Portrait Lens for 300D? - DPChallenge Forums

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

03/05/2004 11:56:04 AM · #1

If you could have only one and not spend more then 200 bucks what would it be?
Does the Canon 50mm 1.4 fit the bill? Or will this lens give me some facial distortion?
I know in film cameras 80-100mm is the most flatering and ideal lens for portraits, but what is the 35mm film lens size equivalent in mm?

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

03/05/2004 11:57:22 AM · #2

If i could only have one lens for $200 or less, it would be the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5... i think its $199.

garlic

Canon EOS-10D

Sigma 15-30mm f/3.5-4.5 EX Aspherical DG DF for Canon

03/05/2004 11:58:45 AM · #3

35mm lens would be equvalent of ~55mm

03/05/2004 12:03:27 PM · #4

Originally posted by jmsetzler:

If i could only have one lens for $200 or less, it would be the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5... i think its $199.

Thanks, John, if the lens was only to be used for portraits, would that still be your choice?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/05/2004 12:04:59 PM · #5

Originally posted by garlic:

35mm lens would be equvalent of ~55mm

Garlic, is there a formula for figuring out equivalents, do you know what a 50mm would be?

W.R.Miller

Canon EOS-50D

03/05/2004 12:07:20 PM · #6

Formula is to take 35mm focal length x 1.6 = DR Focal Length

50mm x 1.6 = 80mm on DR

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/05/2004 12:07:38 PM · #7

On the 300D (or 10D), the 1.6 "crop" factor means a 50mm is equivlalent to 80mm. The 50/1.8, at approx. $70, is a good choice. Fast enough to control DoF very well, sharp, and cheap to boot. For portrait work you are not concerned about AF speed, so no concern with the non-USM focus.
The 80mm effective focal length will be good for general portrait work.
When I have sufficient subject distance, my fav portrait lens is the Canon 100mm macro... but this is beyond your $200 price point by quite a bit (approx. $380 + hood).

jimmythefish

Canon EOS-10D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

03/05/2004 12:08:02 PM · #8

YOu should really get a 50 1.8 anyways, it's rather cheap and the difference between it and the 1.4 in terms of optics is minimal. I have the 1.4 and it's a terrific portrait lens provided that you can get in close you your subject. For a headshot you need to be within an arm's length, pretty much. I agre with John...I just purchased the 28-105 3.5 4.5 (not to be confused with the cheaper 28-105 4.0-5.6) and it's a great lens. At the longer end 4.5 max. aperture isn't ideal for getting a really nice background blur, but it's not bad for the price. If you just want to do portraits the 85 F1.8 or the 100 F2 would also be a cheap option, as they were designed with portrait photography in mind.

jmsetzler

Sony Alpha a6000

Sony 16-50mm f/3.5-5.6 E-mount

03/05/2004 12:10:12 PM · #9

Originally posted by Paige:

Originally posted by jmsetzler:
If i could only have one lens for $200 or less, it would be the Canon 28-105 f/3.5-4.5... i think its $199.

Thanks, John, if the lens was only to be used for portraits, would that still be your choice?

No. I would buy the 50mm f/1.8 if your budget is $200. That lens is about $70 but the f/1.4 is about $250.

03/05/2004 12:12:01 PM · #10

and

are both portraits taken with the 50mm f1.8 lens, though for that last 'head' shot I was probably within about 2 feet of the person.

A lens I really like for doing portraits is a 100mm macro - though that is equivalent to a 160mm 35mm lens. I find it gives some working distance while still being able to get good head shots. The combination of the 50mm and 100mm are great for portrait work.

are both shot with a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro though there are cheaper options in that focal length. Certainly if you want to save money, primes (not zooms) will give you much better results for less money - though for portraits some of these lenses are almost too sharp.

I'd rather have a too sharp image that I had to soften down a touch than something blurry that I can't recover though.

03/05/2004 02:28:33 PM · #11

Originally posted by jimmythefish:

Thanks, Jimmy.
How about the Tamron 90mm macro? Is it only good for macros? or can it be a good portrait lens too?

03/05/2004 02:32:05 PM · #12

Originally posted by Gordon:

for the 300D, multiply the 35mm values by 1.6 to get the equivalent size, so a 50 would be equivalent to a 80mm.

I find that means I have to be a little too much 'in your face' for head shot portraits, but it is a great length for couples or 3/4 length shots.

I have the 50mm f1.8 ($60) and it is a great, really sharp lens. Construction isn't fantastic but it is $60. It focuses pretty quickly in good light and is an amazingly good lens - certainly in the top 10% of all Canon lenses.

and
are both portraits taken with the 50mm f1.8 lens, though for that last 'head' shot I was probably within about 2 feet of the person.

A lens I really like for doing portraits is a 100mm macro - though that is equivalent to a 160mm 35mm lens. I find it gives some working distance while still being able to get good head shots. The combination of the 50mm and 100mm are great for portrait work.

are both shot with a Canon 100mm f2.8 macro though there are cheaper options in that focal length. Certainly if you want to save money, primes (not zooms) will give you much better results for less money - though for portraits some of these lenses are almost too sharp.

I'd rather have a too sharp image that I had to soften down a touch than something blurry that I can't recover though.

Nice Gordon, love your shots. More lenses to choose from :)
You too use p-base, do you use it as a display for your clients and print somewhere near you?

03/05/2004 02:52:35 PM · #13

Originally posted by Paige:

Nice Gordon, love your shots. More lenses to choose from :)
You too use p-base, do you use it as a display for your clients and print somewhere near you?

Thanks! I don't really have clients as such - these have been shoots that I've done for friends. Typically what I've done is make them a proof CD using the templates within breezebrowser that lets them decide which shots they want printable versions or prints from.

I've then done any additional photoshop work required and printed them at a local lab.

03/05/2004 03:19:46 PM · #14

"templates within breezebrowser" you may as well be speaking greek ;)
Can you elaborate?

03/05/2004 03:33:45 PM · #15

Originally posted by Paige:

"templates within breezebrowser" you may as well be speaking greek ;)
Can you elaborate?

Breeze Browser is a image viewer/ RAW converter for Canon cameras. There are many other similar programs. It converts the images to smallish versions (640x480) and thumbnails and also allows you to embed a 'proof' logo on the image to stop people printing them.

Anyway, all I'm doing is giving them a CD for them to pick images. The CD has a set of web pages that they can flick through and work out which ones they like. Using a CD helps because not everyone has broadband to view a lot of pbase images.

03/05/2004 03:44:49 PM · #16

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by Paige:
"templates within breezebrowser" you may as well be speaking greek ;)
Can you elaborate?

Breeze Browser is a image viewer/ RAW converter for Canon cameras. There are many other similar programs. It converts the images to smallish versions (640x480) and thumbnails and also allows you to embed a 'proof' logo on the image to stop people printing them.

Anyway, all I'm doing is giving them a CD for them to pick images. The CD has a set of web pages that they can flick through and work out which ones they like. Using a CD helps because not everyone has broadband to view a lot of pbase images.

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Did you get the image viewer with your camera?