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_*

  • 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.

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


    Eon Timewave Hero Member

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7718 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

Various lenses

Member, Canadian Association for Photographic Art


#4 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.

My Site

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users