My wife is doing a small casual wedding and I want to get her a new wide angle lens that doesn't make people look short and fat like umpa lumpas for the group shots. What suggestions would you give me. I went to a couple local camera shops and they either talked over my head or couldn't give me the time of day. Is it a wide angle i need to buy her for group shots or I guess what would you guys suggest for this and not break the bank. Any and all help is appreciated. I have looked through the threads but being a non camera person a lot doesn't make sense to me.
1st wedding coming up
- Thread starter monkey101
- Start date
rocketman122
Senior Member
WA for a group shot? who told you you need a wide angle lens for that. My last photo I did at a wedding I shot yesterday was the rest of those that stayed. cant remember how many. but around 20. have to check the pictures. but I didnt use a wide angle lens at all. in fact, for proper aesthetics and correct perspectives a wa lens is not what you want to use.
not only that but during the wedding, the parents wanted pics with their friends from work and I was so tight in space that only there I had to use my 28-70 AFS at 28mm. but my technique is bring the people from behind. I dont like rows where you basically see people in the front looking like they have two heads on their bodies. and move back and zoom in.
I cant recommend a WA lens for group shots. I use a tamron 17-35 2.8-4 and use it for 2 things. 1, when I have NO choice because the dance floor is so tight and crowded (weddings here are 300+ people at least) and 2 for photos of the venue. tables, chuppa. but just a few. I never took it out once for group shot. I will do all I can before Ill shoot people with anything wider than 28mm. thats my widest. and those who do those stair picture...it wont happen everywhere that youll have stairs appear magically. thats just a luck thing for the situation. and even then I wouldnt use a WA.
but since you said this
I want to get her a new wide angle lens that doesn't make people look short and fat like umpa lumpas for the group shots.
I will chuckle (cause its cute) but also nod and say oh geez. no wide angle lens from 50 onwards makes people look good. you should learn about aesthetics and focal lengths that makes people look good. those focal lengths are simply not aesthetically pleasing for portraits. you can shoot full body shots 24-35mm but it isnt aesthetic. you will see those who are towards the edge will look fatter than they are. not only that, but if you shoot 2 rows or more, the ones in the back will look tiny and far from those closer to the lens. also, let me say it once. there is no wa lens, none, that you will shoot past 24mm (and even 24mm is a fine line) and they wont look umpa lumpa. the wa pulls their faces and stretches anyone being dowards the edges of the corner or edge of the frame. thats the laws of lenses. the people in the middle will look fine (not really..but..) but those towards the edge will look fatter.
when I shoot groups of people, I try never to do 2 or more rows of people. I bring everyone to the sides, making a straight line and go back and shoot. anything from 35 onward depending how much space I have to work with.
when I did the family formals yesterday, I moved back and shot everyone (mother/father/3 brothers/2 grandparents/bride&groom) at around 85mm. perfect aesthetics, straight and they look amazing. i would never shove a wa in peoples faces. my technique has the background compressed right behind them and its nice and blurry. theres a clear seperation between the background to them. with wide angle anything in the background will be in focus. distracting or not.
not only that but during the wedding, the parents wanted pics with their friends from work and I was so tight in space that only there I had to use my 28-70 AFS at 28mm. but my technique is bring the people from behind. I dont like rows where you basically see people in the front looking like they have two heads on their bodies. and move back and zoom in.
I cant recommend a WA lens for group shots. I use a tamron 17-35 2.8-4 and use it for 2 things. 1, when I have NO choice because the dance floor is so tight and crowded (weddings here are 300+ people at least) and 2 for photos of the venue. tables, chuppa. but just a few. I never took it out once for group shot. I will do all I can before Ill shoot people with anything wider than 28mm. thats my widest. and those who do those stair picture...it wont happen everywhere that youll have stairs appear magically. thats just a luck thing for the situation. and even then I wouldnt use a WA.
but since you said this
I want to get her a new wide angle lens that doesn't make people look short and fat like umpa lumpas for the group shots.
I will chuckle (cause its cute) but also nod and say oh geez. no wide angle lens from 50 onwards makes people look good. you should learn about aesthetics and focal lengths that makes people look good. those focal lengths are simply not aesthetically pleasing for portraits. you can shoot full body shots 24-35mm but it isnt aesthetic. you will see those who are towards the edge will look fatter than they are. not only that, but if you shoot 2 rows or more, the ones in the back will look tiny and far from those closer to the lens. also, let me say it once. there is no wa lens, none, that you will shoot past 24mm (and even 24mm is a fine line) and they wont look umpa lumpa. the wa pulls their faces and stretches anyone being dowards the edges of the corner or edge of the frame. thats the laws of lenses. the people in the middle will look fine (not really..but..) but those towards the edge will look fatter.
when I shoot groups of people, I try never to do 2 or more rows of people. I bring everyone to the sides, making a straight line and go back and shoot. anything from 35 onward depending how much space I have to work with.
when I did the family formals yesterday, I moved back and shot everyone (mother/father/3 brothers/2 grandparents/bride&groom) at around 85mm. perfect aesthetics, straight and they look amazing. i would never shove a wa in peoples faces. my technique has the background compressed right behind them and its nice and blurry. theres a clear seperation between the background to them. with wide angle anything in the background will be in focus. distracting or not.
Last edited:
rocketman122
Senior Member
she needs a dx lens. the 28-70 AFS is made for FF. can be used with dx, but youre limiting yourself with it for wide angle.
midrange pro zoom lenses she should look at
tokina 16-50 2.8
nikon 17-55 AFS 2.8 (owned it used can be found cheap)
sigma 18-35 1.8 what i would buy today if I was with DX.
tamron 17-50 2.8
if shes going to make money doing weddings, invest in a pro grade lens. IQ is much better. the clients are happy, youre happy. better rep, better money. its a cycle.
if she wants a wide angle for DX then ask in the wide angle section. cant remember whats available for DX as I shoot FF. for group shot, no way in hell would I use a wide angle. widest I went was 28mm and thats extreme for me. when I shoot people I go back and zoom in. shot the family here with a 70-200 VR1. perfect aesthetics nicely compressed. everyone is straight. you shoot with a WA everyone looks distorted. not a good thing for your rep. everyone has a smartphone that has a WA in it. your pictures wont stand out.
Somersetscott
Senior Member
I second the Nikkor 28-70mm AF-S f2.8, but then I'm using it on an FX body - I thought my old Tamron 28-75mm f2.8 Macro was alright, until I bought the Nikkor - Unbelievable difference. The Tamron's image quality was amazing at 28mm then tapered off to awful when wide and at 75mm (even tripod, fast shutter etc.). So on that front, I'd not buy cheapy versions again without trying them out first.
Of the ones mentioned - If I had DX and was looking for wide I'd be tempted to go for that Sigma 17-35mm f1.8 I can't vouch as I've never used or owned one. .
When I was the proud owner of a D7000 I had a Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 as my wide it was amazing! distortion was considerable at 11mm when close to subject though.
hope you find your lens
Of the ones mentioned - If I had DX and was looking for wide I'd be tempted to go for that Sigma 17-35mm f1.8 I can't vouch as I've never used or owned one. .
When I was the proud owner of a D7000 I had a Tokina 11-16mm F2.8 as my wide it was amazing! distortion was considerable at 11mm when close to subject though.
hope you find your lens
I just wanted to thank everyone again for the info. The wedding went off with only a few weather hitches that she worked through and the bride loves the pictures.
She mainly used a nikon 24-70m. The one thing htat I would like to ask is it was supposed to be an outside wedding that got moved into a dimly lit small hall. The flash wasn't really helping out and the pics were kinda dark but easily fixed with photoshop. I was curious what lenses you guy s use for this situation.
She mainly used a nikon 24-70m. The one thing htat I would like to ask is it was supposed to be an outside wedding that got moved into a dimly lit small hall. The flash wasn't really helping out and the pics were kinda dark but easily fixed with photoshop. I was curious what lenses you guy s use for this situation.