# Shooting people with a 16-35... Any good ?



## Mokh24 (May 6, 2012)

I am expecting my 16-35 to ship with my 5d3 soon... I never used a 16-35 and i am buying it for my honeymoon in italy...
My question is, is it a good idea to use the 16-35 to shoot my wife-to-be and myself to have a good landscape scene in the background or shall i stick with the 24-105 for people shots and use the 16-35 only for landscapes?
Any people shots are welcome especially @16mm.

Thanks


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 6, 2012)

Knowing the issues with 17-40mm which was for some time my only lens on the 5d MK2 I would recommend to at least take a 24-70 or 24 -104 with you for portraits. The 70-200mm f2.8 IS 2 also makes a great portrait lens with tighter framing. However the frames with the wide angles (17-40mm) look mostly too wide and not really nice as they are not focused on the ppl. in the frame.


----------



## Mokh24 (May 6, 2012)

I still dont have too many lenses... I only had the 18-55 kit lens with my old xti and a 70-300 sigma, i just got the 24-105 and the 16-35 is on its on way... So that's it..

I actually WANT to show a lot of the background scene ( or else i would use the 24-105 for portraits)... But i wanna know is if I use the 16-35, will I get unacceptably distorted images when shooting people ?


----------



## bycostello (May 6, 2012)

50-100mm the kind of focal length normally suggested for portrait work...


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 6, 2012)

Mokh24 said:


> I still dont have too many lenses... I only had the 18-55 kit lens with my old xti and a 70-300 sigma, i just got the 24-105 and the 16-35 is on its on way... So that's it..
> 
> I actually WANT to show a lot of the background scene ( or else i would use the 24-105 for portraits)... But i wanna know is if I use the 16-35, will I get unacceptably distorted images when shooting people ?



The 17-40mm makes ppl look unnatural in most cases, used between 17-30mm. The 16-35 won't be different ... you can only achieve good results if the persons are not filling more than probably a third of the frame in the middle ...


----------



## elflord (May 6, 2012)

Mokh24 said:


> I am expecting my 16-35 to ship with my 5d3 soon... I never used a 16-35 and i am buying it for my honeymoon in italy...
> My question is, is it a good idea to use the 16-35 to shoot my wife-to-be and myself to have a good landscape scene in the background or shall i stick with the 24-105 for people shots and use the 16-35 only for landscapes?
> Any people shots are welcome especially @16mm.



What you want to avoid is having the camera really close to the person / people in the shot. I doubt you'd need wider than 24mm for this kind of shot --if you go very wide and stand back a reasonable distance, the people in the shot will only fill a tiny portion of the frame.


----------



## dturano (May 6, 2012)

I don't have any experience with that lens, but I was in a similar situation to you a few years back when I went on my honeymoon to spain.

I had the 7d and the sigma 10-20mm f/3.5, I also had a big Gorilla pod, I got some great shots with my wife and I and the scenery, on close ups we were a little distorted but I was ok because my goal was to incorporate us and the background. I don't have experience with it but I would think the distortion would be less with the 16-35 on a ff body.

I also had a 24-70 with me. The 10-20mm got more use outdoors.

Take a few test shots when the new lens comes with local settings to get an idea if your happy with the results.


----------



## TotoEC (May 6, 2012)

Mokh24 said:


> I am expecting my 16-35 to ship with my 5d3 soon... I never used a 16-35 and i am buying it for my honeymoon in italy...
> My question is, is it a good idea to use the 16-35 to shoot my wife-to-be and myself to have a good landscape scene in the background or shall i stick with the 24-105 for people shots and use the 16-35 only for landscapes?
> Any people shots are welcome especially @16mm.
> 
> Thanks



The ultra wide angle lens is never good for portrait work. If you include people in your shoot, it either be too small or far. If you bring them closer as your main subject, you will distort them in some ways you won't like. You will definitely have problem balancing the subject and the background. It will force you to compose your shot critically and this will 'slow' you down. I don't think your bride will have patience standing still while you are composing the shoot.

Since you are on a honeymoon, you would be better off with your 24 - 105 lens

Enjoy!


----------



## scottkinfw (May 6, 2012)

As a general rule, to avoid mid-face distortion it is best to avoid short focal length lenses. Around 80mm and up on ff. Disclaimer: I am not a portrait photographer.



TotoEC said:


> Mokh24 said:
> 
> 
> > I am expecting my 16-35 to ship with my 5d3 soon... I never used a 16-35 and i am buying it for my honeymoon in italy...
> ...


----------



## telephonic (May 6, 2012)

Better stay away from ultra wides for portrait works. Overlarge nose, etc is not a rare case with such lenses.

If you want to include the background, give some good distance of your lady and the scenery. The background might be a little bit blurred, but if you have a beautiful lady to look at, the scenic background is a bonus. My $0.02


----------



## RC (May 6, 2012)

bycostello said:


> 50-100mm the kind of focal length normally suggested for portrait work...



Yip, to avoid distortion and unflattering results unless that is your intent. The new wife probably won't like a big nose.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 6, 2012)

70-135mm is the traditional focal length with a FF camera for portraits. The telephotos tend to flatten facial features rather than emphasing them.

The 85mm and 135mm lenses are wonderful for portraits.


----------



## IIIHobbs (May 6, 2012)

Mokh, I think what may not be obvious to you at the moment is the different field of view you are going to get using the 5DIII over your XTi. 
Your 18-55 on the XTi was effectively a 28-85. Therefore the 24-105 with the 5DIII is going to be the lens you want for the Honeymoon. The 24-35 range will give you a great wide shot for Landscapes and the 85-105 range will capture great portraits. You will probably find yourself zoomed out or in, much less in the middle.
The speed of the 16-35 is certainly an advantage in dusk/dawn situations, but I think you will quickly realize, looking through the viewfinder, that it is not your go to lens for the use you describe. Besides, the 5DIII really shines in low light situations with the 24-105.


----------



## kwwalla (May 6, 2012)

If used properly the 16-35 is an excellent lens for the kind of shots you want to take. I use one with a great deal of success and there are many professional event photographers who employ the use of this lens for several scenarios (portraits, group shots, etc...). Persoanlly I think it is a great choice for taking pictures of a couple while trying to capture the landscape as well! If using the widest focal lenghts, remember not to put your subjects too close to the frame edges (distortion). Enjoy this great lens!


----------



## elflord (May 6, 2012)

thesirren said:


> In no way is 16-35 strictly limited to landscapes, architecture and group shots. Obviously, if you shoot people upfront at the wider end, you would have a different kind of a portrait, but it still is a portrait ^_^
> 
> Here are some random shots of people taken by other people (stolen from google) with 16-35:



Did you check the body used on them ? On some of them, the fov looks a bit narrow for the reported lengths. I'm wondering if a few of these were taken on APS-C


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 6, 2012)

Well as the OP does not know the 16-35mm by heart yet and wants probably a safe option to make nice portraits on his honeymoon without too many experiments I would advice him to really please take something in the suggested range of 35-105mm with him as safe backup when not able to achieve the intended shots with the 16-35mm ... It is a great lens for landscape - but portraits always carry a certain flavor that can ruin the pictures if not taken exactly within its limitations in this genre ...


----------



## The Bad Duck (May 6, 2012)

When it comes to lenses Jean Reno said it best in the movie Leon;

"The tele is the first lens you learn how to use, because it lets you keep your distance from the client. The closer you get to being a pro, the closer you can get to the client. The super wide angle, for example, is the last thing you learn. "

Ok so perhaps that was not the exact quote...

While focal lengths of about 80-135 will give the most flattering look on your subject, a wide angle combined with a lot of energy can give great results. But be aware of a few things - distortion gets worse the closer to the frame you get. So place your portrait subject in the centre if you want the face to dominate the picture. I think the best way to use a wideangle lens for portraits is to do full body portraits with lots of depth of field. When the head is smaller in the picture its harder to spot if the nose seems a bit too big.

So, CAN you do great portraits with a 16-35? Yes. But it is hard to make them look good. Does it really add anything to your 24-105? Not reall, for portraits. And the 24-105 @ 105 /4 is not too bad when it comes to portraits. So when it comes to your portraits, use the 24-105 most of the time and then go crazy with the 16-35 and try to build up loads of energy - then you really don´t care as much if things looks a bit off.


----------



## TexPhoto (May 6, 2012)

When i teach photography i usually explain that long lenses are for taking pictures of things/people, and wide angle lenses are for capturing a whole scene. Later I tell them this is nonsense, but is a good way to get started.

People will look fine at 16mm if they are part of a scene, not filling the frame. Also, try to keep them close to the center. You can stick one in someones face from time to time, but this captures a caricature, and that person had better have a good sense of humor.

16mm? How about 15mm fisheye:



IMG_1637 by TexPhoto, on Flickr


----------



## wickidwombat (May 6, 2012)

the 16-35 can be great for portraits you just have to be carefull of 2 main things
whatever part of the person is more to the edges of the frame will be more distorted than in the center
and whatever part of the person is closer to the lens will be exagerated / enlarged 
you can use these to make interesting creative compositions and actually create quite flatering images if you choose the right angle. 
as others have mentioned though you have to be carefull of any angel that makes someones nose grow 
its one of my favourite lenses and I love how sharp it is wide open at f2.8
another thing i love it the internal zooming and that it doesnt extend, brilliant feature that i really wish had been incorporated into the new 24-70


----------



## bhavikk (May 7, 2012)

For the OP.

I have the 16-35mm and have used it on a crop body and FF. I mainly shoot events and recently did a entire trip to USA using mostly my 500D and 16-35.

Things you will find when shooting people:

Shooting people under 20mm you'll get some wicked distortion of people especially at the wide end.
If you frame people at the edges their heads (mainly) will be really wide.
Try not shoot people with your camera rotated to portrait/vertical, their heads will usually be elongated and it looks very odd.
The closer you are to the subject, you will get interesting effects (don't shoot people like this). See the horse head picture or the babies foot

I prefer shooting horizontal for nearly everything, so I don't shoot vertical unless I want to capture entire body or if the object is just too tall (like a building/tower).

What I recommend is to shoot your wife, actually maybe not your wife since she will want to see the photos. Maybe a square cube, with the lens at different focal lengths and distance from the camera. This will give you a feel for the distortion etc.

This will give you a feel for the camera/lens before you go on your honeymoon and you'll get great pictures of you wife


----------



## elflord (May 7, 2012)

wickidwombat said:


> the 16-35 can be great for portraits you just have to be carefull of 2 main things
> whatever part of the person is more to the edges of the frame will be more distorted than in the center
> and whatever part of the person is closer to the lens will be exagerated / enlarged
> you can use these to make interesting creative compositions



Yep. This thread wouldn't be complete without mentioning Platon http://www.platonphoto.com/, a portrait photographer who makes creative use of perspective distortion. However, this is not a task to be undertaken lightly, it's always a bit risky, and even he gets himself in trouble at times with his approach (e.g. the infamous "crotch shot" of Bill Clinton for Time magazine). So my advice to OP would be that, for the sake of your marriage, stick with nice telephoto shots for portraits when you're taking portrait shots of your wife (85mm-135mm or 50-85 on APS-C) or slightly wider (50mm on FF, 35mm on APS-C) for full body portraits. 

If you or your friends end up having kids, they make very good subjects for wide angle shots.


----------



## dirtcastle (May 7, 2012)

A few strategies...

1. Shoot toward the long end.
2. Keep subjects away from corners and edges as much as possible.
3. Crop! On a 5D3 you could probably crop out half the image and be fine.
4. Experiment with lens correction in post (admitedly, I often find this unsatisfactory).
5. Try unusual angles and poses. This is where a wide angle can shine in portraits because sometimes the distortion can give the shot a more dynamic/energetic feel.

Here's an example...




birthday party by Eric Nord, on Flickr


----------



## dirtcastle (May 7, 2012)

elflord said:


> Yep. This thread wouldn't be complete without mentioning Platon http://www.platonphoto.com/, a portrait photographer who makes creative use of perspective distortion.



Anyone know what lenses Platon uses? I'm especially curious about what he used for his UN world leader portraits.


----------



## Axilrod (May 7, 2012)

dirtcastle said:


> elflord said:
> 
> 
> > Yep. This thread wouldn't be complete without mentioning Platon http://www.platonphoto.com/, a portrait photographer who makes creative use of perspective distortion.
> ...



He shoots Hasselblad so I'm sure one of their very pricey wide-angle lenses. It's probably their 28mm, which is about as wide as a 16mm on a Full Frame DSLR. 

As for the OP, yes the 16-35mm is a great lens and you can have a lot of fun with it. It's not as great wide open in my opinion but at around f/4-f/5.6 it's pretty damn sharp.


----------



## prestonpalmer (May 7, 2012)

The 16-35 is a fantastic lens. Good for lots of stuff, including portraits. Just play with it a bit first and you will learn how to use it to avoid distortion.


----------



## bvukich (May 7, 2012)

elflord said:


> (e.g. the infamous "crotch shot" of Bill Clinton for Time magazine)



Esquire Magazine


----------



## Caps18 (May 7, 2012)

Yes, you can use it, but make sure you are far enough away from the camera and like others have said, not near the corners on 16mm-20mm. Most people use 28mm on their point & shoot cameras, and their pictures come out fine.

I would also take along a 50mm f/1.4 or 85mm f/1.8, but then again, it is a honeymoon and taking pictures shouldn't be the #1 priority.

Practice first. And have some good example photos in mind.

If you get a UV filter, I recommend the B+W slim 82mm one... http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/132979-REG/B_W_66026943_82mm_UV_Haze_010.html


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 7, 2012)

elflord said:


> So my advice to OP would be that, for the sake of your marriage, stick with nice telephoto shots for portraits when you're taking portrait shots of your wife ...



I was really laughing when I read this cause I was just thinking the exact same ... Otherwise he would maybe end up with the choice of keeping photography as a hobby or his marriage after the trip when SHE sees the distorted results ... ;-)


----------



## KeeFy (May 8, 2012)

If used correctly it's an awesome lens.







16mm f2.8 1/80 ISO12800


----------



## Danielle (May 8, 2012)

The 16-35 is approximately (or is that ironically) the same kind of point of view on ff as my 10-22 on my 7d.

Used well, it's awesome as others have said. I see 35mm full frame as only fractionally wide. Very usable for people.


----------



## hanyramgt (Dec 9, 2017)

I have been using 17-40 f4 L for a quite long time in wedding reception for shooting people and it has been decent to me except for the edges which I believe this problem has been solved in the 16-35 F4 L IS. Enjoy it.


----------



## slclick (Dec 9, 2017)

When at the 35 end and for group shots it's very nice...not ideal but not bad at all.


----------



## BillB (Dec 9, 2017)

The Bad Duck said:


> When it comes to lenses Jean Reno said it best in the movie Leon;
> 
> "The tele is the first lens you learn how to use, because it lets you keep your distance from the client. The closer you get to being a pro, the closer you can get to the client. The super wide angle, for example, is the last thing you learn. "
> 
> ...



Exactly. The 16-35 can be used for portraits, but mostly toward the 35mm end of its range, which is also covered by the 24-105. Also, it takes some practice to get the most out of a 16-35, especially at the wider end.


----------



## ScottyP (Dec 9, 2017)

Do yourself a favor and watch a lot of videos on composition using wide angle lenses. When I got my 16-35 i was debating between it and a 24-70. On the way home from the camera shop I stopped at the zoo and all my shots looked terrible, with nothing large enough to be interesting or even recognizable. I kind of got that cold clammy feeling like you get if you make an enormous expensive mistake.

Looking into proper composition really turned it around. You need to get something in the close foreground for interest, whether it be your subject or something else. Shoot up close unless it is a person's face, in which case don't. Shooting from down low is good too, for getting the ground in the shot.


----------



## stevelee (Dec 9, 2017)

Mokh24 said:


> I still dont have too many lenses... I only had the 18-55 kit lens with my old xti and a 70-300 sigma, i just got the 24-105 and the 16-35 is on its on way... So that's it..
> 
> I actually WANT to show a lot of the background scene ( or else i would use the 24-105 for portraits)... But i wanna know is if I use the 16-35, will I get unacceptably distorted images when shooting people ?



I agree with everybody who says that something around 85mm is perfect for shooting portraits, but that doesn’t answer your question. There is no magic evil spell cast on people’s faces by wide angle lenses. Whatever the lens, you just don’t want to be too close to the subject unless you want the face to look funny. Pictures of people in landscapes can look great. 

I also recently got a 24-105mm lens with my camera purchase, and I am quite pleased with its quality and usefulness. I will buy something wider some day, likely a 16-35, but 24mm covers almost everything I want to shoot. I’m used to traveling with my G7X II, as I am now, and it goes wide to a 24 equivalent, and I’ve rarely missed having something wider. It zooms to 100mm equivalence, so that familiarity could account for how comfortable I am with that lens on the 6D2.


----------



## hne (Dec 10, 2017)

If you want one human being be the main subject, I would advice against going much wider than 35mm. If the environment is the primary subject and one or two people are a convenient juxtaposition, go wild!

35 wide open is a personal favourite of mine for portraits outdoors, at about 2 metre distance. Slightly closer for kids.


----------



## niels123 (Dec 10, 2017)

Mokh24 said:


> I still dont have too many lenses... I only had the 18-55 kit lens with my old xti and a 70-300 sigma, i just got the 24-105 and the 16-35 is on its on way... So that's it..
> 
> I actually WANT to show a lot of the background scene ( or else i would use the 24-105 for portraits)... But i wanna know is if I use the 16-35, will I get unacceptably distorted images when shooting people ?



You can perfectly use it, but you have to carefully consider your framing. It distorts heavily at close focus (so full body shots can be oke) and it has the 'wide angle effect' (don't know if there's an official name) at the edges of the frame, so don't fill the frame completely from head to feet and don't put yourselves completely on the (long or short) edge and you'll be fine. 

Attached are 2 shots taken with the 16-35 at 16mm on a 5D3.


----------



## LiveBackwoods (Dec 13, 2017)

the 2.8 version? L? Would like to see some good video samples.


----------



## Mikehit (Dec 13, 2017)

Modern sensors are so good, what is wrong with having the person far enough away to avoid distortion and crop in? Yeah, people will talk about 'not using the lens to its full potential' (whatever that means) but it is no different to putting 16-35 on a APS-C camera. 
Sure, if you want the pride of knowing you have the best possible quality shot in the bag, but if you want to travel light it is a strong option. 

In cases like this it is important to understand the principles behind the 'standard' approach. There is nothing magical about an 85mm lens that makes it ideal for portraits - but on a 35mm sensor, but when getting a head and shoulders portrait using an 85mm means to have a frame-filling portrait you stand at a distance at which the proportions of the facial features look 'right'. It is the camera-to-subject distance that is most critical.


----------



## ahsanford (Dec 13, 2017)

Can you shoot people with a 16-35 on FF? Absolutely. They just won't be classic head/shoulders work, they will be environmental portraits, candids, street, travel, etc.

My basic rules for when to do this:


Keep your distance unless you want that cow in the pasture distortion thing.
Keep your subjects near center but not necessarily centered if you do need to get closer to them -- this is vital for the 16-20mm side of things
Try to incorporate them into the environment on the wider FLs -- see street shot and boulder lifting shot
Never shoot head/shoulders framing, even on the 35 end -- you will get facial distortion.

The short answer is to bring the 16-35 lens for sure, but also have a 24-something handy for when you do want to frame more tightly on head or head/shoulders. A few examples below -- not stellar work by any means, but a few examples of a wide lens working with subjects in frame.

Dog = 24mm (16 is money for pets/animals, IMHO, I could have gone tighter, but this was a 24-70 lens)
Neon = 16mm (center-ish guy okay, but people in margins get mangled)
Canada = 16mm
Boulder lifter = 16mm

- A


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 14, 2017)

I found that the 105mm cannon works quite well for shooting people


----------



## Ozarker (Dec 14, 2017)

Don Haines said:


> I found that the 105mm cannon works quite well for shooting people



EF mount.


----------

