17 - 40L as portrait lens??

[ianpaice]

Wondering if anyone uses the 17 - 40L as a portraits?

Yes, I know it is only f4 and max reach is 40mm. But isnt 40mm isnt about the same as the well loved 50mm prime? Ok, the f4 bokeh may be lacking even compred to the 50mm f1.8 prime .....i am not sure.

Like to hear your comments. Thank you

[smokeput]

errr i usin 17-40 ar....cos dats my only lens for now...
errr yea wud think the 50 or 85 prime is better...
errr noob's comment

[Russ]

The 50mm and 85mm primes are better for portraits on a 1.6x camera (I assume you are using one of these). However, the 17-40 is also OK at the longer end for this purpose although you will not be able to throw the background out of focus as easily. 40 and 50 are not that different and you can always crop a bit. Just a matter of getting around limitations which good photographers can do.

However, on a FF or 1.3x FOV crop cameras (1D series or 5D), the 17-40L is a bit too wide and on a 1Ds or 5D, the 85 or 135/2L would be better suited.

Just my view.

No point getting too hung up on equipment. Just do your best with what you have and keep shooting. It is all too easy go on an equipment chase .....

[JediForce4ever]

yes, the 17-40L can be used as a portrait lens.
there is no standard lens that must be used for portraits.

any lens from 14mm all the way to 600mm is suitable as a portrait lens.

however, do note that the bokeh from the 17-40L aint that fantastic.

[Klose]

24-70 + 1.6x good portrait lens

[Stoned]

I saw this gallery on photo.net where this guy used a 16-35L and EF-S 18-55 with a 20D exclusively for his portraits. Though it was all studio work so you don't get that much background blur, they were all beautiful portraits. The wide angle also allowed him to get some really great perspectives.

In short, I wouldn't rule it out.

[trlnlty]

Originally Posted by JediForce4ever yes, the 17-40L can be used as a portrait lens. there is no standard lens that must be used for portraits. any lens from 14mm all the way to 600mm is suitable as a portrait lens. however, do note that the bokeh from the 17-40L aint that fantastic.

imagine using a 600mm for portrait ...

the subject would have to stand across the causeway and you shoot from woodlands !!

[KLCHUA]

I ain't a pro. i use my 17-40 on a 1.6 crop cam and find it quite useful to take my kid's photos. I also use a 50 prime and the 85 prime. the 17-40 is useful to take full body shots of the little ones... PLUS sometimes (not too often hor) closeup at 17mm can take really cute distorted pics of the kids faces

[kelccm]

Any focal length lenses can be used for portraits. It all depends on your composition and creativity.

[Danntbt]

I took some character/costume shots using 10-22....need to be aware of distortion and apply the distortion accordingly....was fun....

[Klose]

You can use 300mm/400mm/500mm primes to shoot portraits too.

[kelccm]

Damm! You can even use the Hubble to take portraits

[Belle&Sebastain]

Originally Posted by trlnlty imagine using a 600mm for portrait ... the subject would have to stand across the causeway and you shoot from woodlands !!

not really just 20-25m away.

[hanafi]

I think IanPaice is asking a sincere question. Not some question to test our creativity. So my answer will be direct and non-confusing. 17 - 40L is not a good portrait lens. Save it for other wide angle purposes.

[trlnlty]

Originally Posted by Belle&Sebastain not really just 20-25m away.

>joke
.
.
.
.
>your head

[Belle&Sebastain]

Originally Posted by trlnlty >joke . . . . >your head

[Belle&Sebastain]

Originally Posted by hanafi I think IanPaice is asking a sincere question. Not some question to test our creativity. So my answer will be direct and non-confusing. 17 - 40L is not a good portrait lens. Save it for other wide angle purposes.

i beg to differ, why is 17-40 a bad portrait lens? Why is photography not about creatively? Is it just for recording purposes? Photography can be an extension of how one's see and show the world how they see something.

must a lens have some special optics or bokeh to render it a portrait lens?


Any lens can be a portrait lens, but its not a classic (boring) focal length of recording human portraits.

[solarii]

Originally Posted by hanafi I think IanPaice is asking a sincere question. Not some question to test our creativity. So my answer will be direct and non-confusing. 17 - 40L is not a good portrait lens. Save it for other wide angle purposes.

Hmmm most of the answers here aren't testing creativity. They're fact.

The point they're trying to make is that you can use almost any lens for portraits. It depends on what you have and what you want to achieve.

The posters aren't trying to be funny... they're making a point. Yes they may be indirect, but after reading the same qn for the hundredth time, they're entitled to their quirks.

For last yr's Canon photo marathon, some dude used a fish eye to take a portrait of a biker. Most people will tell you that fish-eyes are for landscape/architecture, not for portraits, but this guy did it anyway and he won.

So how do you define a "good" portrait lens?

[catchlights]

any lens can use as a portraits lens,
but you have to know what kind of portraits you want to achieve.

if you are talking about typical head and shoulder or half body portaits, others mid tele lens will be better.

you can use a wide angle to shoot a portraits, like environmental portraits.

[jeremyftk]

Originally Posted by hanafi I think IanPaice is asking a sincere question. Not some question to test our creativity. So my answer will be direct and non-confusing. 17 - 40L is not a good portrait lens. Save it for other wide angle purposes.

Yawn... Think outta the box. Gotta think outta the box...