Lens suggestion for portraits
Joseph Meehan
The traditional standard for a 35 mm camera would be something about
60 mm - 100 mm. It would also tend towards being fast and soft focus.
The reason for this is tradition. First most people like
photographs of them selves from lenses in this range. Wide angle or
even a 45-50 mm lens will tend to increase the apparent size of any face
part close to the camera, like a nose. A longer lens like 135 or larger
will flatten the face and may take away from the character of a face.
This is where I get on my soapbox and explain that photography is an
art and not a science. I just give you the science and this science is
what the artist uses to create his art. Some people will look better
with a little longer lens or a little shorter lens. Also you, the
artist, may not want to make the person look their traditional best, but
want say a characterature. In this case a wide angle may be used to
good effect, and on another a very long lens.
Same advice about aperture used. Traditional photographs have a
very limited depth of focus. Often only one eye will be sharp (BTW
generally it is a good idea to get at least one eye as the sharpest part
of the photograph. Most people will appreciate having their ears
and/nose less sharp.) This Traditional style has much to do with the
limitations of early photographers as anything else. Low light and very
slow large films dictated it. However as the artist you may chose to
use it to good effect. At least with a fast lens you will have the
option.
Soft focus is also traditional due in part to the problem of old
lenses that just were not all that good. However like above, it can
produce a very good result for the artist. A true portrait soft focus
lens is softest at the edges and less soft at the center. Using filters
etc. may be ok and may even be better at producing the artistic effect
you want, but can not really duplicate the effect of a real soft focus
lens in the traditional style.
I personally like traditional style work. However I also like more
modern work as well. (frankly I am not much good at portraits).
However I believe with the right subject you can break every rule and
end up with a fantastic portrait.
The reason I am saying is to get you to think about what you really
want. All of the lenses you listed may be great portrait lenses. You
need to decide which is going to be most useful for the money for you.
I would be happy to put up a really great portrait photographer with
a disposable camera against a good photographer without portrait
experience but the very best equipment any day.
Good luck. Keep with it, you can expect your results to grow with
experience. Take many many photographs and learn from the experience.
--
Dia 's Muire duit
Joe M
Bob Hickey
face in profile, Long face (front to back) =long lens; short face, short
lens. In other words: Alfred Hitchcock gets an 80,
Charles DeGaulle gets a 135. With the
80, you'd have to stand closer and cause the features to "draw" out. The
135 would make you stand back and flatten them out.
I wouldn't get any thing auto focus as I would use a catchlite (a lamp
with the shade off, or a modeling light, placed so the reflection
catches the pupil just off-center) to focus on. The small side of the
face toward the camera. Also, a fast lens is a much happier
deal, if only "cause most of this stuff is done indoors where slow
lenses just make seeing to focus more difficult than it has to be.
All that said, a flattering lite set up will go a whole lot further than
a great lens.
Bob Hickey
Jim Altengarten
depends on your preferences, how close you want to get to your subect, and
perhaps what other uses you have for the lens.
Responses below to your questions.
> I want to get a good (<$400) portrait lens for photographing some
> important people (my mom esp.), and considering the following, from most
> preferred:
>
> 1. Canon Zoom 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
> - since I'll need a long tele later anyway
fits well into the portrait range, not a bad lens, but it has been out for a
while, so it is relativly "old" technology.
> 2. Sigma Macro 105mm f/2.8 EX
> - Like the macro, and price
Macros work well as regualr lenses. I have not used this lens, but be aware
that some Sigma lenses have compatability problems with newer Canon cameras.
> 3. Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
> - Can I get sharp focus as well?
Yes, you can get sharp images, but the lens is not that good. It has the
old micro motor.
> 4. Canon 85mm f/1.8
> - Sweet for low light, really sweet, any other usage for it?
> Compared to 50mm f/1.8?
>
> 5. Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8
> - Price/performance compared to the Sigma?
The new version is much better than the old one. However, the new version
may be outside your price range.
Good luck,
Jim
exposure36 Photography
www.exposure36.com
j...@exposure36.com
BlueSky
I want to get a good (<$400) portrait lens for photographing some
important people (my mom esp.), and considering the following, from most
preferred:
1. Canon Zoom 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
- since I'll need a long tele later anyway
2. Sigma Macro 105mm f/2.8 EX
- Like the macro, and price
3. Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
- Can I get sharp focus as well?
4. Canon 85mm f/1.8
- Sweet for low light, really sweet, any other usage for it?
Compared to 50mm f/1.8?
5. Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8
- Price/performance compared to the Sigma?
Mainly to be used indoors. Which would you recommend? I'm assuming the
50mm f/1.8 would not fair well, since I need to get very close to the
subject.
Lotsa thanks,
BlueSky
- looking thru 65° to 19°20' -
Amund Johansen
Hello,
I like the 85mm f/1.8 very much. Compared to my 50mm f/1.8 it is much
better for
portraits (shallower DOF). I also like the perspective very much. I find
it better
when I want to frame a subject closely - with the 50mm you have to get
very close to
do that - the 85mm does it from some distance. Optically they are both
great.
The 135mm gives you sharp focus from f/11 - if I remember correct. Also
a very good
portrait lens.
Amund
--
I'll see you on the dark side of the moon
David Boreham
you plan to take. If these are studio-type shots (where
you can take time to compose and choose the background)
then maximum aperture may not be much of an issue.
However if these are to be candid shots then it becomes
important. This is because a wide aperture (f2.8 or wider
at the focal lengths we're discussing here) allow the subject
to be isolated in focus from an out of focus background.
The effect is very attractive---look at any two or three
TV commercials and you'll see at least one shot with
tight subject isolation. I'm personally a big fan of the
85-135mm range with a wide maximum aperture (and high
quality because you'll be shooting wide or nearly wide open
much of the time). The need for wide aperture and high
quality rules out zoom lenses unless you have a much higher budget.
> 1. Canon Zoom 100-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM
> - since I'll need a long tele later anyway
You'd be using this lens in the 100-140 range for most
portraits. f4.5 is too slow for tight subject isolation.
This lens is probably too heavy and obtrusive in length too.
> 2. Sigma Macro 105mm f/2.8 EX
> - Like the macro, and price
Focal length is good, f2.8 is fast enough but you
might find use for a faster lens (for subject isolation
rather than low light).
> 3. Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
> - Can I get sharp focus as well?
Soft Focus lenses are intended for portrait work but I've never used one, so
can't say more.
> 4. Canon 85mm f/1.8
> - Sweet for low light, really sweet, any other usage for it?
> Compared to 50mm f/1.8?
Of all your suggested options, I'd personally pick this one.
I have the Nikon 85mm f1.4 and 135mm f2.8 and find that
of the two I use the 85mm most often. f1.4 is not necessary
I find (too narrow depth of field and very high shutter speeds
necessary in sunlight even with slow film) so f1.8 will be just fine.
> 5. Canon Macro 100mm f/2.8
> - Price/performance compared to the Sigma?
>
> Mainly to be used indoors. Which would you recommend? I'm assuming
the
Indoors implies either flash (which has some implications for focal
length due to the distance to the subject), or available light (which
probably implies
a lens faster than f2.8 or use of 800 speed film and a steady hand).
> 50mm f/1.8 would not fair well, since I need to get very close to the
> subject.
50mm can be good for group shots but it's too short for most portrait shots.
If you expect to take a mixture of shots---some with flash and some with
available light, a fast 50mm lens can be a cost effective route for the
available light shots, but it's not ideal----85mm or longer will make you
happier I'd expect.
Bill Jameson
>
> Hi,
> I want to get a good (<$400) portrait lens for photographing some
> important people (my mom esp.), and considering the following, from most
> preferred:
...
> 3. Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus
> - Can I get sharp focus as well?
>
> 4. Canon 85mm f/1.8
> - Sweet for low light, really sweet, any other usage for it?
> Compared to 50mm f/1.8?
Just to respond to two of your questions:
The EF 135 f/2.8 soft focus does get sharp focus as well, two levels of
soft focus are set by a three position switch: normal, soft focus 1, soft
focus 2. The soft focus is only effective at open apertures.
It gets a cumulative 3.9 on photodo.com
http://193.14.88.41/nav/prodindex.html
I use the EF 85 f/1.8 as a medium tele, use it that way more than I do for
portraits. Good build, good feel. Full time manual focus. Best at f/4. It
gets a 4.1 cumulative on photodo.
I use the EF 50 f/1.8 II as a general lens. Cheap, with a crummy feel, no
full time manual focus. Wonderful results. Best at f/5.6. It gets a
cumulative 4.2 from photodo.
Hope this helps,
Bill Jameson
Garrett, Bradley [RICH3:R056-M:EXCH]
cheap at $85, lens as well. The 85mm is really sharpest though and has a good
feel. I picked one up on eBay for $300. They are $344.95 IMP and 384.95 USA at
B&H.
Brad
>
BlueSky
I now have better idea what to do next.
BlueSky
"Garrett, Bradley [RICH3:R056-M:EXCH]" <garr...@americasm01.nt.com> wrote
in message news:3AB238EC...@americasm01.nt.com...