| Author |
Message |
mscates176
Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Posts: 77
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:42 pm
|  |
I have a cannon 60d with a 1.6 crop factor. Im considering buying a new lens for portraits and Ive been told to get a 100mm. However, I dont know if I should aim for a 60mm which is roughly 100mm equivalent or if I should go for the 100mm which is 160mm equivalent.
Thanks
Mark |
|
alexosbourn
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 25
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:32 am
| |
Hi Mark, I have a 100mm Macro F/2.8L and a 50mm F/1.4. Both are great for portraits(in my opinion.) Considering the price difference, I'd prefer the 50mm. An 85mm F/1.8 would probably be the best choice if you are looking for a longer focal length. I think they run about $400~.
BTW: I am also on an APS-C sensor.
-The other contributors here may have better advice though, as I am very new to photography! =]. |
|
alexosbourn
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 25
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 2:37 am
| |
Sorry, I didn't read into your question very well at first. My 100mm tends to be quite a stretch for portraits. I either need a large area, or to take "cropped" photos. My 50mm can usually get someone entirely in the frame from about 13-15 feet. I guess it depends a lot on how close you want to be to someone. Also, I think my 50mm makes people look better than my 100mm, but that's just my preference. |
|
mscates176
Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Posts: 77
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 12:35 pm
| |
Thanks, I think the 50mm is the ideal choice. Much lighter than the 24-70mm |
|
alexosbourn
Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Posts: 25
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2012 1:41 pm
| |
Definitely lighter. It's almost weightless compared to my 100, I could only imagine the 24-70. (I cant remember if it's metal or not. The 100mm is plastic and much heavier than the 50mm.) Be sure to try each if you have a camera shop nearby or a friend who owns the lenses. You may find a huge preference for one. Look at some sample photos too.
Check out pixel-peeper.com they have tons of sample photos for each lens. |
|
rinder99
Joined: 12 Jul 2005
Posts: 39223
Location: Contact www.rinderart.com/Books and Workshops www.rindersmithphotography.com Youtube/rinder
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 29, 2012 9:48 pm
| |
Proper Portrait aspect ratio for portraiture [Focal length] is between 70MM and 135MM. That is optimum to make people look Like they actually look as per the naked eye. Any wider people look Fatter or if you shoot vertical they look thinner. past 135 you get compression or whats called "The stacking effect" ears will appear closer than they are as does the background.It will compress the image. so....Full frame 70-135 or factor in a crop camera.This is only a standard rule. Not etched in stone, if you want a certain effect...Go for it. |
|
jeffbanke
Joined: 18 Dec 2005
Posts: 17467
Location: www.xlr8photo.com, The real California
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 01, 2012 6:00 pm
| |
So, that is 70-135mm with 85-105mm being the optimal range for FF 35mm sensors, and approximately 45-85mm for a 1.5/1.6 crop factor sensor camera |
|
mscates176
Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Posts: 77
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 02, 2012 2:27 am
| |
Thankyou for your comments and advice |
|
noir19
Joined: 18 Mar 2012
Posts: 9
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 1:11 pm
| |
Hey guys,so..i m using a canon 1100D,with the kit that is very stupid in my opinion...18 55 is 2,very cheap at focusing,blur,contrast ...colors,good for nothing piece of junk..i wanna shoot persons,with some more colour,contrast and blur...i m thinking of buying the 50 mm f 1.8 lens,or a 70 300 tamron di lc macro,but i don t really know...with the 50 1.8 is it true that my photos will be a lot colourfull and better?please help! |
|
hhltdave5
Joined: 20 Jun 2006
Posts: 24083
Location: Our Stock, Food & Portrait photography books at www.rindersmithphotography.com
|
|
Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:39 pm
| |
| noir19 wrote: | | Hey guys,so..i m using a canon 1100D,with the kit that is very stupid in my opinion...18 55 is 2,very cheap at focusing,blur,contrast ...colors,good for nothing piece of junk..i wanna shoot persons,with some more colour,contrast and blur...i m thinking of buying the 50 mm f 1.8 lens,or a 70 300 tamron di lc macro,but i don t really know...with the 50 1.8 is it true that my photos will be a lot colourfull and better?please help! |
The 50 1.8 is a great lens. Nikon has used that lens as their standard camera lens for decades. Canon also have a very good version as well. You cannot go wrong with that lens.
You have to decide if you want to use that fixed lens or a zoom. Tamron makes a good product and although the reviews on the lens are not bad there are issues with it due to the wide zoom range.
If it were me I would go with the fifty and save up for a good solid zoom. The 50 does well with product and table top work as well as for landscapes although you do not have a zoom feature.
As far as your images being more colorful and better they have the potential to be better technically due to the very good optics. The lens itself will not make something more colorful. It may look clearer but if you want color you need to do what Laurin often says and that is to shoot something with color in it.
Glass is always going to be the best investment you can ever make. Give me a choice of a top quality lens or a new camera with a cheaper lens and I will take the lens every time . |
|
mscates176
Joined: 10 Feb 2011
Posts: 77
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:02 am
| |
I was using the 18-135mm kit lens and it has a poor focus, very soft, I changed it for the 24-70mm L and the focus is much sharper, a bit soft at 24 though. I agree Glass is always the best investment. |
|
| |
|
Log in
