better lens for baby portraits - Canon EF 28-105mm f3.5-4.5 USM or EF 70-210mm f3.5-4.5 USM
doughnut
done this type of thing before, we've agreed this is strictly amateur so there
are no quality expectations or guarantees whatsoever (whew!). I'm doing it
pro-bono for the experience and they're paying for film, developing, prints, and
enlargements if they decide to get any, and they keep the negs. It will be
outdoors using natural light in late afternoon (possibly with flash for fill),
and I'm using an Elan 7e. I plan on shooting some Fuji Reala and some Agfa
Portait 160, to give them a choice of looks.
My question is which lens should I use (and no I don't have any others to choose
from)? I know the 28-105 is supposedly a little sharper, but I *think* the
70-210 has less distortion in the 70-105 range (and it will be slightly
brighter/wide open). So I wonder which will be the more important factor given
the situation and potential for enlargements. Also, whichever lens I choose,
should I avoid using it at the extreme (i.e. 28-105 near 105 and 70-210 near
70). Please keep in mind that I will probably shoot wide open or close to it in
order to blur the background, so I'm sure that will have an impact on the
performance of the lens (or should I try another approach so I can stop down to
get the best quality out of the lens?).
Any advice is greatly appreciated.
Leen Koper
"doughnut" <please.reply...@dfn.de> schreef in bericht
news:ak33sm$1e715n$1...@ID-146901.news.dfncis.de...
film like the XPS 160 or the Portra 160 NC and use soft and even lighting.
Don't forget to bring a sturdy tripod, focus exactly on the eyes and you
will produce lovely portraits.
Leen Koper ABIPP ARPS
Fotografie Leen Koper
www.fotografieleenkoper.nl
Jeffery S. Harrison
70-210.
You didn't define "baby" but I'm assuming infant so you can probably ignore
what I'm about to say :-) I find when shooting young children (meaning under
6 but old enough to be mobile) that tripods just don't work. Them kids just
move too fast. If you only have one or two people to control them, and
they're in position to do so then the child will be looking at them and not
at the camera. If they're behind the camera to get the child to look in that
direction then there is nobody to catch him when he decides to bolt. So for
this application I usually use 35mm with either my 35-105 or 28-70 for rapid
framing and set up the lighting so that there is room for considerably
movement. I also try to get down to their eye level while shooting.
Jeffery S. Harrison
doughnut
news:ak3qkc$7n1$1...@quark.scn.rain.com...
Thanks. That is helpful - the boy is about 1 year old, so not an infant, and at
least somewhat mobile.
Bob Hickey
sharpness won't be noticed any way. Concentrate on how to keep the kid
occupied and interested long enough to get the shots. He's not going to stay
put 'cause they tell him. Take the shots after he wakes up naturally, bring
toys, let the mother stand behind you and talk to him. He won't listen but
he'll know she's there. Make strange noises, bring clickers. Keep the sun at
his back, and try to get a lite bright enough to shoot at f11. It's not about a
camera, it's about the kid. Bob Hickey
Stephen M. Dunn
$I'm taking some baby pictures this weekend for some friends.
The reason 85, 100, and 135mm are often cited as good focal lengths
for portraiture is because of the distance they make you stand back
from the subject. That distance provides you with a generally
pleasing perspective. If you come in closer, things start to look
distorted. Stand at a comfortable distance away from a mirror
and you look normal; walk in closer and your face starts to look,
well, odd. Same deal.
Babies are small. If you want to take full-body pictures of
them, 105mm would be long enough; if you want to take tighter shots,
105mm will not be long enough. Unless you're in a cramped room,
70mm should be wide enough even for an upper-body shot of a proud
parent holding the baby (an 85mm lens is often used for portraits
that include upper body and head, so 70 will work fine for that).
So I think the 28-105 is too short, while the 70-210 has
an appropriate range.
I'm wondering, though, why you specifically chose these two
lenses _and_ can only use one of them. If you have both, is
there any reason you can't take both? In the 70-105 range, you'd
need to figure out which one to use (guess: the 70-210, stopped
down to f/4 or f/4.5), but you could hedge your bets by doing
some shots with each lens. For anything that needs <70 or
>105, it's an easy choice :-)
--
Stephen M. Dunn <ste...@stevedunn.ca>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
doughtnut
news:H1BCK...@bokonon.stevedunn.ca...
Good question. I _am_ taking both lenses, but I doubt I'll need them both.
Plus, I don't want to be second-guessing my lens choice while I'm shooting -
being new at this type of photography I'm sure I'll have quite enough to
concentrate on already. I know I didn't state this clearly, but my question was
not really about what focal length to use, since I know that somewhere around 85
is best and most common for this type of work, but rather which lens will give
me the best results in that range. In my head I was thinking "slightly sharper
lens" or "slightly wider aperture" - should have just said it that way.
You raise a good point, though, that >105 is likely to be more useful than <70,
particularly to get in tighter - this is probably more significant than the
other factors. And since it's outdoors I don't expect to have a space problem
that requires a shorter length. Unless someone else posts a really convincing
argument for the 28-105 before I go to bed tonight, I'll use the 70-210.
Thanks.
Jeannie
news:20020823074151...@mb-fl.aol.com...
> It's not about a
> camera, it's about the kid. Bob Hickey
Exactly. The OP is stressing too much about equipment. Baby portraiture is
only 1% about equipment.
Young children are irreverent. They have no respect for photography. At 1
year old, they are busy, busy, BUSY. They are either crawling or walking or
learning to walk. They are constantly moving, often with their heads down
looking at whatever they are exploring. They may not like you (if you are a
stranger), may love you, or completely ignore you. You can try to be
involved (i.e., bring toys, make noises, be goofy, interact), or have the
parents interact, or just hang back and let the child do his own thing. The
distractions generally work only a limited number of times, though. They
are easily bored, distracted, tired.
It doesn't really matter what focal length you choose. Choose a FAST lens,
and forget about it. Concentrate on your rapport with the child. Focus
quickly, anticipate, and click. Those good portrait moments are fleeting,
at best.
Be prepared for drool, spit-up, or a child that lunges for your toy--err, I
mean camera--and wants to chomp it or get his smudgy hands on it. Be
prepared for frustration (your own). Taking pictures of young children
takes a LOT of patience. It's nothing like taking pictures of adults.
--
Jeannie
E-mail: moonflour at bigfoot dot see oh em
Web: http://www.talisweb.com/jeannie/
street shooter
camera settings will probably be somewhere in the neighborhood of
1/125 @ f/6.7. If you have a shoe-mount flash take it. The built-in
flash will serve you well for fill flash on horizontals but will give
an unnatural effect - even for fill - on verticals. Set your zoom
somewhere in the 35-50 range to incorporate some of the surrounding
scenery. Have fun, and let the little one do the same!
Michael
"doughnut" <please.reply...@dfn.de> wrote in message news:<ak33sm$1e715n$1...@ID-146901.news.dfncis.de>...
Bob Hickey
know some use 35, or I've heard of it anyway; never actually saw it, but if you
can beg borrow or steal an old YashicaMat or something like it, stand back far
enough so that the kid takes up the same frame space as a 35, your success rate
will skyrocket. Expecting a 1yr. to pose for pictures is just unrealistic. Not
falling over on the grass and grabbing a nap, is the most you can hope for.
Bob Hickey
doughnut
Great idea - if the more protrait type stuff isn't working too well this may
work instead. I have the the 20-35 USM that will also be in the bag, and I
guess I could also use the 28-105.
doughnut
news:fMy99.5343$ja.9...@twister.socal.rr.com...
>
> Exactly. The OP is stressing too much about equipment. Baby portraiture
is
> only 1% about equipment.
I agree, the equipment isn't a big factor, but I'm not stressing about
equipment too much at all or trying to figure out what focal length to use.
My obviously-not-so-well-phrased original question was really about the
choice between two lenses - _all_other_things_being_equal_ - including
approach, perspective, technique, yada yada yada. My plan was to shoot
somewhere in the 85 range, so I just wondered which of the two lenses would
be the better choice - on the technical lens performance level.
street shooter
off-camera cord. Sorry for any confusion. Have fun!
Michael
michael....@att.net (street shooter) wrote in message news:<2e0183f8.0208...@posting.google.com>...