[RGlasel]

use an 8" stepladder.

You meant to type 8 inches? Around these parts we call that a pile of books, not a stepladder.

[Docrwm]

You meant to type 8 inches? Around these parts we call that a pile of books, not a stepladder.

To the 3" tall man the 4" tall man is a giant!

[BruceBanner]

How about the Irix 15mm f/2.4?

How about it? That's what I'm asking hehe, I have no idea if that's a good choice for group portrait work or rather something better suited towards landscape and architecture? Is the edge sharpness good, but is it also distorted? I'm not interested in having a sharp weird looking human being on the edges hehe.

I would steer towards the 24-70, and use it at the wide end. It's not perfect in the corners, but pretty good.

Wider than that, on FF, you're looking at the 15-30, or specialty lenses like the Irix 15, Samyang 14, Laowa 12. The latter has the lowest distortion, but none of these are particularly impressive in the corners. The 15-30 is the best, but doesn't handle distortion as well.

I think there's no free lunch : you'll have to step back a bit. A 24-ish FOV is probably best for this.

At my kids' school, the photographer went on the room to photograph everyone, it looked pretty good!

15-30 and 24-70 are really both out of my pricing/budget, but also they are rather bulky. I am a prime shooter, I have a FA77 (hopefully a FA43 in the near future <cough* Black Friday sales! * cough>, a Lensbaby 56/1.6 (for artistic work), HD DA 35/2.8 Macro (which works actually pretty well on FF!) and a SMC Pentax-A 24/2.8 (which is the other option as well as that aforementioned 10-20 Sigma). I shoot events (other than this school stuff) with two cameras always, a KP and K-1, and I move between the two cameras depending on buffer issues and venue constraints (backing up against walls etc). The size of the lens actually is really important to me, and is why the Laowa 12 is higher up on the list than some others.

But perhaps between the A24/2.8 and Sigma 10-20 I have this already covered? I'd be ok with selling both those lenses however to put towards a single lens that is better suited to the job, either on a FF or Crop Sensor. What I'm after is minimum distortion of people looking odd and stretched at the sides and good edge sharpness, even at wider apertures (though I realise on the day that shooting 3 rows deep will require stopped down, I'm thinking of using the same lens for other purposes).

How much of a factor is distance? If you can back up, then you have more options. Will these be outdoor shots or studio shots? What is the expected working distance?

On APSC the DA 12-24 has lower distortion than the Sigma10-20 from what I recall, but I doubt the difference is significant enough to justify a purchase. The new as yet to be released DA* 11-18 might be worth considering except you also shoot full frame.

The full frame options were covered well in the previous post. However if you find you have more room then obviously the options widen to include other focal lengths.

I can backup as much as a I like, being sunny Australia the shot will mostly take place outside in the sports field/oval (with benches etc). Do we have an approximate eta on the DA* 11-18? My shoot wouldn't be till around March next year...

You will run into problems if the width to depth ratio gets too extreme, and that depends more on the number of people than the focal length. Fortunately, people are typically three times as tall as they are wide, but more than 8-12 people in a row makes everyone look like distant, indistinguishable figures. The other issue is stacking peope. In your boat group photo, you are nicely elevated yet everyone behind the first two rows is almost invisible. The hand on the railing on the left edge is distorted, but the people on the extreme sides are still okay, so using 15mm on APS-C isn't the problem. In a school setting, you can have a row of people sitting and another row standing on a bench, so three rows deep is fine.


The people you are photographing don't give a rat's whatever about the aesthetics of your group photos, they only care about how they look. If the group isn't too large (and 25 isn't too large), there is also an expectation that you will get all but one or two outliers looking at the camera with their eyes open and normal expressions. You can't scan a long lineup fast enough to accomplish this without multiple re-takes and the larger the group, the smaller the number of re-takes you will be allowed.


In your situation, hopefully you can use a gymnasium for classroom and staff photos, which allows you to use "normal portrait" focal lengths. Otherwise, go as wide as you can with the lens, leaving non-human elements on the sides, which can be ridiculously distorted without offending anyone. For the everyone and their dog shot, as bdery mentioned, a rooftop is great, because people on the ground don't have to tilt their heads back as far as their necks allow (they just have to look up more than normal) and you can have more than 3 rows deep without making people invisible (still hard to pick out if you don't know the people in the photo, but not impossible). Logistically, more practical than a drone shot, too.

I'm actually standing on just the boats floor for that shot, not even a chair, using the KP's tilt window and stretching my arms as high as I could for the shot, hence it looks quite nicely elevated. I knew to do that much at least for a group shot. I'm hoping for the school day I can use a step ladder to help frame better

I too saw the hand distorted and actually felt I could obtain better edge sharpness or lesson the distortion, hence this post (and why I sold the HD DA 15). I was stopped down to F8 and I still wasn't overwhelmed by the edge sharpness or lack of distortion, this in combination with poor star bursts, non FF compatibility led me to sell it on. I vowed if I were to obtain another one I would get a green version.

I'm a wizard enough in PS to solve a lot of eyes closed and the like issues. Example below;



This shot taken for a Christening, the girl middle right had her eyes closed for the shot, but because I spammed the shutter a fair bit I could use a second image for her eyes. I stacked the two shots, reduced opacity so I could line up her eyes/head properly, then mask away. Came out perfect really. I would always take a ton of shots for group portraits, literally 10-15 shots or so just so that I can use this trick to get everyone looking their best. IMO it's like winning the lottery to get that one shot of everyone looking their best at the camera in a group shot

Students might be more manageable than relatives of the bridegroom, but I think this is a good illustration, regardless.

Good lord...

For 25 people, you shouldn't need too wide, and anything wide is going to distort things on the edges even if its sharp. Probably be good to go with the 31 or 35. But you really can't go wrong with the 24-70 for this kind of thing.

24-70 too pricey (and bulky) for this Prime shooter.

I do have a HD DA 35/2.8 Macro, that actually performs pretty well on FF. But I think I can do better than that.

Doing another wedding, I'd probably just go with my DA 35 and DA*55 1.4 with the Sigma 70 for come ups. Even 35mm on FF which is just barely wide angle can do weird things.

This was my concern. Is it safer to stick with something less wide and just back up a lot for the shot, then crop the final image, is that a better tactic than searching for a sharp edge to edge lens that's wider but will leave people looking weird...

Here's a shot of the altos in our singing group - all 26 of them - taken with a K-1 and the 28-105 zoom at 37 mm. I used my AF 540 flash - but could have used a bit more light - I had to brighten up the back rows in PSE. I also did a LOT of background cleanup - make sure you have a clean background!!!!!

Very similar in number to your class sizes: 26 ladies in 4 rows by 6 or 7 per row; I should have moved the back rows to their right a bit to get this more centered. The back rows were on steps, so nobody in the back rows is blocked out.

As noted above, if distance from the subjects is not a problem, just move back a ways. And, getting higher up is usually good, as several have noted: I was on a ladder a few steps up and perhaps 30 feet away. There's no problem with edge distortion if your are not too close.

This was originally 4800 pixels wide, so lots of resolution for big prints.

Nice shot. I may also need flash even for outside if I am to remove raccoon eyes and the like, a cloudy overcast day might be best.

Very wide w/o distortion of the people at the periphery is probably a fish eye lens and fish eye hemi software. Ken Rockwell has some examples of fisheye hemi results w/ special attention to the extreme sides. A wide rectilinear lens must have distortion at the extreme angles. (It is a result of the geometry, so really not a distortion, but circles become ovals--actually you start to see it in the OP's photo above.) Although I don't (haven't) use it for this application I see from what I do, it should be good.

Now that's interesting to hear. I have no experience with Fish Eye lenses and my immediate thought would be that people will just not look right, even with software correction. Are you able to expand here on what you have mentioned? Any examples etc? I have seen on lens reviews those bokeh's lights turning into ovals at the edges and the centre ones round, so I'm imagining this translates to weird looking distorted people at the edges with the same lens? Does Fish Eye lenses not do this? Bokeh circles stay bokeh at the edges? I have to say I am really attracted to the idea of having a Fish Eye lens in my collection so of all the proposed ideas this one I like the most. I'm fantasising that I could use a FE lens for a group photo, and although at the time of the shot things look weird, but with software correction everyone looks great and sharp, and then I am also left with a second 'art' lens for creative purposes where perhaps I am not purposefully 'straightening' things out in post but rather leaning towards that distorted look purposefully.

A minor suggestion: try to get yourself up higher than the group - for example use an 8" stepladder. It will show people in the back better, and humans tend to smile when they look upward.

The boat shot I was standing on nothing, but arms as high up as I possible could get them, screen tilted down for the shot, so yeah I am aware that a bit of height goes a long way, and yeah people tend to smile a bit looking up don't they

[UncleVanya]

Grab a 50mm macro and step back. Or an FA 35mm f/2. The edge to edge sharpness and geometry of those lenses would exceed the Ultrawide solutions. Also if the 24-70 seems pricey - stay away from the DA* 11-18 - I suspect it will be similarly pricey. It will also be bulkier than the existing 12-24 f4 as it is an f/2.8 constant aperture zoom.

[bdery]

SMC Pentax-A 24/2.8

I believe for the job at hand you're probably all set.

the Laowa 12 is higher up on the list than some others

That's one of the best surprises in all my testing in 2018. I love this lens. Its review is upcoming and it's quite positive. Sadly it's expensive but in my opinion it's worth it. It's as close to a Limited as anyone not Pentax ever produced, I think.

But perhaps between the A24/2.8 and Sigma 10-20 I have this already covered?

I'm not familiar with the Sigma, I'm guessing it probably has disrottion. The 24 should be fine, I think.

I'd be ok with selling both those lenses however to put towards a single lens that is better suited to the job, either on a FF or Crop Sensor. What I'm after is minimum distortion of people looking odd and stretched at the sides and good edge sharpness, even at wider apertures

I don'T want to do your shopping for you. You seem to like those two lenses. To replace them with something more useful, the first question would be what do you usually do with those lenses (and do you want to keep doing it)?, and the second would be what can't you do that you'd want to do?

[pres589]

Students might be more manageable than relatives of the bridegroom, but I think this is a good illustration, regardless.

What's even happening here?

[WPRESTO]

To the 3" tall man the 4" tall man is a giant!

OK you guys. So I hit the "shift" button when typing ' so it came out "

[pres589]

That's one of the best surprises in all my testing in 2018. I love this lens. Its review is upcoming and it's quite positive. Sadly it's expensive but in my opinion it's worth it. It's as close to a Limited as anyone not Pentax ever produced, I think.

That Laowa 12 seems so cool! Looking forward to reading your review.

If there was a lens that could get me to move on from the DA 15, which I now rarely use due to my dalliance with old film junk... The price tag is pretty hard to swallow, especially for someone that basically never makes any money with photography.

[Sandy Hancock]

Rectilinear wide angle lenses distort the edges. The wider they are, the more they distort. You can't escape that. Even the Sigma 35 Art and FA31, both of which are very well corrected and not particularly wide, are not forgiving of human subjects in the corners.

If you want a distortion free group portrait, use a normal lens (or longer) and step back - a long way in the case of the classic massed school portrait.

Obviously, for the sample shot in post #1, that was not really an option unless there was a pier nearby, so you're just going to have to wear the distortion or bunch the group towards the centre.

Of the lenses you own, the DA35 macro on the KP is probably your best bet. If you really need to shoot with something very wide, the DFA15-30 is sharper corner to corner than your Sigma, and the versatility of the zoom range makes the price and size worthwhile for me. Mine is considerably better at 24mm than my DFA24-70. In some ways it's even better than my FA*24.

You're getting some great results already, and I presume you're also getting regular paid work now. Surely you can justify investing in a primo lens to up your game, at least in the near future.

[normhead]

the DA35 macro on the KP is probably your best bet.

I wished I'd taken the 50 macro instead of the 50 1.7 I took. I didn't actually use 1.7 and for group shots I think the flat focal plane of the macro would have been better. But I was shooting a K-1. There were times the 50 on the K-1 was too long.

[C_Jones]

I would also mention the Pentax 24-70 for versatility if you are using full frame. I have a 16-85 that I use with lights if required on my aps-c camera bodies, but if using full frame the 24-70 might give an edge having the F 2.8 advantage, though if more depth was required with groups you may not necessarily use the F 2.8. Still, if you are using full frame, the 24-70 is a versatile and effective tool, and would handle groups plus individual shots in a splendid manner. My Pentax 16-85 handles a lot of situations also. I keep flashes handy if I am getting images of people when using it.

[clackers]

I wouldn't use an ultrawide, Bruce, just do what the pros do - a quite normal lens, well stopped down - and move back. Even then, there will be a little fall off in IQ towards the edges, so move a little further back to give yourself a nice safety margin, and crop. Two umbrellas to either side of your tripod will give you the even lighting across the frame the parents are after.

[swanlefitte]

If you might use flash check out strobist on groups. Strobist: On Assignment: Two-Speedlight Group Shot
There is probably more.

[RGlasel]

What's even happening here?

This was an outdoor wedding at an old farmyard converted into an event centre. Unfortunately it was unseasonably cold for mid October and by the time the ceremony was over, everyone was freezing. For taking photos of all the different group permutations, the main photographer lined people up in front of a low stone fence with their backs to the sun (admittedly it was a mostly cloudy day, but the relatively bright cornfield in the background still made faces look dark). The candid shot I took doesn't show the baby on the right being held by his grandmother (because his mother is answering her cell phone while the photographer was trying to get everyone to move closer). By the time the photographer finally took some pictures of this particular group, everyone had been standing around without coats for half an hour (waiting for smaller group photos to be taken, retrieving everyone from wherever they had wandered away to, etc.). We Canadians are a hardy (and patient) people, but there are limits.

[clackers]

OK you guys. So I hit the "shift" button when typing ' so it came out "

There's a magnificent scene in the mockumentary 'This Is Spinal Tap' where our favourite heavy metal band accidentally make the same mistake in the specifications for a Stonehenge theme to their stage set designer ...