Author | Thread |
|
05/25/2006 02:13:02 PM · #1 |
For a canon of course.... ;)
I've decided to...re-jump back into the dslr market nad buy another canon, but the only thing I'm going to be using it for is portraits...so I need a good portrait lense and that's about it. I'm also picking me up a 50mm 1.8 since everyone seems to be crazy about those around here:P
Thanks in adavance |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:15:07 PM · #2 |
100mm 2.8 macro makes a great portrait lens Caleb ;) |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:16:30 PM · #3 |
Yup, yup, yuh huh, what Rikki said!
|
|
|
05/25/2006 02:16:40 PM · #4 |
Celeb that 50mm 1.8 is a hell of a portrait lens on a crop sensor camera. And, may very well be the only lens you'll need.
If you want to do more full-body shots, you might want to get something wider for your arsenal too, a zoom around 28-70 works well.
|
|
|
05/25/2006 02:18:30 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by idnic: Yup, yup, yuh huh, what Rikki said! |
hehehhee... cindi and i love our 100mm 2.8 ;) |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:19:45 PM · #6 |
100mm on the Canon = 160mm in full-frame terms; pretty long for a "portrait" lens. In the film days, 100mm was considered to be the "nominal" head-and-shoulders focal length for portraits; the equivalent on a Rebel/20d/30d would be around 60 mm: 62.5 to be precise. If you want a sharp, crisp prime that can do Macro, the 60mm f/2.8 fills the bill nicely, and it's a better portrait lens IMO.
But I'd put my money in the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. That lens is much more versatile, and it's extremely good optically as well.
R.
|
|
|
05/25/2006 02:19:50 PM · #7 |
Leroy beat me to it... the 50/1.8 on a 1.6-crop camera is a great little portrait lens. If you find you want something longer, for close-in shots, the 100 Macro (or 100/2) are good choices. For a little more money, the 135/2 is superb. It's on my list. |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:20:38 PM · #8 |
Canon 85 mm f1.8 and 200mm f2.8L for outdoor .
Canon 50mmf1.4 and Sigma 35 mm f1.4 for indoor ! |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:22:26 PM · #9 |
85mm 1.8 or a 70-200L zoom. The 50mm 1.8 works pretty well but it feels crowded for a close up shot. |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:25:35 PM · #10 |
I agree with Bear about the 60mm F2.8, I cannot lavish enough praise on that lens. |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:28:17 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Rikki: Originally posted by idnic: Yup, yup, yuh huh, what Rikki said! |
hehehhee... cindi and i love our 100mm 2.8 ;) |
Add me to the list of lovers :) |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:29:40 PM · #12 |
I read somewhere that using a zoom lens to get closeer is better for portraits than using a wide angle or normal lens. The zoom compresses the features and makes it look better. Is that true? |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:32:01 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by ignite: I read somewhere that using a zoom lens to get closeer is better for portraits than using a wide angle or normal lens. The zoom compresses the features and makes it look better. Is that true? |
Yes that's true. zoom ( higher focal lenght ) will compress and you won't see a pointy nose |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:34:17 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by ignite: I read somewhere that using a zoom lens to get closeer is better for portraits than using a wide angle or normal lens. The zoom compresses the features and makes it look better. Is that true? |
Yes. Longer focal lengths are more flattering for portrait work. The shortest I'd use would be a 50mm lens on full-frame, and I'm not really comfortable with even that; I prefer 75mm or longer. For 1.6-crop, that means 35mm or longer, preferably 50mm.
Sharp medium telephotos, like the 200/2.8 suggested by Pitsaman, are great portrait lenses. |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:34:23 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by ignite: I read somewhere that using a zoom lens to get closeer is better for portraits than using a wide angle or normal lens. The zoom compresses the features and makes it look better. Is that true? |
A longer lens does flatten features, which can be good to reduce a big honkn' nose. The 50mm on a crop sensor camera is a mild telephoto, which gives good results.
Now, a really wide lens used close gives what is known as a dog-nose effect. Making features such as thhe nose look huge.
|
|
|
05/25/2006 02:36:41 PM · #16 |
Thanx for the info people. |
|
|
05/25/2006 02:44:45 PM · #17 |
A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens, regardless of the sensor size. The focal length does NOT change, nor does the DOF at a given aperture. What changes is the field of view, that's it.
50mm is as wide as I would go for shooting portraits, any wider and you start to get unflattering distortion of the face. My favorite lens for portraits is the 85mm f1.8. That lens and the 50mm f1.8 make a great portrait combo. I've used a 100mm f2.8 and I think it's just a bit too long to be really useful.
|
|
|
05/25/2006 02:53:05 PM · #18 |
Bear, you want to explain perspective, focal lengths and sensor size (media size), or should I try to butcher an explanation?
Message edited by author 2006-05-25 14:54:24.
|
|
|
05/25/2006 02:57:07 PM · #19 |
The longer focal length is best for portraits---it allows the camera to be farther from the subject to prevent perspective distortion---like the "dog nose" effect. |
|
|
05/25/2006 03:11:00 PM · #20 |
Hope this helps clear up the perspective issue. I'm quoting Bear_Music from This thread.
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Magnification is a myth, using the word just confuses the issue. Want proof? Just look at binoculars, which use both magnification and field of view in their nomenclature.
Here's the bottom line: If you set your camera on a tripod with a WA lens and shoot a picture, then swap out to a 200mm lens and shoot a picture, without changing the camera's position at all; and THEN if you crop the WA picture to show the same area of the subject as the 200mm does, and put the pictures side-by-side, they will be absolutely identical if you disregard the greater "granularity" of the heavily-cropped image when it's blown up to match.
So "magnification" IS "crop", plain and simple, as far as we are concerned. But it's a bad word to use in the normal photographic context. We should reserve it for extreme macro usage, where 1:1 = life-size and 2:1 is 2x magnification. And THIS is regardless of the sensor: it just means that a centimeter-diameter object will be a centimeter at 1:1 and 2 centimeters (larger than life size) at 2:1 on the sensor. and this is true even if the magnification is so great it actually crops the object on the sensor.
This issue of "perspective" is entirely controlled by the relationship of the objects in the image to each other. The earlier exercise, with WA and 200mm, proves that. So, if you want to call the image delivered by a 50mm lens on a 35mm camera a "normal perspective" (The actual diagonal of 35mm film is around 43mm, sot hat would be "true" normal), you are basically saying "this field of view and this relationship of objects to each other most closely represents the way my eyes see the scene". Personally, I'd call that a "normal field of view".
In any case, for any given film/sensor size, the "normal" lens is indeed the lens of which the focal length most closely matches the diagonal of the sensor/film. That's something like a 35mm lens on a Canon 20D, and what it means is that if you set up a tripod and shoot with a 5D (FF camera)/50mm lens, then mount the 20D/35mm combo, those images will match each other very closely.
R. |
|
|
|
05/25/2006 03:20:23 PM · #21 |
Since we're on the subject of portrait lenses, is there any advantage to the 135mm soft-focus, or can you just use a gausian blur to get a similar effect?
And I want to ask how the 85/1.8, 100/2 and 135 soft focus compare, but I did a search and can find enough opinions to justify any of them ;-)
Message edited by author 2006-05-25 15:22:07. |
|
|
05/25/2006 03:23:29 PM · #22 |
I've had the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for ± 2 weeks now and experimenting / practicing with it. I LOVE it. You can use it for so many different things! This really was a great choice, and I'm very thankful for you guys here on DPC who recommended this lens! Sweet!
|
|
|
05/25/2006 03:25:21 PM · #23 |
...
Message edited by author 2006-05-25 15:25:38. |
|
|
05/25/2006 03:29:12 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by hankk: Since we're on the subject of portrait lenses, is there any advantage to the 135mm soft-focus, or can you just use a gausian blur to get a similar effect?/[quote]
A soft-focus effect is actually one effect that's actually better done in post-processing (if you know how to use layers, layer masks, and opacity and blend modes). You have far more flexibility, and the effect is reversible and can be done selectively.
[quote=hankk]And I want to ask how the 85/1.8, 100/2 and 135 soft focus compare, but I did a search and can find enough opinions to justify any of them ;-) |
Of the three, the 135mm/2.8 Soft Focus is probably the least well-thought-of. I'm reporting second-hand information, as I've never owned any of the three.
The lens that is always reported as highly superior is the 135mm f/2 L, it's a relative bargain in L glass, and the performance is simply outstanding, beyond any of the others mentioned here, and beyond the 100/2.8 macro as well.
Message edited by author 2006-05-25 15:30:09. |
|
|
05/25/2006 03:37:42 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by biteme: I've had the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 for ± 2 weeks now and experimenting / practicing with it. I LOVE it. You can use it for so many different things! This really was a great choice, and I'm very thankful for you guys here on DPC who recommended this lens! Sweet! |
I second the vote for the Tamron. Great lens for this sort of work!
|
|
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: 08/01/2025 04:10:36 PM EDT.