f2.5 vs f1.8 for portrait on dRebel
leo
portrait. However, I am thinking of doing a little of macro works so I am
inclined to get the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro lens. I already have the dRebel kit
lens. Should I get this macro lens? Is the cheap 50mm f/1.8 the only one I
should consider for portrait?
Stuart
"leo" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:qKZ3c.14707$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I was always taught to use something like an 80mm lens for portraiture to
avoid excessive distortion of the face (avoiding over emphasis of prominent
hooters!).
Was I taught wrong?
--
Stuart
Register com/net/org domains $7.95
Transfer $7.75 inc 12 months extension - http://www.bizzy.net/
Canongirly
"Stuart" <in...@brainsys.com> wrote in message
news:c2pr26$1vuq2o$1...@ID-65688.news.uni-berlin.de...
>
> "leo" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:qKZ3c.14707$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > I heard many good things about getting the cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens
for
> > portrait. However, I am thinking of doing a little of macro works so I
am
> > inclined to get the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro lens. I already have the dRebel
> kit
> > lens. Should I get this macro lens? Is the cheap 50mm f/1.8 the only one
I
> > should consider for portrait?
>
> I was always taught to use something like an 80mm lens for portraiture to
> avoid excessive distortion of the face (avoiding over emphasis of
prominent
> hooters!).
>
> Was I taught wrong?
>
> --
> Stuart
>
to sensor size)
In response to the original poster.
If you're going to do a fair bit of Macro, then IMO the 50mm f2.5 Macro will
be a better bang for your buck. Horses for courses and all that jazz.
Chris Brown
Stuart <in...@brainsys.com> wrote:
>
>"leo" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>news:qKZ3c.14707$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> I heard many good things about getting the cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens for
>> portrait. However, I am thinking of doing a little of macro works so I am
>> inclined to get the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro lens. I already have the dRebel
>kit
>> lens. Should I get this macro lens? Is the cheap 50mm f/1.8 the only one I
>> should consider for portrait?
>
>I was always taught to use something like an 80mm lens for portraiture to
>avoid excessive distortion of the face (avoiding over emphasis of prominent
>hooters!).
>
>Was I taught wrong?
The 50mm lenses on the Canon DSLRs have the same field of view (and hence
same perspective, as you need to stand in the same place to fill the frame)
as an 80mm lens on a 35mm camera, hence they make really good portrait lenses.
In answer to the original poster, I haven't used the 50mm f/2.5 macro, but
you *should* be OK for portraits at f/2.5. I used to use a 1.8, but
traded-up for a 50mm f/1.4 which is a really nice lens, and lovely for
portraits at any aperture below about f/3.5. The other day, I did a portrait
of my wife at f/1.4, manually focused which I was really pleased with. The
1.4 is definitely worth considering if you can live without the macro (for
which I use the Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro).
Here's what the f/1.4 is like wide-open (not a portrait, sadly. Don't have
any readily availavle). Took this last week on a 10D, and I'm really pleased
with the almost ethereal-look to the image:
http://www.narcissus.uklinux.net/angbridge.jpg
It's downsized a bit for the web. Let me know if you want to see a 6
megapixel version. Other than a bit of USM, that image is completely
unprocessed, BTW - straight out of the camera.
Stuart
"Chris Brown" <cpb...@ntlworld.no_uce_please.com> wrote in message
news:sa86i1-...@narcissus.dyndns.org...
> In article <c2pr26$1vuq2o$1...@ID-65688.news.uni-berlin.de>,
> Stuart <in...@brainsys.com> wrote:
> >
> >I was always taught to use something like an 80mm lens for portraiture to
> >avoid excessive distortion of the face (avoiding over emphasis of
prominent
> >hooters!).
> >
> >Was I taught wrong?
>
> The 50mm lenses on the Canon DSLRs have the same field of view (and hence
> same perspective, as you need to stand in the same place to fill the
frame)
> as an 80mm lens on a 35mm camera, hence they make really good portrait
lenses.
Thanks for that. I still have an analogue memory :(
Fred A. Miller
I'd recommend the 100mm macro F2.58 (I have one) because it allows you to be a
tad bit further away from you subject in macro and your not right "on top" of
your portrait subject. Also great for things like wedding receptions etc. as
you can get those intimate couple portraits without being intrusive. Get the
Canon lens - the best made, FAST focus, and VERY sharp.
Fred
--
"...Linux, MS-DOS, and Windows XP (also known as the Good, the Bad, and
the Ugly)."
Crownfield
>
> "leo" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
> news:qKZ3c.14707$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > I heard many good things about getting the cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens for
> > portrait. However, I am thinking of doing a little of macro works so I am
> > inclined to get the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro lens. I already have the dRebel
> kit
> > lens. Should I get this macro lens? Is the cheap 50mm f/1.8 the only one I
> > should consider for portrait?
>
> I was always taught to use something like an 80mm lens for portraiture to
> avoid excessive distortion of the face (avoiding over emphasis of prominent
> hooters!).
>
> Was I taught wrong?
depends if you like prominent hooters or not.
Paul J Gans
>"leo" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
>news:qKZ3c.14707$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> I heard many good things about getting the cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens for
>> portrait. However, I am thinking of doing a little of macro works so I am
>> inclined to get the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro lens. I already have the dRebel
>kit
>> lens. Should I get this macro lens? Is the cheap 50mm f/1.8 the only one I
>> should consider for portrait?
>I was always taught to use something like an 80mm lens for portraiture to
>avoid excessive distortion of the face (avoiding over emphasis of prominent
>hooters!).
>Was I taught wrong?
I think not, but for many (not all) dSLRs, a 50 mm lens
*is* effectively 80 mm or close to it. The "correction
factor" on the 300D is, IIRC, 1.6 which would make it
exact -- or as exact as these things get.
---- Paul J. Gans
Joseph Meehan
Either should work well, but I would choose a f1.4 if possible, if not I
would use the 1.8. For MOST portrait work you do not need (or want) a lens
so sharp that it is harsh. You very often want to be able to do selective
focus (sharp eyes, less sharp mole on the nose or ear) This is a matter of
artistic choice however. But having the larger aperture available will give
you more choice.
--
Joseph E. Meehan
26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
George Preddy
Don't even consider the Canon's as they are way too soft and worse,
very fragile and extremely poorly built. A total ripoff. Buy the
50mm Sigma EX Macro, it is an absolute tank and in test after test it
outperforms all other lenses for Canon mount cameras. See...
http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50
It is an incredible bargain at around $200.
John Navas
In <e61e09e9.0403...@posting.google.com> on 11 Mar 2004 12:52:49
The Sigma does indeed have great optical quality. Likewise Canon:
Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent
>It is an incredible bargain at around $200.
Hardly, since Canon is only about $35 more:
<http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=2537A003&l=Datafeed&Affiliate=pricegrabber>
--
Best regards,
John Navas
[PLEASE NOTE: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
<http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm> <http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/>]
JHoffnagle
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>[POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
>In <e61e09e9.0403...@posting.google.com> on 11 Mar 2004 12:52:49
>-0800, george...@yahoo.com (George Preddy) wrote:
>
>>"leo" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:<qKZ3c.14707$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
>>> I heard many good things about getting the cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens for
>>> portrait. However, I am thinking of doing a little of macro works so I am
>>> inclined to get the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro lens. I already have the dRebel kit
>>> lens. Should I get this macro lens? Is the cheap 50mm f/1.8 the only one I
>>> should consider for portrait?
>>
>>Don't even consider the Canon's as they are way too soft and worse,
>>very fragile and extremely poorly built. A total ripoff. Buy the
>>50mm Sigma EX Macro, it is an absolute tank and in test after test it
>>outperforms all other lenses for Canon mount cameras. See...
>>
>>http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50
>
>The Sigma does indeed have great optical quality. Likewise Canon:
>
> Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent
>
>>It is an incredible bargain at around $200.
>
>Hardly, since Canon is only about $35 more:
><http://www.17photo.com/product.asp?id=2537A003&l=Datafeed&Affiliate=pricegrabber>
If you look up the Sigma at that site, it's $5 MORE than the Canon.
I'd go with the Canon to avoid future compatibility problems which
seem to be inevitable with Sigma lenses on Canon cameras.
My experience with Sigma autofocus lenses has been that the build
quality leaves much to be desired. I had a 400mm that was falling
apart right out of the box. My sister's 28-70 zoom literally fell
apart in her hands at my brother's wedding...
Vin
But the Sigma gives you 1:1 where the Canon only gives you
1:2. If you want macro, then the canon doesn't even give
you that, unless you get the life size convertor.
I have a Sigma 180EX-HSM and it is very sharp, but gives
not so nice out of focus highlights. Ive had no problems
with its build quality. Not sure about the 50 though. Dont
like the colour though. Its a bit off-black.
Vin.
--
Vin
Melbourne, Australia
Remove no and spam from both sides of the @ sign email address to reply
George Preddy
> [POSTED TO rec.photo.digital - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <e61e09e9.0403...@posting.google.com> on 11 Mar 2004 12:52:49
> -0800, george...@yahoo.com (George Preddy) wrote:
>
> >"leo" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message news:<qKZ3c.14707$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
>
> >> I heard many good things about getting the cheap EF 50mm f/1.8 II lens for
> >> portrait. However, I am thinking of doing a little of macro works so I am
> >> inclined to get the EF 50mm f/2.5 Macro lens. I already have the dRebel kit
> >> lens. Should I get this macro lens? Is the cheap 50mm f/1.8 the only one I
> >> should consider for portrait?
> >
> >Don't even consider the Canon's as they are way too soft and worse,
> >very fragile and extremely poorly built. A total ripoff. Buy the
> >50mm Sigma EX Macro, it is an absolute tank and in test after test it
> >outperforms all other lenses for Canon mount cameras. See...
> >
> >http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50
>
> The Sigma does indeed have great optical quality. Likewise Canon:
>
> Canon EF 2.5 50mm Macro 4.34 (4) = excellent
>
> >It is an incredible bargain at around $200.
>
> Hardly, since Canon is only about $35 more:
$35 more for low optical performance for a 50mm lens, cheap plastic
construction and plastic lens mount, and very poor macro performacne
with only 0.5:1. Canon shouldn't even be allowed to label that macro
the min focus distance is so far away.
The optically dominant new Sigma 50mm EX, which is a true 1:1 macro
lens, has tremendous optical performance, solid steel construction
that will last a few lifetimes and survive countless tumbles onto rock
hard concrete, and it has a stainless steel mount. Sigma builds a
real pro lens, not at all comparable to ultra cheaply built plastic
Canons that sell for much more.
JJ
"Stuart" <in...@brainsys.com> wrote in message
news:c2pv0t$20a44h$1...@ID-65688.news.uni-berlin.de...
<giggle> - don't we all at times ... takes some getting used to, even after
18 months I still have to think about the 35mm equivalents!
JJ
JJ
"leo" <som...@somewhere.net> wrote in message
news:qKZ3c.14707$%06....@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
I have both of these lenses, used with a 10D, and am pleased with results
from both of them. If you are planning to do much macro work and can afford
the 50mm f/2.5 macro it is a fine lens.
JJ
>
>
Paul J Gans
>http://www.photozone.de/2Equipment/easytxt.htm#F50
I never knew you could take photos with a tank. Which
end has the lens? Or is there just the barrel?
I'd imagine that if Sigma has drilled a small hole in
the breech you'd get a really good, really strong
pinhole lens. I'd bet you could really treat that
baby roughly and it would still work.
Of course with the long barrel and all it would probably
be somewhere between f/100 and f/500, but on a bright
day that might not matter much. And think of the depth
of field.
---- Paul J. Gans
Juan
"Paul J Gans" <ga...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:c30b36$6mm$3...@reader1.panix.com...
How come no comments on exactly what set of tracks is this tank riding on?
Suspention, radius of action and so on? I would be interested in all of
it. Also, what caliber is it? Does it load automatically or does it
require the services of a loader?
leo
news:z124c.1737$8G2...@fe3.columbus.rr.com...
I bought the f2.5 50mm macro and I traded it for the f1.4 50mm because the
50mm macro is only half size, and with the optional extension for 1:1, it's
the same price as the 100mm macro. The f1.4 50mm is a lot more than I wanted
to shell out but considering it's the fastest lens that I can afford, I
might as well get this thing and see if it'd be useful for me besides
protrait. I heard that this lens has slight barrel distortion but is very
sharp.
Joseph Meehan
I can't comment on the specific lens, but I hope you find it to your
liking.