prime lens for portrait photos recommendations
fatboybrando
I've been looking at the canon 50mm f2.5 macro to use with my 350D and
EOS5 cameras for portrait photos. Has anyone used this lens and have
some advice on suitability and or quality or should I just opt for the
50mm f1.8 mark2 lens?
Ta
Sean
C J Southern
"fatboybrando" <onl...@macomputer.co.sc> wrote in message
news:Y72dna4nFKb...@pipex.net...
I use a 24-70 F2.8L USM - it's very versatile, and produces very
high-quality images on a 20D
bmoag
flattening effect tends to be more flattering, these lenses are sharper and
have less distortion.
All rules have exceptions if you know what you want and how to achieve it.
Generally 35mm/dSLR portraiture works best with a slightly longer than 50mm
focal length, usually in the 85-100mm category even on an APS sized dSLR
sensor. You must experiment and see what works for you.
I am sure Canon users have many personal preferences. I am not a Canon fan
and express no specific recommendation.
You most assuredly do not want a zoom lens for critical portraiture.
IMHOP lighting and the mood you create for your subject are actually more
important than the camera and lens.
Also there are wonderful ways of modifying portraits with Photoshop that are
very pleasing to subjects that probably also are more important than
specifics of camera and lens.
l e o
50/1.8 doesn't have the reputation of having good bokeh. Most people
suggest 50/1.4 or 85/1.8.
Larry
The 85mm f1.8 would be a better choice. Much better bokeh than 50 1.8
which has a pentagonal diaphragm.
Randall Ainsworth
<onl...@macomputer.co.sc> wrote:
Probably a bit too sharp, but the perspective will at least be right.
All Things Mopar
hand
If you mean portaits of people, you might look to something
longer. Pros often (but not always) use from 85 to 105mm lenses
to do facial portaits to intentional foreshorten human features.
People tend to like the look because it minimizes "defects" they
don't like in themselves such as large noses, large ears,
receding chins or hairlines, large Adams Apples, and other
things that look a little more flattering when flattened some.
The opposite is also true - taking portraits with a 35mm lens
will make most people look like Alfred E. Neumann and the
photographer won't get much business once the "word" gets
around.
--
ATM, aka Jerry
"Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford
Skip M
news:220320061915237707%r...@nospam.techline.com...
It'll be right on the 350D, but not on the 5, a film camera. An 85, or a
24-70 may be a better compromise for use on both cameras.
--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
Skip M
It'll be tough to get a lens that will serve as a portrait lens on both a
1.6x crop digital camera and a 35mm film camera. A 50mm figures out to
80mm, which is within the realm for a slight telephoto for portraits. Most
prefer a length between 70 and 100mm, sometimes as long as 135mm. So, a 50mm
will probably be too short for the 5, since you'll have to get very close to
your subject to fill the frame, and that could lead to some distortion. But
an 85 f1.8 or 100 f2, my personal preference on 35mm are too long, equaling
a 136mm (at the long end of useful) and 160mm, only useful if you are
shooting in a barn...
Don
I was using the 50mm 1.8 yesterday evening for portraits of people and dogs.
I had started out with the 24 - 105 L F4 but changed to the 1.8 to see how I
could better manipulate the DOF. I was very happy with the 50mm. The bokeh
seemed fine to me but maybe I am not to critical. Was shooting in the late
evening and the colour and contrast of the 50mm was great. For the money on
a 350D its pretty good value (I was using it on a 1Dmk2n).
regards
Don
"fatboybrando" <onl...@macomputer.co.sc> wrote in message
news:Y72dna4nFKb...@pipex.net...
Peter
>> EOS5 cameras for portrait photos. Has anyone used this lens and have some
>> advice on suitability and or quality or should I just opt for the 50mm
>> f1.8 mark2 lens?
>
> 50/1.8 doesn't have the reputation of having good bokeh. Most people
> suggest 50/1.4 or 85/1.8.
I second 50/1.4.
http://www.ruksis.com/g2/main.php?g2_itemId=1234
Peter
U-Know-Who
Wait a few days, and I'll post a picture with the results of the 50 1.8 II.
I just ordered one from B&H. I've been meaning to for a while, but after
reading how it's just too good a deal to pass on, I ordered today.
U-Know-Who
"Peter" <pe...@greatnowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dvtkr9$l2u$1...@news1.greatnowhere.com...
Wow, really strong bokeh. Even the hair over her ears is out of focus. For
my liking, that's a bit too much.
Taswolf
"U-Know-Who" <no-...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:VTGUf.10021$uX5....@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> Wait a few days, and I'll post a picture with the results of the 50 1.8
> II. I just ordered one from B&H. I've been meaning to for a while, but
> after reading how it's just too good a deal to pass on, I ordered today.
Works wonderfully for night/low light shots as well.
T.W.
U-Know-Who
Randall Ainsworth
<no-...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> http://www.ruksis.com/g2/main.php?g2_itemId=1234
As long as the eyes are sharp, that's what's important.
AaronW
> You want a flat, slightly telephoto lens with a widish maximum aperture: the
> flattening effect tends to be more flattering, these lenses are sharper and
> have less distortion.
> All rules have exceptions if you know what you want and how to achieve it.
> Generally 35mm/dSLR portraiture works best with a slightly longer than 50mm
> focal length, usually in the 85-100mm category even on an APS sized dSLR
> sensor. You must experiment and see what works for you.
We do not look at people up close at very short distance. So for
portrait usually you want a lens at least 2x as long as "normal", i.e.,
85mm for full frame, 50mm for 1.6x. For tight portrait, you want
longer, at least 3x, 135mm for full frame, 85mm for 1.6x. For flatter
perspective, you want a even longer lens.
But longer lens needs longer working distance. And if you want to
change framing, you need to walk more. Longer lens is more difficult to
stabilize. Longer lens has smaller aperture thus may not be suitable in
low light. Longer lens is more expensive.
Longer lens is easier to blur blackground out of recognition. If your
subject move around a lot, with longer lens you might not need to
change your position to keep the framing.
Paul J Gans
The 50mm F/1.8 has saved me on any number of occasions. It
is just fine in low light, is very sharp, and wrapped in an
old sock fits rather nicely into a coat pocket.
----- Paul J. Gans