Sunday, 9 September 2007

Go ultra-wide instead

Ok, I've been pretty slack and haven't posted here for a while - but not a lot has been happening on the photography front recently.

I was supposed to go to a seminar with Yervant and Joe Buissink (two of the world's best wedding photographers) last week, but I got sick and couldn't go! I'm really beginning to think that God is trying to tell me something about this whole wedding photographer thing. No bookings for this season, no responses to my adverts, and I miss out on seeing my heroes in person. Is that subtle or what?

My good friend Stewart went instead and got to be 'me' for the day. He also brought back several DVD's with him, so all was not completely lost. In fact, it was while convalescing in bed watching one of Yervant's DVD's, that I came to a decision that had been bugging me on and off for quite some time - my next lens purchase.

My recent post on the 70-200mm suggested that was where I was heading - and it was. But with my lack of weddings, and increase in Landscapes, I began to wonder whether I shouldn't be doing a complete 180 degree turn and go down the ultra-wide route instead.

And then, surprisingly, watching Yervant's Wedding DVD confirmed it for me. It seems that a lot of his more 'dramatic' portraiture is done with a 16-35mm ultra-wide, and that this lens, along with a 24-70mm f2.8, makes up 90% of his wedding kit (admittedly with a 70-200mm f2.8 thrown in for good measure).

Since he shoots full-frame, the lenses he uses correspond to the 17-55mm f2.8 I already have for my 1.6x 30D, with the addition of the EF-S 10-22mm which would give me the ultra-wide 16-35mm component. So not only would I be able to use the 10-22mm for landscapes, but also (with a bit of practice) for weddings to add an element of drama.

So I've been and gone and done it. This evening I won a Canon EF-S 10-22mm f3.5/4.5 ultra-wide on trademe and now I can't wait for it to arrive so I can try it out.

There was also a Sigma 10-20mm f4.5/5.6 up for auction as well, but I just couldn't make myself bid on it - even if it meant saving myself $200NZ. I've decided from now on (rightly or wrongly), that I'm only going to use Canon lenses. Call it snobbery if you want - it probably is but I don't care. I have owned and used Sigma, Tamron and Tokina lenses in the past, and of all of them I would have to say that I have found Sigma to be the better of the three.

But if I'm completely honest with myself I'd also have to say that I've never been really happy with any of them (and downright hated most of them). So for me, an extra few hundred dollars in the grand scheme of things to get Canon lenses is more than worth it for piece of mind. I don't believe it's a decision I will ever regret.

So there it is. An ultra-wide is my next lens purchase. I will try it out when it arrives, and post some of the first images taken with it. I'll still look at getting a 70-200mm to round out my kit in the future, but for now it will be ultra-wide all the way. Happy days.

1 comment:

  1. Great choice on the EF-S 10-22mm. According to the lens reviews I've read, it really does seem to be the best of the APS-C ultrawide zooms for Canon. The 10-22mm also pairs well with a telephoto zoom for a relatively compact two lens kit that covers a wide range. I'm sure you'll love it.


Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate you taking the time to comment on this post. I will get back to you as soon as I can.
Thanks again