| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/10/2005 04:26:01 AM · #1 |
Any ideas? Budget of $800-
Thanks in advance! |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 04:37:06 AM · #2 |
Very good f/stop is a good idea.
Id go with a fixed 50mm f/1.4 or perharps a 35-50mm f/2.8.
The fun with protraits is you usually have a model who doesnt move around too much. So a fixed lens is fine, and since fixed lens can get very good f/stops for a lesser price (some...) i think its a good purchase.
Besides... everyone should have a 50mm... its just the ideal . |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 04:39:17 AM · #3 |
I have the Canon 100mm f2.8 (macro) which is an excellent portrait lens
and also
The Canon 50mm f1.4 which is probably even better for portraits.
I have ready that ideally a portrait lens should be around 75-100 mm, but as that is in 35mm terms that would equate to about a 50-70mm sort of range.
If I had to choose one of the above just for portraits I would probably go for the 50mm f1.4.
Another option might be to sort of go both .... the 100mm f2.8 amd then a 50mm f1.8, which is a lot cheaper than the 1.4 but still a great lens.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 05:34:59 AM · #4 |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 06:42:36 AM · #5 |
For $800?
Depends on what you want to start off shooting cause $800 may not be enough to satisfy all your "portrait" needs. You can shoot full-body portraits, children's portraits, headshots, etc.
If you think you'd be satisfied with some lens combinations that will afford you 2/3's length shots all the way up to headshots using your 20D then I suggest that you start with the Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 ($309 USD) and the Canon 85mm f/1.8 ($339 USD).
Based on 35mm film bodies a common practice with portraits was to shoot in the range from 85mm to 105mm. In current terms that equates pretty well to these two lenses on a 1.6x crop factor body like the 20D.
An effect that you will want in portraiture is Depth of Field. Depth of field will be achieved by using fast lenses (f/1.8 as oppossed to f/2.8 or f/3.5 or f/5.6). You will utilize depth of field to separate your subject from their background and present them to the viewer. Depth of field allows you an aesthetically pleasing mechanism by which you can control what the viewer of your photograph will look at in your photo; blur the background but make the eyes sharp and the viewer will be drawn to the eyes for instance.
If you aren't happy with these two choices because you feel that a fixed focal length lens will require you to move too much (and there will be times you have to move with either of these lenses) then I also love shooting portraits with the Canon EF 70-200 ($579 USD). I like using the f/2.8 L IS version but that's outside the price range; this f/4 L version can render lovely portraits as well and it fits the budget. Like the EF 85mm f/1.8, this zoom can be a little long in the leg so you need a little space between you and your subject but either choice in these lenses will not disappoint you as you shoot portraits.
EDIT*****************************
I saw where you mentioned this lens in another post Canon EF 135 f/2 L ($899 USD). It seems that this lens is outside your price range but if you want stellar headshots then this fixed focal length lens is one of Canon's premier. Based on your previous comments I didn't expect you to be interested in this lens for portraiture as it has a limited scope of use due to its effective focal length on a 1.6x crop factor body like the Canon 20D. If you want to shoot headshot portraiture of grownups then a lot of people who make a living in photography swear that this is one of their all-time favorite portrait lenses. If you want to photograph your son and some sports then this lens may not be exactly what you want as you're going to have to backup some distance from him to frame the compositions correctly. Conversely if you are wanting to put a lens to use in something like motorcycle racing then a zoom lens like the 70-200 or a fixed focal length like the Canon EF 300mm f/4 L IS ($1139 USD) would be better (obviously the 300mm wouldn't be good for portraits though and its too expensive for your budget). The 135mm can work for portraits and be used to great advantage but you should see some work produced by it first to get a hang of how its used. I plan on adding one of these to my bag but not for another year or so as its a mildly specialized lens in terms of portraits due to its longer focal length on the 1.6x bodies. If you do opt for the 135mm, you should be sure you're not getting the "soft focus" version of this lens as it doesn't have the same properties as its higher priced, more sought after sister lens.
EDIT*****************************
There are also numerous non-Canon lenses that I'm sure others will proclaim their love and admiration for or their utter satisfaction with. Regardless of the manufacturer (and I've shown my own tendancy to Canon glass), the principles and focal lengths are the primary features to look for to shoot portraits.
Kev
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 06:57:24.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 07:08:41 AM · #6 |
You might also consider the $75 Canon 50mm f/1.8 instead of the f/1.4 unless you have a need for the extra half-stop that the f/1.4 offers.
While the f/1.8 does not have the USM and therefore focuses slower, as Kevin points out this is not usually a concern when shooting portraits.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 08:39:23 AM · #7 |
I would also consider the Tamron 28-75mm XR Di lens. I've read great reviews on it and it has a constant f/2.8 throughout the entire range. Good for portraits.
I'm actually going to get it next week. Can't wait!!
Tamron 28-75mm Review
Tamron - $369.99 |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 09:45:13 AM · #8 |
My advice would definatly be the 85mm f/1.8.
Any of the zooms that may be in your price range (Canon) are all variable aperture except for the Canon EF 70-200 f/2.8 without IS. That lens is out of production but still availabble, but is not small. These varialbe aperture lenses are slow lenses whose focus changes as you change focal length. They may not be a drawback to you depending on what you are going to do with them, but I have a long standing prejudice toward them. Sigma makes a fairly sharp 70-200 f/2.8 that is within your budget. It is not a small lens either.
For the most part, anything between 70mm and 135mm that will open up to at least 2.8 will give you the most pleasing effects for portraiture.
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 09:51:24.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:06:35 AM · #9 |
I just got lucky!!
Found the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di on eBay for $288.00. I can't beleive it!! The seller also still has all original manufacturer's packing, so I can also get the $40 rebate.
This thread made me search on eBay for it and the auction was just put up. |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:20:58 AM · #10 |
Canon 85 mm f1.8 is very sharp lens,you have to be careful about aperture setting because you might get only certain areas in focus only :-)
 |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:53:11 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
,you have to be careful about aperture setting because you might get only certain areas in focus only :-)
|
so are you saying you made her boobs the sharp focus on purpose or it was an accident? hahahah ;-) |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 11:57:21 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Canon 85 mm f1.8 is very sharp lens,you have to be careful about aperture setting because you might get only certain areas in focus only :-)
|
Is this different than the upskirts of strangers which were harped on in another thread?
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 12:00:17 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Canon 85 mm f1.8 is very sharp lens,you have to be careful about aperture setting because you might get only certain areas in focus only :-)
|
Too funny! |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 12:09:12 PM · #14 |
another alternative is the Canon 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus
A bit on the long side for APS sensor cameras perhaps, but there really is nothing else like it.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 12:38:10 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
another alternative is the Canon 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus
A bit on the long side for APS sensor cameras perhaps, but there really is nothing else like it. |
I think a little vaseline smoothed over a filter on a regular prime or zoom will acomplish close to the same thing.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 02:10:53 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
another alternative is the Canon 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus
A bit on the long side for APS sensor cameras perhaps, but there really is nothing else like it. |
I think a little vaseline smoothed over a filter on a regular prime or zoom will acomplish close to the same thing. |
Vaseline, even in very small quantities gives a very strong SF effects and certainly doesn't give the same level of control. Vaseline is also prone to getting crap stuck in it and is messy. It also impedes AF. Just turn the ring on this and you've got a different SF effect or no SF effect at all.
Vaseline or other tricks like cellophane over the lens will work, but just don't give the control. If you like SF, there really is nothing like this to provide the control in-camera over the level of SF effect.
Not to mention, this lens is relatively inexpensive and can be had for under $300.
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 14:32:36.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 02:24:41 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Canon 85 mm f1.8 is very sharp lens,you have to be careful about aperture setting because you might get only certain areas in focus only :-)
|
Is this different than the upskirts of strangers which were harped on in another thread? |
Yes, it is different.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 02:33:23 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
another alternative is the Canon 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus
A bit on the long side for APS sensor cameras perhaps, but there really is nothing else like it. |
I think a little vaseline smoothed over a filter on a regular prime or zoom will acomplish close to the same thing. |
Vaseline, even in very small quantities gives a very strong SF effects and certainly doesn't give the same level of control. Vaseline is also prone to getting crap stuck in it and is messy. It also impedes AF. Just turn the ring on this and you've got a different SF effect or no SF effect at all.
Not to mention, this lens can be had for under $300. |
True, it'snot a very expensive lens, but it really is no competition for either the 135/2 or either of the 85's as far as sharpness, and it's not as fast either.
Soft-focus is often a very useful thing in portraiture, however the software solution is much more flexible, and reversible. I prefer to have my portraits razor sharp from the camera, and do what's necessary in PS.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 02:35:49 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by coolhar:
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Canon 85 mm f1.8 is very sharp lens,you have to be careful about aperture setting because you might get only certain areas in focus only :-)
|
Is this different than the upskirts of strangers which were harped on in another thread? |
Yes, it is different. |
Okay, good...now I can feel better.
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 14:36:09.
|
|
|
|
02/10/2005 02:56:19 PM · #20 |
| The 135mm 2.0 L is $899 new so maybe you can find it for $800 used. It's one of the sharpest lens canon makes. Also the 85 1.8 or the 100 2.0 would be really good but not quite as sharp. The 50mm is great for head and shoulders, anyone of them is great. |
|
|
|
02/10/2005 03:04:05 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
another alternative is the Canon 135mm f2.8 Soft Focus
A bit on the long side for APS sensor cameras perhaps, but there really is nothing else like it. |
I think a little vaseline smoothed over a filter on a regular prime or zoom will acomplish close to the same thing. |
Vaseline, even in very small quantities gives a very strong SF effects and certainly doesn't give the same level of control. Vaseline is also prone to getting crap stuck in it and is messy. It also impedes AF. Just turn the ring on this and you've got a different SF effect or no SF effect at all.
Not to mention, this lens can be had for under $300. |
True, it'snot a very expensive lens, but it really is no competition for either the 135/2 or either of the 85's as far as sharpness, and it's not as fast either.
Soft-focus is often a very useful thing in portraiture, however the software solution is much more flexible, and reversible. I prefer to have my portraits razor sharp from the camera, and do what's necessary in PS. |
As for being competition for either of the L lenses; of course not. Those lenses are 3-4x the cost and if they weren't an improvement optically over a sub $300 lens, then no one would buy them and Canon wouldn't build them. As for the 85mm f1.8, the two are rated pretty close at photodo (4.1 vs. 3.9) for whatever that is worth, but the 85 doesn't have the SF control either.
As for doing SF work in PS, I'd much rather spend my time shooting and get what I want in-camera than spend time staring at a tube trying to get a decent SF effect in PS. That's just me though.
If you like SF, I still say this is a good option to get the effect.
Here's a gallery of some work (not mine) done with this lens including some comparisons to PS work/actions.
135 f2.8 Soft Focus
Message edited by author 2005-02-10 15:08:06.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/02/2025 03:45:49 PM EDT.
