Group portrait lens for DigiReb XT
fraculator
husband for mother's day, so (of course) I accepted. She'd like to
take it in an outdoor setting where I know there's some room, but not
*loads* of room. I called an equipment rental place and reserved a
Canon 85 f/1.2, knowing that I'll have to back up a good bit with the
1.6 FOV-crop on my DigiReb XT, but figuring I'd deal with it. Well,
last night she told me there will actually be nine people in the
group... I think I'd have to back up about about 50-60 feet to get nine
people and include any of the background!
So... I'd love recommendations. My first thought would be to go with
the 35mm 1.4L, if I can find one, or a 35mm 2.0 if I can't - but will
those be too wide? I know that I can arc the group in toward the
edges to keep them all in focus and avoid at least some of the
distortion, but I don't know if I'll be asking for trouble. If I need
to, I could certainly go for a 50mm 1.4. Thoughts or suggestions will
be much appreciated!
steve
fraculator
I've thought about it, but the minimum aperture of f/4.0 won't let me
do as much background blur as I'd like to have the potential for.
I've also considered the 24-70 f/2.8, which I would probably go for if
I were to use a zoom.
Joseph Meehan
No I think your choices of the 35mm 1.4 or 2.0 is right on.
--
Joseph Meehan
Dia's Muire duit
Dave R knows who
"fraculator" <fracu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1114023278.3...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Background blur on a group shot? Does anyone have an example of this?
tomm101
1.8. Nothing but good things said about these lenses. The 80mm equiv
would be just right for a small group.
Tom
fraculator
said, I'm a rank amateur - if the people in question had any sense at
all, they'd find someone else to take their portrait. They've just
seen the (very) few pictures I've taken that turned out very nice, and
think I'm great. I checked out a couple of books from the library on
group portrait photography, and they worked out nicely - one had almost
nothing to say about posing the group, but a quite extensive analysis
on positioning subjects to keep the entire group in focus (even with
relatively small apertures), allowing the background to be blurred.
The other had almost nothing to say on technical matters, but has some
really extensive material on posing the individuals.
I decided to just drag my lazy butt off of the couch and drive to the
location to scout things out. I picked the best location I could see
for a group portrait, and it just happens that there's a small
(decorative) pond right in front of it. My choices would be to either
use a VERY wide angle lens (say, 20mm), or to shoot from the other side
of the pond. From the other side of the pond, 85mm will frame the shot
just about perfectly.
Getting even better, there are some very attractive pillars/columns
on either side of the group which will be in the same focal plane as
the group, and I believe they'll add to the composition. About 8 feet
behind what will be the focal plane is a wall that is beautifully
colored, but which has some small wear marks to it. Well... at f/1.2
or f/1.4, it should provide a nicely colored background, but the wear
marks should be well-blurred out. I think this is going to work out
pretty well. I will probably have to stand on a stepping-stool to keep
the focal plane of the camera nicely parallel with the plane of the
group (so they're all in focus), or drop to 1.4 or 1.6, but that
shouldn't be a problem. In fact, it's entirely probable that I'll make
several exposures of each pose, at various apertures from about 1.2 to
2.0 or 2.8 just in case I miss someone that's out of focus. If push
comes to shove, I can always blur the background in photoshop, but I
much prefer the look of true bokeh to a gaussian blur. = )
I also walked around the grounds and found a couple of other places
where the 85/1.2 will provide some good shots on the group, and some
more places where it will provide excellent shots of one or two people.
My mind is much more at ease now.
All in all, there are more "average" places to shoot them where a 50
(or 35) would do a perfectly good job, but the *best* location needs
the 85, so I guess I'll stick with that!
On a side note, since I've never used anything but 35mm, it always
takes a second for me to figure out what they're talking about in the
portrait books when they talk about things like a "14-inch lens"....
steve