| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/15/2005 12:53:22 PM · #1 |
hi all,
What are the best lenses for full body shots? I already have the 50mm 1.8 for headshots. Would the 17-35 be any good for body shots? |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:59:01 PM · #2 |
OK...I had this same question I posed to my bosses (they own the commercial photo company I work for).
They said..how much money you got? :-D
Ask this question first.....
........What kind of photos am I going to take?
Do you want a well rounded capability (meaning a blend of portrait, product, action, macro, scenic, wide angle)
Is low light, resolution, tight focus,... whatever... your goal?
This question is impossible to answer until you define your goals...anybody who says different is throwing money away.
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 12:59:35. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:04:37 PM · #3 |
probably...
85L/1.2
50/1.4
35L/1.4 |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:05:23 PM · #4 |
Depends...the size of the studio, your shooting style, etc.
going wide angle, even 17 on a 1.6x crop camera can give weird proporitons to a body.
 this is about as wide as you can go - her leg is starting to take over, and it was cropped as in the original the leg is too prominent. This was taken in a a 12x12 (approx) room. I did one over her laying on the floor in front of a fireplace and it was unuseable as the leg is the subject, not her.
70-200 2.8 is good for head shots. 28-75 2.8 for the rest.
The 85 1.8 or 1.2 are popular as well.
Since i am using flash in the studio and am shooting at 5.6-9 range a 2.8 lens means nothing (gives no advantage). Sharpness still counts - the tamron 24-135 SP is good - great range and if you move in you can get the BG OOF just fine.
  
Depends on your shooting style or the style of image you are trying to capture.
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 13:06:25.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:21:10 PM · #5 |
replace the 85 1.2 with the 1.8 ... and i agree with this
:)
Originally posted by kyebosh:
probably...
85L/1.2
50/1.4
35L/1.4 |
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:22:46 PM · #6 |
Replace the 1.2?? I would never get rid of mine. @ 1.2 things become magical.
Originally posted by hopper:
replace the 85 1.2 with the 1.8 ... and i agree with this
:)
Originally posted by kyebosh:
probably...
85L/1.2
50/1.4
35L/1.4 |
|
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:25:03 PM · #7 |
Okay..edited to address the full body shot question.
Full body shot lenses that our Canon photogs use...
Depends ( as someone else has said) on how big the studio is.
A good Wide angle zoom (16-35) really gives you some flexibility.
A great hi-speed 50mm
And a 70-200 for throwing backgrounds totally out of focus and the tight zoom you know you will want :-)
Message edited by author 2005-12-15 13:39:17. |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:55:03 PM · #8 |
my comment was based only on what i've read ... perhaps you could give me your 1.2 so i can re-evaluate my findings?
:)
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Replace the 1.2?? I would never get rid of mine. @ 1.2 things become magical.
|
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 01:57:47 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by hopper:
my comment was based only on what i've read ... perhaps you could give me your 1.2 so i can re-evaluate my findings?
:)
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Replace the 1.2?? I would never get rid of mine. @ 1.2 things become magical.
|
|
NEVA!! ;o)
My 85 @ 1.2 starts to vignette around the edges and goes flat on contrast. It's absolutely wonderful on some shots. @1.4 it's amazingly sharp and contrasty. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 06:08:34 PM EDT.
