Jump to content


Do I really need a SUPER-wide lens?


  • Please log in to reply
3 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_photogbuff_1970_*

Guest_photogbuff_1970_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 April 2010 - 10:33 AM

I've been trying to pare my required kit down so that I don't squeeze my mother for too much commission when I go to sell her house. I've been vascillating between keeping the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 on my list or just dropping it completely. I've got to decide between the Nikon 17-55mm f/2.8 AF-S DX or the Tamron VC 17-50 f/2.8 and I'm leaning towards the Tamron in terms of price. Basically, my wedding kit would be this: DXXXx DX 1,699.98 MB-D10 339.99 D90 DX 949.98 Tamron SP AF 17-50mm f/2.8 VC 599.00 Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 VR 2,499.95 Nikon 35mm f/1.8 279.99 Taxes 764.27 (Gordo's HST of 12%) Total Cost 7,133.16 Keeping the Tokina 11-16mm on the list would add at least 759.99 plus 91.20 in taxes. Has anyone who's shooting weddings even used the Tokina for super-wide wedding group photos or have they ever shot a wedding which required a lens that wide?

Edited by photogbuff_1970, 07 April 2010 - 10:34 AM.


#2 Jon H.

Jon H.

    Deep Space Hero Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4447 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California, USA

Posted 07 April 2010 - 11:26 AM

Used carefully, a superwide can be really interesting for weddings... I know David Ziser is big on superwides for wedding portraits but you have to be careful with the composition to avoid the edge distortion common with these lenses.

Here are a couple wedding images shot w/Nikkor 12-24 f/4:
Posted Image

Posted Image

Posted Image

Personally, I'd keep the 11-16 on your list... Not only for weddings, but as you've seen with some of BlackPearl's amazing ultrawide work, it's a compelling lens for lots of situations if used properly.

J
Jon Haverstick
Southern CA, USA
Portraiture, Wedding, Product, Stage, Real Estate, Corporate, Annual Report, Sports, Event, Special Projects
Photoshop, Lightroom, and Photography Instruction

Website / Blog / Portfolio: www.jonhaverstickstudio.com
Email: jon@jonhaverstickstudio.com

Founding Photographer: Smiles Across The Miles - "Focusing on the Those Who Serve" Pro bono professional portraiture for military personnel and their families.

Publisher: Senior Portraits, Headshots, Two Hearts:One Love, and With this Ring Magazines: http://magcloud.com/.../jchphotography

Professional Memberships:
  • NAPP (National Association of Photoshop Professionals)
  • WPPI (Wedding and Portrait Photographers International)
  • SPS (Student Photographic Society): Educator
  • Nikon Professional Services

#3 Sailjunkie

Sailjunkie

    Deep Space Master Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6168 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Port Moody, BC Canada
  • Interests:Photography, Sailing, Listening to Jazz, Reading

Posted 07 April 2010 - 03:14 PM

While I'm intrigued by Jon H.'s reply, I would have thought that a portrait lens would be more effective. I bought my Sigma for shooting landscapes, and they are strongly recommended for landscape photography. However, Jon's comments intrigue me. I may just try it for some people shots if the right chance presents itself. Mark
Mark

D810
Various lenses

Member, Canadian Association for Photographic Art

http://markshawphotography.ca

#4 gdogg16

gdogg16

    Planet Guardian Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 456 posts

Posted 14 April 2010 - 03:26 PM

A little late to this topic, but I have used the 11-16 2.8 at weddings. It works well, you just have to watch the composition as the distortion is killer. I generally use the 24-70 2.8 for wides, but when it's not enough, I'll pull the 11-16 out.
Notice the feet of the guys at the ends of the photo.. My back was up against the wall in this shot and the only way I would have got it was with the Tokina 11-16.
Posted Image
Here are some shots with the Tokina 12-24.
Posted Image
Posted Image

Edited by gdogg16, 14 April 2010 - 03:29 PM.

Greg
My Site




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users