| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/02/2005 07:30:29 PM · #1 |
Just looking for opinions, examples or recommendations. When taking portraits which lens, zoom or prime?
These are the ones I am considering:
Canon 17-40mm f/4L
Canon 135mm f/2L
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 07:40:30 PM · #2 |
I really couldnt see using a 17-40 for portraits, but that really depends on what you are looking to achieve. I, personally, use my 70-200 80% of the time for portraiture. I have a 24-70 that I use sometimes also, but mostly at the 50 range? I hope that helps...I don't know the technicalities behind it, I just know what works best from experience. I hope that helps.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 07:41:57 PM · #3 |
that 50, and 90 that you have should work excellent!
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 07:42:59 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by krazyivan:
Just looking for opinions, examples or recommendations. When taking portraits which lens, zoom or prime?
These are the ones I am considering:
Canon 17-40mm f/4L
Canon 135mm f/2L |
If it is between the two and you are looking to make a fairly normal portrait (ie. nothing radical) the 135mm mounted on the 20D will give much better results. Much better DOF effects.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 07:46:40 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by parrothead:
I really couldnt see using a 17-40 for portraits, but that really depends on what you are looking to achieve. I, personally, use my 70-200 80% of the time for portraiture. I have a 24-70 that I use sometimes also, but mostly at the 50 range? I hope that helps...I don't know the technicalities behind it, I just know what works best from experience. I hope that helps. |
Do you have the 70-200mm f/2.8L? Do you find that it is cumbersome to carry around? |
|
|
|
02/02/2005 07:51:22 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by parrothead:
that 50, and 90 that you have should work excellent! |
agreed...if it's for portraits you don't really need a new lens i dont think. 17-40 would just be fun though.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 07:52:53 PM · #7 |
its a big lens....no doubt about that! But I actually love, and have grown well accostomed to the feel of it. For me....if I could only use one lens, this would be it! But that is also for the work I do. I shoot mainly children and seniors. It keeps me just far enough away, but produces wonderful images when done right. I just got an is version recently, and I AM IN LOVE. Is that bad!? Hehehe! Best of luck!
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 07:53:00 PM · #8 |
The 17-40 isn't good for head shots or head and shoulders but isn't bad for environmental portraits where background or context is included. I took this one with the 17-40
at 40mm and f/4, so that's about as much background blur as you'd get in that situation. If I'm doing portraits I often choose my 50 1.4, 28-105 3.5-4.5, or the 70-200 4L. The 70-200 can scare people (especially in a casual situation) but in a more formal setup it's excellent.
If you're doing posed portraits, a prime is hard to beat. 135 is a little on the long side on a 1.6x camera, but would be fine outdoors. I'd say for headshots on a 10D I use 100ish the most. This was taken at 96mm at f/5.6 with the 28-105, so you could imagine what a 100/2 prime could do for background blur.
Still, with flash the 28-105 isn't bad if you don't want to spend a ton. Sharpness isn't the most important thing with portraits, but I do need to spend more time with contrast adjustments etc with that lens.
Message edited by author 2005-02-02 19:53:24.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 07:55:03 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by krazyivan:
Do you have the 70-200mm f/2.8L? Do you find that it is cumbersome to carry around? |
Cumbersome to me is when something outweighs it's usefullness. That is a fine lens if you like zooms. Personally I would prefer the 200 1.8 if I could find one reasonably priced.
Message edited by author 2005-02-02 19:59:21.
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 08:01:03 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by jimmythefish:
The 17-40 isn't good for head shots or head and shoulders but isn't bad for environmental portraits where background or context is included. I took this one with the 17-40
at 40mm and f/4, so that's about as much background blur as you'd get in that situation. If I'm doing portraits I often choose my 50 1.4, 28-105 3.5-4.5, or the 70-200 4L. The 70-200 can scare people (especially in a casual situation) but in a more formal setup it's excellent.
If you're doing posed portraits, a prime is hard to beat. 135 is a little on the long side on a 1.6x camera, but would be fine outdoors. I'd say for headshots on a 10D I use 100ish the most. This was taken at 96mm at f/5.6 with the 28-105, so you could imagine what a 100/2 prime could do for background blur.
Still, with flash the 28-105 isn't bad if you don't want to spend a ton. Sharpness isn't the most important thing with portraits, but I do need to spend more time with contrast adjustments etc with that lens. |
I see what you mean about the background blur on the 17-40 f/4L. It sounds like the way to go with portraits is somewhere between 80-100mm and at least an f/2.8. Sound right?? |
|
|
|
02/02/2005 08:41:28 PM · #11 |
I use a 28-80 for the most part. I think it's better because frankly there's nothing wrong with the way it does headshots. Not only that, it allows me to stay close to interact with the model. Makes for a more pleasing session for your model (or customer ;)) and for better shots.
I am confused on why people would want a lens that limits possibility? I.E. zooming in a little seems better than steping forward, refocusing and shooting. Another thing, I also think it's easier to zoom in for focusing, than pulling back for my full body shot, or mid-shot, or stay in for a close-up or extreme close-up (I'm a fan of the extreme close-up)
Joe
|
|
|
|
02/02/2005 09:01:06 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by magicshutter:
I am confused on why people would want a lens that limits possibility? |
I would guess you are refering to primes.
For me a prime limits nothing. It is simply a different style of shooting that has nothing to do with limitations. I am quite happy with a 85mm lens mounted on my camera and very pleased with the results I get. How could a zoom help me except to change my style?
Plus, despite all the great reviews the people who sell zoom lenses always accord their products, primes are for the most part faster and sharper then their zoom counterparts. Noticably.
|
|
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: 09/14/2025 03:27:27 PM EDT.
