Self explanatory title, which of these two lenses would be better for shooting portraiture.
Self explanatory title, which of these two lenses would be better for shooting portraiture.
Here's another 85mm sitting about 2m away from the person, indoors. It's actually much sharper than that, it's been processed.
Regardless of what I said about longer being better... I love me a fast prime, no matter what the length is....
The longer the better, if you want more in the picture, back up. My longest is the 135 F2L which is beautiful for portraits. The below was shot at F2 outdoors, has a great focus on her face but he neck and shoulders are just starting to fade out, adding more depth to the photo.
The best photographer I know (who's also one of the best you can know) shoots all his portraits pretty much on a 70-200 2.8L IS @ 200mm, rarely does he ever back down off that. The longer your lens (within reason, anything longer than 200-300 is pointless) the better your background will blur away, and your proportions will be correct.
I am shooting on an XSi and would like to take some senior pictures over the summer. I currently have a 50/1.8 the 18-55 kit and a crappy telephoto.
For senior pictures would a 135/2.0 be a better invesment, though it is out of my budget. Any alternatives? I am willing to trade up my 50 prime for the 1.4 if it is better than my current lens.
length is not everything. a 100mm at f/2 will produce a more diffuse background than a 200 at f/2.8. a 100mm also has a different "look" than a 200mm, and it has little to do with proportions being "correct."
you still haven't told us the conditions. the 135/2 is a great lens, but it's useless if you want full or half-body shots and don't have a lot of space.
experiment with your telephoto, and figure out how much working distance you want for different shots.
i suggest the Sigma 50/1.4 over the Canon, which is hardly an upgrade IQ-wise over the 50/1.8.
I read many reviews about all the 50mm lens's for Canon before I settled on the 1.8. The Sigma has definitely been rated a higher IQ then the canon 50 1.4 but not the 1.2, but also, has focusing problems from most of the reviews. I'm not talking about hunting, but more so, the camera will claim it as hit focus and then it turns out to be off. For the money, I need a lens that hits the focus dead on when I need it to. My 50 1.8 doubles as my weightlifting lens and it MUST hit focus, there are no re-do's.
Okay, so I'm getting that the Canon 1.4 would not be a big step up from my 1.8.
Keeping in mind that I will have my 50/1.8 and I am looking for a sub 500USD lens what would be the best for general "senior picture" style pictures. I will want to be doing head shots and full body mostly in an outdoor setting but I do have access to a studio and proper lighting.
I was thinking Canon 100/2 or 85/18 or something in the Sigma line at 135/2?
What sounds good?
the 50/1.2 has a focus shift. this is inherent from the lens design. the Sigma 50 just has front/backfocus from bad quality control, so it can be fixed if you send it in. in other words, no one makes a perfect AF 50mm...
i'd stick to 50mm. long enough for head & shoulders, and wide enough that you don't need to be 30 feet away to do a full-body. get the Sigma 50 if you can afford it, its optics are much better than the lower Canon 50's...though it's rather large (larger than the 50/1.2).
if you'd rather have two lenses, i like the 100/2 more than the 85/1.8. or you could go wider and get a 20, 28, 30, or 35mm lens...
in a studio, you could probably just use your kit lens, since you'll be at f/8 or so anyway.
Self explanatory title, which of these two lenses would be better for shooting portraiture.
I assume you're thinking of 35 mm lenses or so, right? In that case, not really. Most types of distortions are harmless and trivial to correct on the computer. However, for classical portrait shots, they are not long enough. Back in the film days, 70~80 mm to 135 mm lenses were the classical focal length for portraits. This translates to roughly 50 mm to 85 mm nowadays (assuming a crop factor of 1.5~1.6).With a lens under 50mm should I worry about distortion?
http://www.amazon.com/Sigma-50mm-Canon-Digital-Cameras/dp/B0018ZDGAC/ref=cm_cmu_pg_t
Would this lens be a big enough improvement in optics to justify purchasing even though I already own the Canon 50/1.8?
Also, I really appreciate the insight from everyone. Certainly making this process much easier!
With a lens under 50mm should I worry about distortion?
i like the 100/2 more than the 85/1.8.