Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: good portrait lens

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    Originally posted by longman
    But 85 f1.4 is damm good for portrait, super fast.....also super price!!!!

    now saving bullet to aim for it....
    I have been using the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 for the past few days.
    No doubt the lens is very fast at f/1.8, but many a times I find the DOF too shallow especially for head & shoulder shots or small group shots with 2 or more people at slightly different distance away. Ended up using F3.5 or even 5.6 a lot.
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  2. #22
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    South
    Posts
    490

    Default

    Originally posted by roygoh
    I have been using the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 for the past few days.
    No doubt the lens is very fast at f/1.8, but many a times I find the DOF too shallow especially for head & shoulder shots or small group shots with 2 or more people at slightly different distance away. Ended up using F3.5 or even 5.6 a lot.
    are you using it with SLR or DSLR?
    Sofar I had used my friends 85 F1.4 with my F3p, DOF is just nice....

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by roygoh
    I have been using the Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 for the past few days.
    No doubt the lens is very fast at f/1.8, but many a times I find the DOF too shallow especially for head & shoulder shots or small group shots with 2 or more people at slightly different distance away. Ended up using F3.5 or even 5.6 a lot.
    eh? Shallow DoF is very nice for this kind of shot:



    Yum!

    Regards
    CK

  4. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Yes nice shallow depth of field.....
    But eh, I prefer to see what I'm eating.

    Maybe at least put one piece of the cake in focus?
    Shallow depth of view works when you have a very captivating
    focal point. The corner of that cake in focus however don't tell us very much about the rest of the cake.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
    Posts
    6,405

    Default

    Originally posted by Prismatic
    Yes nice shallow depth of field.....
    But eh, I prefer to see what I'm eating.

    Maybe at least put one piece of the cake in focus?
    Shallow depth of view works when you have a very captivating
    focal point. The corner of that cake in focus however don't tell us very much about the rest of the cake.
    Can't, 1/20 or so @ f/1.4 liao.

    Regards
    CK

  6. #26
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    South
    Posts
    490

    Default

    Originally posted by ckiang
    eh? Shallow DoF is very nice for this kind of shot:



    Yum!

    Regards
    CK
    make me hungry now.....

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Northwest
    Posts
    5,011

    Default

    Originally posted by longman
    are you using it with SLR or DSLR?
    Sofar I had used my friends 85 F1.4 with my F3p, DOF is just nice....
    DSLR. Still sorting out my pictures taken over the weekend. More than 250 shots to go through.....

    Will pull out some which I think have too shallow a DOF to demonstrate here.

    - Roy
    As complexity rises, precise statements lose meaning and meaningful statements lose precision.

  8. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    South
    Posts
    490

    Default

    it might be bcoz of DSLR, take a look at this thread
    http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthrea...ghlight=DOF%2A

  9. #29
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    To the original poster:
    Canon doesn't HAVE a 105mm Macro. Canon's macro is at 100mm.
    But not that sure cos I do not shoot macro.
    Nikon has the 105mm macro though.

  10. #30

    Default

    Originally posted by Prismatic
    To the original poster:
    Canon doesn't HAVE a 105mm Macro. Canon's macro is at 100mm.
    But not that sure cos I do not shoot macro.
    Nikon has the 105mm macro though.
    haha...sorry i've also been a nikon user so i get mixed up sometimes. Thanx all for ur recommendations.

    Does any1 noe the price for e 100mm Macro and the 135mm f2L ?

  11. #31
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    The 135mm f2.0L is around $1150 to $1300.

  12. #32

    Default

    i think you must you must know what kind of protrait you are talking about.
    environmental la,
    head shot,
    classic head and shoulder la..
    i read some where people use 300mm to shoot protrait to get the smooth background blurr
    my 2 cent

  13. #33
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Actually, there are a lot of things to look for in a "portrait" lens.

    1. Focal Length.
    Typically, a portrait lens is ideally anything from 75mm to about 150mm. This is the range at which the perspective through the lens replicate how you typically look at people (About 1.5m to 3m away) in actual life. In real life, you don't usually go closer than 1m to someone unless you are intimate with that person; conversely if you are more than 3m away, the person starts to lose his/her visual importance in you field of vision. (All these are just general assumptions, not hard and fast facts).

    2. Depth of Field.
    In order to make the subject stand out from the background, it's almost critical that a portrait lens have shallow DoF which means wide apertures, from f1.2 to f2.8 usually. The focal length of the lens mentioned early also contribute to this factor. The typical focal range of a portrait lens ensures a good blurred background (bokeh) without turning it into a myriad blur of colour with no distinctive features. Especially so for "environmental"portraits where you will want some relations between the subject and it's surrounding.

    3. Lens Design.
    A feature of "portrait" lenses is that their iris usually is built with more shutter blades. The "normal"lenses typically have only 6 blades while portrait lens will have more. This iris design is to give a better quality bokeh. If you look at normal lens, you will realise that the bokeh is not as smooth as it should, for small points of colours, you can even see angular shapes. This is because with 6 shutter blades, the aperture formed is not a circle, but a hexagon. It's the same reason why you get hexagonal lense flare. The more blades a lens have, the closer it gets to a circle, and the better graduation between the different colours in the bokeh. Ideally, the lens should have curved blades, but sadly such lense are difficult to made and hence expensive.

    There are also other factors such as colour fidelity and brightness, but those are abit harder to observe.

    There's nothing wrong with using a 300mm lens to shoot portraits, but imagine how far back you have to stand to even get a half-body shot. Conversely, there's nothing wrong with shooting with a wide angle either, but you have to consider whether your subject is comfortable with you being so close.

  14. #34

    Default

    Originally posted by Prismatic

    2. Depth of Field.
    In order to make the subject stand out from the background, it's almost critical that a portrait lens have shallow DoF which means wide apertures, from f1.2 to f2.8 usually.

    i pretty much get u cept for this portion...
    small apertures(eg. 1.2-2.8) = shallow DOF
    this means that my subject and my background is not as sharp as it should be at a higher aperture rite? Thus, my image won't be as sharp.

    If so y shouldn't i shoot at higher aperture (eg. 8-16) for more "bokeh" or my subject to stand out more?

  15. #35
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    In the void.
    Posts
    1,323

    Default

    Originally posted by hazardman
    i pretty much get u cept for this portion...
    small apertures(eg. 1.2-2.8) = shallow DOF
    this means that my subject and my background is not as sharp as it should be at a higher aperture rite? Thus, my image won't be as sharp.

    If so y shouldn't i shoot at higher aperture (eg. 8-16) for more "bokeh" or my subject to stand out more?
    No, think you have a mistaken idea of DoF.
    Shallow DoF means that you have a smaller range of your subject in focus. It doesn't mean that your subject is less sharp. At f2.8, the subject which is in focus will be still be sharp, but things that are a short distance in front of and behind of the subject will be out of focus.

    At f8.0 or f16, it means that things that are a greater distance in front of and behind will be in focus.

    Not all lens are sharper at smaller apertures despite the laws of physics telling you so. Some lens are optimized to give the best sharpness at f2.8 or f4.0 etc etc since the lens will most likely be used at this range of aperture, eg portrait lenses.

  16. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    South
    Posts
    490

    Default

    If I not mistake Canon do have one 50mm F2.5 macro lens rite? if yes actually this lens also can use for macro & portrait....

  17. #37

    Default

    I use a EF100mm f2.8 macro USM. I do use it for both macro and portraits. The reasons being, I need a true macro lens and if the lens is really 'too sharp' as many had told me, I can easily 'unsharpen' it ( stockings, filters, vaseline, etc ).
    And I don't know how to 'sharpen' a soft focus lens.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •