| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/20/2005 10:29:27 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Nice work, Tina. Branching out from sports shooting? |
Thanks Paul... :-)
A little I suppose - it's getting hot out here to be at the track.
Edit: 113 Farenheit by Sunday
Message edited by author 2005-05-20 10:30:06. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 10:33:23 AM · #27 |
| If you want to lighten your wallet I would go with the 24-70 2.8 , or if you have the working distance, the 70-200mm 2.8. They̢۪re both very versatile, which is good for a wedding lens. But if cost is a factor, you can̢۪t beat the 50 1.8. I use mine all the time for portraits. It̢۪s sharp, light, fast, and inexpensive. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 01:10:01 PM · #28 |
I had to go order a 50mm 1.8 yesterday after reading your posts! You guys are a bad influence :) Actually you were right, it was very inexpensive on B & H. A girl on another message board I post to had just gotten one and raved about it as well and her portraits were great. I can't wait to get mine!
I'm glad you asked the lens question, I think you may have created a lot of fun for me in the very near future! |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 01:13:20 PM · #29 |
you have a few options... the 50mm is great, the 1.8 the 1.4 and the macro, the 85mm 1.8, the 100mm 2.0 also both great. The 85mm 1.2L is REALLY expensive so i hesistate to recommend it, but it's supposed to be incredible! The 135mmL is fairly pricey but is another amazing lens, perhaps a little long for more than just headshots. the 70-200L lenses are all good for portraits, I have the 80-200L and i love it, you can get really narrow dof with it, but you cannot get the same bokeh as with the 135L for example, even at F2.8. You might also consider the 100 and 105 macro lenses by canon and sigma.
edit: the 24-70L suggestion is also good, but i don't think as nice as the longer lenses, also it's really pricey.
Message edited by author 2005-05-20 13:14:41.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 01:31:42 PM · #30 |
| FWIW, the image quality of the Tamron 28-75 is rated to be virtually identical to the Canon 24-70 at a third of the price. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 01:39:50 PM · #31 |
One thing to note about portraits is that you usually want to stop your lens down a bit to get everything in focus. Perhaps an exageration, but even the cheapest piece of crap consumer lens stopped to 5.6 or 8 is going to yield sharp results up to around 11x14 provided you put any photoshop work into it at all.
Great technique for portraits can compensate immensly for a so-so lens. There's a few guys over on photo.net that do portaits with $250.00 point n shoot canons and they look awesome.
L lenses are designed to perform well at the extremes (both aperature and zoom ends). As long as you stay inside the extremes, the lenses start to give similar results. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 02:58:51 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by hopper:
One thing to note about portraits is that you usually want to stop your lens down a bit to get everything in focus. Perhaps an exageration, but even the cheapest piece of crap consumer lens stopped to 5.6 or 8 is going to yield sharp results up to around 11x14 provided you put any photoshop work into it at all.
Great technique for portraits can compensate immensly for a so-so lens. There's a few guys over on photo.net that do portaits with $250.00 point n shoot canons and they look awesome.
L lenses are designed to perform well at the extremes (both aperature and zoom ends). As long as you stay inside the extremes, the lenses start to give similar results. |
Actually you'll often want a very narrow DOF for portraits, and 2.8 is great for that, but 4.0 is fine on a longer lens. The wide dof is usually reserved for the standard looking portrait or a full body shot. I really enjoy the look of the eyes in focus but the nose and ears not. Many people will agree with that too.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 02:59:21 PM · #33 |
For indoor ( studio) portraits you need something like 30 to 60 mm lens at f1.4 for great portraits with 1.6 or 1.5 X camera.
Outdoor you can go up to 135 mm with flash with 1.8 or 2.8 lens.
Without flash nothing beats 200 mm L (brag)
Message edited by author 2005-05-20 15:06:43. |
|
|
|
05/20/2005 03:13:04 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Without flash nothing beats 200 mm L (brag) |
Yeah, but the 200/1.8 is hard to get. ;-)
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 03:14:06 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Without flash nothing beats 200 mm L (brag) |
Yeah, but the 200/1.8 is hard to get. ;-) |
They also make a 2.8 version that's fantastic though.
Edit: that's the lens he used in the shot
Message edited by author 2005-05-20 15:14:37.
|
|
|
|
05/20/2005 03:18:53 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by kyebosh:
Originally posted by PaulMdx:
Originally posted by pitsaman:
Without flash nothing beats 200 mm L (brag) |
Yeah, but the 200/1.8 is hard to get. ;-) |
They also make a 2.8 version that's fantastic though.
Edit: that's the lens he used in the shot |
I know, I was joking. :-)
|
|
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: 08/03/2025 01:43:05 AM EDT.
