Canon Lens for Family Pictures
March 15, 2008 9:31 AM Subscribe
What's a good Canon lens for family photographs?
I have a Canon EOS 5D, and I'm exclusively using a 50/1.4 lens. I love it for close portraits and some medium-distance shots, but I've found it's not so great at larger family gatherings. I recently borrowed a friend's wide-angle (a 17-35/2.8 L, I think) and I found it too wide for big groups. (With too much distortion at the wide end, and not so hot indoors.) I'm wondering if there's a happy medium I'm missing; a lens that I can use to get 8-10 people in the frame without backing up 20 feet.
I have a Canon EOS 5D, and I'm exclusively using a 50/1.4 lens. I love it for close portraits and some medium-distance shots, but I've found it's not so great at larger family gatherings. I recently borrowed a friend's wide-angle (a 17-35/2.8 L, I think) and I found it too wide for big groups. (With too much distortion at the wide end, and not so hot indoors.) I'm wondering if there's a happy medium I'm missing; a lens that I can use to get 8-10 people in the frame without backing up 20 feet.
Best answer: If 2.8 is too slow for you indoors (I'm skeptical: the 5D gets pretty fantastic noise performance at higher ISOs) you are going to have to go with a prime, which means the next one up is 35, but you say that's too wide.
My general recommendation for buying lenses is to rent a bunch of lenses and see what you like.
If you can live with 2.8, the 24-70L seems like a good lens. If not your choices are pretty much the 50 or a 35.
posted by aubilenon at 9:47 AM on March 15, 2008
My general recommendation for buying lenses is to rent a bunch of lenses and see what you like.
If you can live with 2.8, the 24-70L seems like a good lens. If not your choices are pretty much the 50 or a 35.
posted by aubilenon at 9:47 AM on March 15, 2008
Yeah the 24-70 is a pretty great lens. 16-25mm is pretty wide. But Bonaldi is right, between 35 and 50mm there is not a huge difference.
I'm very fond of the crappy but loveable 35mm f2.
posted by sully75 at 9:48 AM on March 15, 2008
I'm very fond of the crappy but loveable 35mm f2.
posted by sully75 at 9:48 AM on March 15, 2008
to clarify; was the wide end of the 17-35/2.8 too wide, or was the whole length too wide?
i'll third the 24-70/2.8 as your best bet; you may also want to give the 24-105/4 IS a tryout; it's lighter and longer but gives up a stop.
posted by heeeraldo at 10:20 AM on March 15, 2008
i'll third the 24-70/2.8 as your best bet; you may also want to give the 24-105/4 IS a tryout; it's lighter and longer but gives up a stop.
posted by heeeraldo at 10:20 AM on March 15, 2008
The Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a nice lens, near L-quality though not as quick to focus, and far less expensive than the Canon 24-70 f/2.8L.
posted by kindall at 11:04 AM on March 15, 2008
posted by kindall at 11:04 AM on March 15, 2008
Best answer: Just to echo one of aubilenon's comments: if your ideal lens isn't as fast as you would like, don't be afraid to bump up your ISO to 800 or even 1600. Do a few tests. The performance of high ISOs in digital SLRs is pretty fantastic. I shoot at 800 and even 1600 regularly with my Nikon D40. I get some grain in dark areas at 1600, but it's better than missing the shot, and no one really notices anyway, unless they are looking for it.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 11:19 AM on March 15, 2008
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 11:19 AM on March 15, 2008
I don't understand how someone could afford or someone would buy an EOS 5D and not own multiple lenses. There ought to be a law against this. :-) I dream of someday being able to afford a 5D. The 17-35L that you mentioned is one of the most expensive things I own and one of my prized possessions. It's really the only lens I use, and I hope to live long enough to someday be able to afford a digital SLR like the 5D with a 1x multiplier to take advantage of the maximum wide angle (that I used to enjoy when I used the lens on a film camera - I am still tempted to shoot slides just to regain that full 17mm wide angle).
I absolutely love taking indoor shots of groups with my Canon EOS 17-35L. There is remarkably little distortion with that lens.
posted by thomas144 at 12:01 PM on March 15, 2008
I absolutely love taking indoor shots of groups with my Canon EOS 17-35L. There is remarkably little distortion with that lens.
posted by thomas144 at 12:01 PM on March 15, 2008
P.S. to give you an idea of the sort of indoor family photos I take with my 17-35L, here are a couple of self-timer shots of my extended family shot with film (no multiplier) a few years ago, here and here. Note that you can see a shadow cast by the lens from the built-in flash on my A2E (I have since purchased a separate flash). I really miss not having the full wide angle - that's why I wish I could afford a 5D.
posted by thomas144 at 12:24 PM on March 15, 2008
posted by thomas144 at 12:24 PM on March 15, 2008
Either the 24-70 or the 24-105 and an external flash.
posted by Silvertree at 12:36 PM on March 15, 2008
posted by Silvertree at 12:36 PM on March 15, 2008
Best answer: kindall's suggestion of the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 is a good one of you're on a budget. Fast zoom lenses are generally big and heavy, and if you're used to that 50/1.4 you'll find it will be an adjustment. The Tamron is substantially smaller and lighter than the Canon 24-70/2.8.
I'm not a Canon user, but the Tamron is the only third party zoom lens I ever owned that came very close to optically performing as well as my 17-55/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 Nikon lenses.
Regardless of the lens you choose, Fuzzy Skinner also makes a good point about ramping up the ISO when the situation warrants. We photographers worry a lot more about digital high ISO noise than the average person does.
posted by imjustsaying at 1:28 PM on March 15, 2008
I'm not a Canon user, but the Tamron is the only third party zoom lens I ever owned that came very close to optically performing as well as my 17-55/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 Nikon lenses.
Regardless of the lens you choose, Fuzzy Skinner also makes a good point about ramping up the ISO when the situation warrants. We photographers worry a lot more about digital high ISO noise than the average person does.
posted by imjustsaying at 1:28 PM on March 15, 2008
Response by poster: was the wide end of the 17-35/2.8 too wide, or was the whole length too wide?
Yeah, I should clarify that I spent most of my time at the wide end of that lens. I'm not sure I'm disciplined enough to use a zoom, I just wanted to capture the whole scene because I could—and then I wasn't happy with the results. That's more user error than the lens' fault. Maybe I'll give the 17-35 another shot.
Thanks for the advice and suggestions, I'll take a look at the Tamron, and 35 prime. And yeah, I do tend to leave the ISO alone, even though I know it's better on the 5D than my previous Rebel.
posted by pb at 2:43 PM on March 15, 2008
Yeah, I should clarify that I spent most of my time at the wide end of that lens. I'm not sure I'm disciplined enough to use a zoom, I just wanted to capture the whole scene because I could—and then I wasn't happy with the results. That's more user error than the lens' fault. Maybe I'll give the 17-35 another shot.
Thanks for the advice and suggestions, I'll take a look at the Tamron, and 35 prime. And yeah, I do tend to leave the ISO alone, even though I know it's better on the 5D than my previous Rebel.
posted by pb at 2:43 PM on March 15, 2008
Just as a point of reference: this was shot at 1600 ISO. If you zoom in, you will see some grain in the darker areas, but certainly nothing objectionable, and probably still better than 400 speed film.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 4:57 PM on March 15, 2008
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 4:57 PM on March 15, 2008
and then I wasn't happy with the results.
Yes, I wouldn't expect to be happy with a day's wide-angle play. Wide-angle pictures are incredibly difficult to do well -- I think they're far, far harder than telephoto shots. You have to master getting something in the foreground of interest, as well as using the full vista.
There's a real skill to seeing things that are "wider" than human vision and getting a pleasing image out of it. I don't think a lens is the problem here. I'd suggest getting the fixed 35mm and practicing, hard.
(pb, was yr question edited? I don't understand where all the stuff about the lenses being too slow for you is coming from)
posted by bonaldi at 7:43 PM on March 15, 2008
Yes, I wouldn't expect to be happy with a day's wide-angle play. Wide-angle pictures are incredibly difficult to do well -- I think they're far, far harder than telephoto shots. You have to master getting something in the foreground of interest, as well as using the full vista.
There's a real skill to seeing things that are "wider" than human vision and getting a pleasing image out of it. I don't think a lens is the problem here. I'd suggest getting the fixed 35mm and practicing, hard.
(pb, was yr question edited? I don't understand where all the stuff about the lenses being too slow for you is coming from)
posted by bonaldi at 7:43 PM on March 15, 2008
(pb, was yr question edited? I don't understand where all the stuff about the lenses being too slow for you is coming from)
I'm not answering for pb, obviously, but here's why I addressed the lens speed issue:
pb says he shoots with a 1.4 lens. And a 2.8 lens he borrowed is "not so hot indoors." I took this to mean the speed of the lens, being 1 stop slower than his 1.4 lens is an issue for indoor available light photos. (Shutter speed too slow, for example.) So, one solution is to kick up the ISO a stop or two to compensate for a slower lens. It's possible I misinterpreted, though. It's happened before. Once I think.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 9:56 PM on March 15, 2008
I'm not answering for pb, obviously, but here's why I addressed the lens speed issue:
pb says he shoots with a 1.4 lens. And a 2.8 lens he borrowed is "not so hot indoors." I took this to mean the speed of the lens, being 1 stop slower than his 1.4 lens is an issue for indoor available light photos. (Shutter speed too slow, for example.) So, one solution is to kick up the ISO a stop or two to compensate for a slower lens. It's possible I misinterpreted, though. It's happened before. Once I think.
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 9:56 PM on March 15, 2008
Ah, yes, I see what you mean. But he'd have to be shooting in the dark for hand-holding to be a problem with a 16mm focal length. Your reading is very plausible though.
posted by bonaldi at 10:34 PM on March 15, 2008
posted by bonaldi at 10:34 PM on March 15, 2008
Response by poster: I shouldn't have knocked the 17-35 in my question, sounds like I didn't know how to use it to its full potential. I'm so used to the 50/1.4 that I'm going to need to take some time to get to know my next lens. Thanks again for the suggestions.
posted by pb at 9:53 AM on March 16, 2008
posted by pb at 9:53 AM on March 16, 2008
The 24-70 recommended above will probably be far too distorted at the wide end, but you may want to test it out and see what you think. I don't think a zoom lens is the way to go. I'd get the 28mm f/1.8 for group shots in doors. You should also probably invest in a flash you can bounce of your cieling. You can figure out what the field of view will be for any lens you pick, check this wikipedia page. In particular, 35mm is a fair bit wider than 50mm.
posted by chunking express at 7:00 AM on March 17, 2008
posted by chunking express at 7:00 AM on March 17, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by bonaldi at 9:43 AM on March 15, 2008