy lens cap to mount a holder. This just makes it vignette even more. Didn't buy it in the end as I felt it was too much of a compromise. Shame really as its pretty sharp, especially in the centre.
 
I you are doing a wedding, then go WI.............................................................................................................DE.

I mean FE................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top