| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/21/2004 10:53:09 AM · #1 |
hi all
this is my second post and i must thank everyone for the speedy responses, ive been a member for a little while but have not posted any photos, as the intimidation is quite overwhelming, "you all have such wonderful photos," but i will be posting soon,
ok now for my question, i got my first slr (300D), and want to get a second lens, i do mostly portraits, i have an upcoming event where ill be shooting models with fruit and need to get close-ups as well as full body of couples, please if you would share advice on maybe lighting i have 2 750watt totas with umbrellas and i want to purchase a good lens, i read up on Canon Zoom Telephoto EF 75-300mm f/4.0-5.6 EF IS USM Autofocus Lens its a little expensive but if its worth it, then ill have to get it, or maybe one can recommend a similar one.
as i mentioned im new to slr's hence lenses, so i could be way off as to a good lens for this type of shoot.
thank you very much for your time and help
lelani |
|
|
|
03/21/2004 10:59:12 AM · #2 |
| I dont know very much about good lenses, dont have a DSLR my self but I would advice you taka a look at the threads about the Canon EF 50mm, f/1.8 lens. |
|
|
|
03/21/2004 11:06:52 AM · #3 |
lelani,
If you are doing portrait work, and usually in a studio, then by all means get a sf (single focal) "portrait" lense. Typically a 90mm or 105mm in film. (I do not know what the portrait folks are using in digital). Several fotog's here do this kind of work. A couple that come to mind are magnetic9999 and grigrigirl. They would be a couple that may offer you some particulars on digital lenses for this specific task. Send them a PM.
I just remembered that Kevin Riggs also does this work. Another to contact....
Message edited by author 2004-03-21 11:11:35.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2004 11:41:57 AM · #4 |
You may want to consider the canon 28-135 IS instead of the
75-300 IS. With the 1.6 crop factor these are actually
48-216 and 120-480, the latter probably not the best choice.
Also garlic makes a good point with the 50mm f/1.8 this
is an incredible little lens for about $70.00 US. |
|
|
|
03/21/2004 11:43:04 AM · #5 |
The 50mm is probably a better choice for the Rebel than a 90 thru 105 range because of the 1.6x crop factor. A lot of serious studio portrait photographers use 80 and 85mm lenses for this type of work. The 50mm lens on your Rebel equates to an 80mm lens on 35mm film, so it would make a good choice and it is cheap.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2004 11:44:56 AM · #6 |
Firstly, I'm not a portrait photographer, so I can't offer any anecdotal advice..
The 50/1.8 is a nice lens (a friend has it), and it would probably be reasonable for full length shots.. I own the 85mm/1.8, which again is a nice lens.
I'd be wary with the 75-300, not because it isn't a reasonable lens (in fact, I own one), just because I think it wouldn't be great for portraiture.. I think the aperture is too high (not a shallow enough DOF), and I'd imagine you're going to be on the low end of zoom for a lot of the time. That said, I've heard the 70-200L (probably out of your price range) is very good. You may want to check out the Sigma 70-200, although again, that may be a little too much.
If you're not sure, I'd highly suggest going into a camera shop and trying a few out. You don't have to buy it from the shop, just say you'll go away and 'think about it'.. Then you can shop online. :-)
Good luck - and let us know how it goes!
Edit: Just as a personal opinion, I would recommend a low aperture lens (no more than F/2.8 throughout the range).. Anything higher than that and you will need a lot of zoom to compensate (DOF is related to both aperture and (amongst other things) the amount of zoom.)
Message edited by author 2004-03-21 11:48:31. |
|
|
|
03/21/2004 12:01:39 PM · #7 |
Lelani,
You're liable to hear numerous choices on this front. The answer depends on you and what you want to do but from my standpoint here's what I think about and how I value lenses.
With 35mm film cameras photographers generally considered a range of 75-135mm to be portrait lenses with about 105mm being best. The reason has to do with how these focal lengths "flatten" a person's face. For this reason I like to stay somewhere around this range as I'm learning, too.
Also, you generally want to separate the subject from the background (although there will be times when you might be trying something artistic and choose not to do this). For that you need to (1) position your model well and (2) use large apertures. The larger the aperture, the shorter the depth of field (DOF). With an aperture of around 2 on a fairly bright day you should be able to blur the background so that the subject stands out and is clearly defined.
Along with blur from the aperture you probably want to consider bokeh (my understanding is that its pronounced "bow-kuh"). This refers to the shape of the fuzzy pieces in the photograph and its caused by the panels of the iris inside the lens. Some lenses have more panels; some less. Some work to create prettier blobs of light and color in the blurred background and some of them, well, they just don't turn out as nice.
If you're really concerned about doing a "professional" type job for clients then you probably want to consider color rendition and sharpness. Any lens in the 70-135mm range can take a portrait (heck, you can try a portrait with anything) but if you want to generate clear, well-colored photos that can be blown up large, then you'll save yourself some photoshop work by looking at the top of the line Canon "L" lenses. People will tell you that you can shoot a good portrait with anything and you can. But the question is how much work do you have to put into getting that great shot. Now don't think I take great portraits. I don't and the lens can't make up for not having a good "eye" yet. But if you don't want the lens to get in the way (please pardon the pun) of you taking a stellar photo, then eventually you'll probably want some "L" glass because it is true to color and sharp enough to cut you (man I'm on a roll, sorry).
The long and short of it is that if you pickup anything like the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 for about $70 from B&H (equivilent length is 80mm) or the Canon 85mm f/1.8 for $340 from B&H (equivilent length is 136) or any other manufacturer's lens around that range then you're going to have a good tool to start learning to shoot portraits.
By far and away, unless you're just blessed with an "eye" for portraits or you learn faster than I do (which may well be the case) then the best thing you could do is shoot with any glass you can put your hands on as the practice will lead to you developing your own style. If you are blessed with an "artistic eye" (Ursula Abresch is one such person I know of) then by all means take out a loan for $1,500 worth of "L" glass 'cause you'll make it up in no time.
Suggestion:
Any brand
50-100mm (80-160mm equivilent on your camera)
max aperture - around 2 (the Canon 50mm has an f/1.8 aperture)
I'd definitely try the Canon 50mm and just plan on getting close for the first little while. An added suggestion (as though I haven't typed enough) would be to get close. I still don't get close enough to a model (in the photos). Closeness relays details and details translate into connection points for viewers. Eye creases, catchlights, a little scar on the jawline, the first few millimeters of beard showing through. All these things generally mean something to the people who know your subjects so don't be afraid to fill your whole frame with your subject ('course take a look at mine and you'd think I was standing across a parking lot down at Disney when I composed most of 'em).
Anyway, good luck and share those photos with us.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2004 12:03:25 PM · #8 |
I have many of these lenses mentioned here (50/1.8, 17-40/4, 24-70/2.8, 28-135/3.5 IS, 70-200/2.8 IS, 75-300/4 IS, 100/2.8 macro) and I should probably say I would take the 24-70mm. But it´s a very expecive lens. So if I had to think of the money it would absolutely be the 28-135mm or the 50mm. The lens I use mostly for portraits is the 100mm macro. It´s very sharp and has the aperture 2.8 and blurres the background perfectly.
|
|
|
|
03/21/2004 12:16:22 PM · #9 |
| Carsten is right about the 24-70 lens. It is the lens mostly used by fashion photographers I know around this area. The Canon version is quite expensive, so I bought the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 which is just as good in my opinon and much much cheaper. I can highly recommend this lens and I use it as my standard lens most the time. Magnetic9999 also has the Sigma, Anastasia as well and they both love it. For portraits I use the Canon 50mm f/1.4 but as I use it very seldon @ 1.4 I probably would have been better off buying the f/1.8 at a third of the price. |
|
|
|
03/21/2004 02:33:48 PM · #10 |
If you are serious about portraits, I would look at the 50mm f1.8 (~$70) and the 85mm f1.8 (~$330) (or the 85mm f1.2L which is about 3x the cost of the f1.8 and the 50mm f1.4 (~$250)). With the 1.6x factor, the 50mm is the equivalent of a 80mm and the 85mm is equivalent to a 135mm. Both perfect focal lengths for portraits. Both are quite fast, allowing you to blur the background and shoot in lower light. Both will be sharper than zooms covering the same range. Together, the two less expensive lenses cost about the same as the Sigma f2.8 zoom, but will be sharper and faster.
I also shot some portraits with the Sigma 105 macro, but I think it is a bit long for the task. It does blur the BG well though.
I also have the 28-135 IS lens, and it's a great all-around lens, but not really the best thing for portraits. The 75-300 lens is probably just too long for portraits, except maybe at the shortest focal length setting. I know there are people who swear by the 70-200 f4L for portraiture, but I would still rather have primes.
For $70, you really can't beat the 50mm f1.8 though.
This was shot with it, wide open through a rather dirty window.
|
|
|
|
03/23/2004 06:10:28 PM · #11 |
thank you, thank you, thank you :)
i'd like to purchase the canon 50mm f1.8, but am not able to find it anywhere. most places have it out of stock,
does anyone know where i can get it? |
|
|
|
03/23/2004 06:30:12 PM · #12 |
| It seems to be out of stock almost everywhere. Think you just have to patient and be fast when it´s in. On B&H you can let them mail you when it´s in. |
|
|
|
03/23/2004 06:32:19 PM · #13 |
| What I mean is; you can let them send a mail to you. |
|
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: 04/24/2024 01:11:33 AM EDT.
