Portrait or wedding lens

Borderfox

Would you consider a Sigma 10-20mm f4-5.6 Lens or a Sigma 18-50MM F2.8 EX DC Lens suitable for wedding or portrait photography? I was swinging towards the 10-20mm as they said the 18-50 has some chromatic abberation issues. I have about €500 to spend, any ideas?

Valentia

If you want a flattering portrait lens you can save yoursel a lot and get the Canon 50mm 1.8 for around €100. It's a smashing lens and has been mentioned here many times before. 80mm is considered a very good focal length for portraits especially head and shoulders. The 50mm equates to around 80mm on a digital SLR (apart from the full frame ones of course). That leaves you with nearly enough to get the Sigma 10-20 as well.

Borderfox

I have a 50mm f1.8 already, just needed something wider for group and landscape. My kit lens is banjoed with a crack beside the lens leading to less than sharp results (not that I would use that for wedding photography) Thanks though Valentia good thinking..

Valentia

I did weddings for many years. I wouldn't recommend a wide angle for group shots. I found that the standard lens (it was 75mm on the medium format Bronica which is 50 on a standard 35mm slr or around 34mm on the 10D) gave better results. You only have to move back a bit further, Your best weapon doing weddings is a tripod. Not so much to get sharp pics but it is brilliant at getting the subjects to focus on something. It also instinctively keeps everyone else away from it. Using a wideangle for groups is a bad idea unless you are looking for a specific effect.

Landscapes is a different story completely. I have briefly used Fajitas's 10=20 and I liked it. I have the Sigma 12-24 and love the saturation it gives and the distortion. It takes some getting used to though as it does not suit all shots. Remember you will get distortion using these very wide angle lenses so they are generally not suitable for people shots unless, again, you want a specifis type of shot.

Borderfox

Thanks Valentia, the 50mm foot zoom it is then..

Valentia

Lol

Borderfox

I love that picture of De Island on flickr beautiful colours in it

Valentia

Thanks a mil.

Caryatnid

Borderfox wrote:

I love that picture of De Island on flickr beautiful colours in it

I second that. Just made it as my background.

digitalbeginner

Whatever make of lens you choose, the best focal length for Portraiture is considered to be in the 100mm range (135mm equivalent). So use whatever multiplier your particular brand of digital camera needs to get this (eg Nikon's D50/D70 etc use 1.5 therefore the focal length is 66mm, on Canon 350D with a multiplier of 1.6 it is 62.5mm)

The reason 100mm (135mm equiv) is considered the best portrait lens is that:
a/ The zoom is enough to help throw the background out of focus
b/ you are far enough into the zoom to avoid distortion (a 50mm lens - 135mm equiv - can still disort the face if framed for a head and shoulders)
c/ you are far enough away from the subject so that you do not make them uncomfortable by intruding into their personal space (anything from 1 to 18 inches depending on the person) by shoving the lens in their face, but not so far away that they feel isolated - you end up about 3 to 4 feet away for a head and shoulders.

Basically the wider angle a lens is the more distortion occurs as you get closer to the subject and the higher the zoom the more compression you get. The 100mm range (135mm equiv) gives the ideal compromise between the two.

Fajitas!

I wouldn't go with the 10-20 tbh, and it's a favourite of mine.

There's a bit too much distortion in it, and the 2.8 of the other lens might come in that bit handier.

Plus, unless you're within 5 foot of the subjects, they're gonna be swamped by the background at 10mm, not so much at 20mm, but you'd have that with the 18-55 anyways

Enygma

I often head people saying that the 70-200 L lens is a great portrait lens which always struck me as very odd. After reading digitalbeginners post its making a lot more sense.

I would have thought a lens like the 17-40L would have been an idea portrait lens.

Roen

The thing to bear in mind about the crop factor on a digital slr is that it only changes the apparent focal length, not the actual focal length. So if you use a 100mm lens on a 1.6x body you get a 'through the viewfinder' view of a 160mm lens. You don't however get the same Dof for a given aperture of a 160 mm lens. Neither do you get the same increased flattening of perspective that a 160mm lens would give you over a 100mm lens.
So if you are going for a portait lens on a body with a crop factor I'd go for the exact same lens that you would on a non crop factor body. The only danger is as Digitalbeginner said is that you may have to be a little far back from the subject and therefore loose any rapport you have with them.
The last wedding I was being photographed at the photographer used a 24-70mm f2.8 L for almost all the shots, only using a longer prime for individual portraits.
I use a 70-200mm f4 L for the portraits I do (which are few and far between) and I find it great. Yours for only €510 (plus p+p) from our friendly neighbourhood Hong Kong eBay sellers.

Fionn

if your using a Canon this website gives good recommendations for lenses

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Wedding-Lens.aspx

rymus

Fajitas! wrote:

I wouldn't go with the 10-20 tbh, and it's a favourite of mine.

same here... .altho, I love it for doing 'unconventional' portraits...

Borderfox

Thanks for all the advice, I have a 70-200 f2.8 Sigma also that would be used too (to intimidate the crowds! ) good point with the 10-20. Very indepth Digitalbeginner. Excellent points thanks very much...:)

digitalbeginner

Borderfox wrote:

Very indepth Digitalbeginner. Excellent points thanks very much...:)

Just glad to help

Fajitas!

Just an afterthought, what about the sigma 30mm 1.4?

Fast fast lens, works out being 50mm approx on a 1.6, and it's light and balanced on anything but a 350D?

Borderfox

Fionn great site for lenses. Fajitas good idea but I heard a lot of returns on the 1.4, might go for the 18-50 f2.8 in the end. A bit more usuable for everyday too. Thanks though

Fajitas!

No problem! Lol, I was on my lunch today and suddenly though "I shoulda told him to buy the 1.4!!!" Lol...Odd.

Seriously though, keep it in mind for a later purchase...

Borderfox

Thanks it might come in handy for the Suicide Girls photoshoot

Fajitas!

You shooting it? lol!

rymus

over my dead and caramelised body

Fajitas!

*puts sugar on boil*

Borderfox

Excellent lads, nothing like the spirit of healthy competition

digitalbeginner

Roen wrote:

The thing to bear in mind about the crop factor on a digital slr is that it only changes the apparent focal length, not the actual focal length. So if you use a 100mm lens on a 1.6x body you get a 'through the viewfinder' view of a 160mm lens. You don't however get the same Dof for a given aperture of a 160 mm lens. Neither do you get the same increased flattening of perspective that a 160mm lens would give you over a 100mm lens.

Thanks for the info Roen, I wasn't aware of that

Borderfox

In the end I bought a Sigma 18-50 f2.8 EX. Cracking IQ nice and neat.