| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/18/2006 04:11:26 PM · #26 |
I snoozed on a brand new on on eBay about a week ago - Buy it now at $250.00
I'm still pissed at myself for not jumping when I saw it - less than an hour later it was gone.
100m f/2.8 macro & the 85mm f/1.8 are on top of the wishlist.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 04:22:07 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So to really get the same affect as someone with a FF camera, we would need the 85mm lens and to be 1.3, 1.5 or 1.6 further away from the subject. |
or use a shorter lens ... like the 50 instead of the 85
perspective is a function of distance to subject - if Larus fills the frame with his 85, and i fill the frame with my 50, we'd be standing next to each other ... same perspective. |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 04:26:13 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Am I the only one who thinks Gordon's OOF cityscape looks like a nude female torso in the thumb?
R. |
Now that you mention it, I see it too! :P |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 04:31:57 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by hopper:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
So to really get the same affect as someone with a FF camera, we would need the 85mm lens and to be 1.3, 1.5 or 1.6 further away from the subject. |
or use a shorter lens ... like the 50 instead of the 85
perspective is a function of distance to subject - if Larus fills the frame with his 85, and i fill the frame with my 50, we'd be standing next to each other ... same perspective. |
Not really. You will have equivalent field of view, not perspective.
The shorter lens will have less compression and provide a less flattering view of facial features at a given subject to camera distance. That's the main problem with using the 50mm as a portrait lens. It's not really flattering to many faces. |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 04:41:17 PM · #30 |
i was taught that the reason is isn't flattering is because you have to get closer to the subject than say an 85 ... and it's the shorter distance which creates the "unflattering" look.
edit to add link
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
That's the main problem with using the 50mm as a portrait lens. It's not really flattering to many faces. |
Message edited by author 2006-12-18 16:43:30. |
|
|
|
12/18/2006 04:57:43 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by hopper:
i was taught that the reason is isn't flattering is because you have to get closer to the subject than say an 85 ... and it's the shorter distance which creates the "unflattering" look. |
It is more because telephoto lenses tend to compress things that are actually at different distances. Wide angle lenses tend to introduce more separation. A shortish telephoto thus tends to flatten out the face a bit, which is usually more flattering to features, than say a wide angle which would really emphasize the shape of the subject, or for equivalent subject size in the frame.
So the same lens on a 1.6x crop might be great for a portrait, but become something a bit too wide on a 1.3x or FF camera. That's what happens with the 50mm for example, which goes from an 80 on a 1.6x crop which is pretty nice for portraits, to something that distorts (or really, doesn't distort enough) to be pleasing on a 1.3x or FF camera.
50mm, 1.3x sensor
85mm 1.3x sensor
Message edited by author 2006-12-18 17:00:29.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 05:09:27 PM · #32 |
that's not what's described at the above link ... the compression comes from distance to subject (or lack of), and is not specific to a certain lens
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by hopper:
i was taught that the reason is isn't flattering is because you have to get closer to the subject than say an 85 ... and it's the shorter distance which creates the "unflattering" look. |
It is more because telephoto lenses tend to compress things that are actually at different distances. Wide angle lenses tend to introduce more separation. A shortish telephoto thus tends to flatten out the face a bit, which is usually more flattering to features, than say a wide angle which would really emphasize the shape of the subject, or for equivalent subject size in the frame.
So the same lens on a 1.6x crop might be great for a portrait, but become something a bit too wide on a 1.3x or FF camera. That's what happens with the 50mm for example, which goes from an 80 on a 1.6x crop which is pretty nice for portraits, to something that distorts (or really, doesn't distort enough) to be pleasing on a 1.3x or FF camera.
50mm, 1.3x sensor
85mm 1.3x sensor
|
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 05:10:26 PM · #33 |
Wide-angle perspective distortion." This variety gets its name from the fact that it is often produced by the use of wide-angle lenses, though the lens is not the cause of the distortion. It is caused by an object in the scene being much closer to the camera than the remainder of the objects in the scene. The shorter the distance between the camera and the object, the larger the apparent size of that object relative to the remainder of the scene, and hence the greater the perspective distortion.
"Telephoto perspective distortion." This variant is so named because it often is produced through use of long focus or telephoto lenses. Again, however, the lens doesn't cause the distortion. Rather it results from of all subjects in the photo being at a great distance from the camera when a long focus or telephoto lens is used to isolate them from their surroundings. Here, the perspective appears to be compressed. In extreme cases, the foreground and background subjects seem to be piled on top of each other.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 05:11:57 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by hopper:
that's not what's described at the above link ... the compression comes from distance to subject (or lack of), and is not specific to a certain lens |
Though we are pretty much saying the same things in different words - I was describing the effect, for equivalent subject size in the frame, which requires you to change the camera to subject distance. But you are right that it isn't something peculiar to any type of lens, just a side effect of changing the field of view.
Message edited by author 2006-12-18 17:22:37.
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 05:23:34 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Demento_1974:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Am I the only one who thinks Gordon's OOF cityscape looks like a nude female torso in the thumb?
R. |
Now that you mention it, I see it too! :P |
How come y'all are seeing naked women and I'm not ? It was my picture, damnit!
|
|
|
|
12/18/2006 05:54:16 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Demento_1974:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Am I the only one who thinks Gordon's OOF cityscape looks like a nude female torso in the thumb?
R. |
Now that you mention it, I see it too! :P |
How come y'all are seeing naked women and I'm not ? It was my picture, damnit! |
Your mind must be on other things. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 01/03/2026 01:48:25 PM EST.
