Is EF17-40 L USM good for portrait?

Matrix · 28th June 2003

as above? Urgently need the answer pls help.

Larry · 28th June 2003

not really. the focal length is too wide to give a flattering perspective IMHO. you'll end up with exaggerated features of the subjects (unless that's what you want...)

YSLee · 28th June 2003

Larry, not quite true, it really depends on what you want to do. Like landscapes, I use anything from 20mm to 400mm. Think I've posted this sentiment quite a few times already.

Matrix · 28th June 2003

How abt I buy a 17-40 f4 L USM for wide and 50 f1.8 for portrait. is this a good conbination? I understand that that 17-40 can't throw the background blur, issit correct to said that?

or

go for 28-135 IS USM + 50 f1.8 would be better conbination?

Thanks

chyeo · 28th June 2003

17-40L is not a good lens for portrait shots. I recommend 85mm prime. That lens would be the best for portraits...

Matrix · 28th June 2003

hi chyeo,
I got some questions.

The 85mm prime in 10D is 136mm, is that too much? Or should I go for 50mm f1.8 cos very cheap

How about ur 70-200mm(thinking of getting that in future), handheld at 200mm need a steady hand? Cos, I'm afraid my hand not steady enough.

Thanks

Newbie123 · 28th June 2003

For half body portrait shot, 85mm is recommended. 50mm would require you to be closer to the subject and some may not be comfortable with it. If taking only full body shots, 50mm will suffice

Save up for a 70-200L USM IS

BraveHart · 28th June 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by YSLee
Larry, not quite true, it really depends on what you want to do. Like landscapes, I use anything from 20mm to 400mm. Think I've posted this sentiment quite a few times already.

I agree. Actually even fisheyes can work wonders for portraits hehehe

MaGixShOe · 28th June 2003

wide angle for potraits give a refreshingly different perspective to the photo

clive · 28th June 2003

Revo · 28th June 2003

depends on ur personal taste.

U may like it more den the usual perspective longer lens give or u may find it really wierd.

but considering 50mm are used for protraiture n give good results (imho), this might be good coupled with the flm on the 10D u are getting....except for the difference in stops, which might influence ur background blur.

togu · 28th June 2003

EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus

MaGixShOe · 28th June 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by togu
EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus

Tweek · 29th June 2003

honestly...

I find the 50mm f1.8 good for portrait IF you are using a DSLR with 1.6x FLM. It becomes a 80mm f1.8 lens which is extremely sharp.

I did use the 17-40L with the 1.6X FLM for portraits, and it ain't that bad if you take a lot of wideangle shots. If you have to zoom in near the 40mm range, then it's a better bet to use the 50mm already.

The 85mm or 135mm portrait lenses are very good, but with the FLM your working distance will have to be further.

This is taken with the 17-40L, processed in photoshop, also softened.

oeyvind · 30th June 2003

I think for portrait work, best is to use something like 85mm f/1.8 or 70-200 IS or even 135 L.

But don't let your WA stop you... when you only have that lens with you.

I do have one street portrait shoot taken using a 16-35 L @ 35mm

An old man I met while eating in a coffee shop at Singapore's Little India back on Mar 1, 2003.

tert · 30th June 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by BraveHart
I agree. Actually even fisheyes can work wonders for portraits hehehe

Yeh Yeh!... Focus on the eyes and your subjects will really look like they have fisheyes...

Gold fish to be exact...

YSLee · 30th June 2003

Quote:

Originally posted by tert
Yeh Yeh!... Focus on the eyes and your subjects will really look like they have fisheyes... Gold fish to be exact...

I think you'd do better that.. Hart's portrait experience is not to be sneezed at.

Personally you guys should look into environmental portraiture as well.. portraits don't necessarily mean sticking a short or medium telephotos in one's face and hitting the shutter.

binbeto · 30th June 2003

It really depends on what kind of portraits you are looking to take.

Coverlook kind or photojournalism kind.

For the cover look kind, I think this wide lens is not suitable. If the object is too close to the lens, the object face become distorted. If it is away from the lens, the object will be too small to make a different.

If you are into photojournalism, this wide lens will work great. It will included more of the object environment, Thereby, telling a story by itself. If you wanted to take a portraits of a mama shop keeper with all the stuffs he sell. This lens will be a charm.

tert · 30th June 2003

Quote:

If you are into photojournalism, this wide lens will work great. It will included more of the object environment, Thereby, telling a story by itself. If you wanted to take a portraits of a mama shop keeper with all the stuffs he sell. This lens will be a charm.

I would agree on that. The wide angle would come in very useful where you'd want to capture a subject and its environment without the subject looking too uncomfortable with a lens sticking in its face... most of the time, they're unaware that they are included in the picture...

Had taken a shot of a fruit seller in bangkok with a fish eye; lens pointing at the load of oranges she was selling. The picture had her in the backgrd, looking quite natural and comfortable... She din know that the pix included her....

redman2 · 30th June 2003

So any comments on the 17-40 F4L itself? Read some online reviews that it's a crap... works well with 10D with a 1.6x crop factor but no good with film etc... Some insist that 16-35 F2.8L still the better choice, provides an extra stop, but also burn a hole in our pockets. Existing users to comment?

28th June 2003	#1
Matrix Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Seng Kang Town Posts: 913	Is EF17-40 L USM good for portrait? as above? Urgently need the answer pls help.

28th June 2003	#9
MaGixShOe Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 2,638	wide angle for potraits give a refreshingly different perspective to the photo __________________ Photo Gallery http://magixshoe.clubsnap.org/gallery

28th June 2003	#10
clive Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 2,573	no.

30th June 2003	#15
oeyvind Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 3,556	I think for portrait work, best is to use something like 85mm f/1.8 or 70-200 IS or even 135 L. But don't let your WA stop you... when you only have that lens with you. I do have one street portrait shoot taken using a 16-35 L @ 35mm An old man I met while eating in a coffee shop at Singapore's Little India back on Mar 1, 2003. __________________ flickr Last edited by oeyvind; 30th June 2003 at 12:55 AM.

30th June 2003	#18
binbeto Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Behind a lens Posts: 2,382	It really depends on what kind of portraits you are looking to take. Coverlook kind or photojournalism kind. For the cover look kind, I think this wide lens is not suitable. If the object is too close to the lens, the object face become distorted. If it is away from the lens, the object will be too small to make a different. If you are into photojournalism, this wide lens will work great. It will included more of the object environment, Thereby, telling a story by itself. If you wanted to take a portraits of a mama shop keeper with all the stuffs he sell. This lens will be a charm. __________________ Visit my Homepage if you have time. Comments appreciated.

28th June 2003	#2
Larry Moderator Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: singapore Posts: 6,097	not really. the focal length is too wide to give a flattering perspective IMHO. you'll end up with exaggerated features of the subjects (unless that's what you want...)

28th June 2003	#3
YSLee Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,262	Larry, not quite true, it really depends on what you want to do. Like landscapes, I use anything from 20mm to 400mm. Think I've posted this sentiment quite a few times already.

28th June 2003	#5
chyeo Senior Member Join Date: May 2002 Location: Yishun Posts: 2,563	17-40L is not a good lens for portrait shots. I recommend 85mm prime. That lens would be the best for portraits...

28th June 2003	#7
Newbie123 Member Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 494	For half body portrait shot, 85mm is recommended. 50mm would require you to be closer to the subject and some may not be comfortable with it. If taking only full body shots, 50mm will suffice Save up for a 70-200L USM IS

28th June 2003	#11
Revo Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: Singapore bo gway hai! Posts: 465	depends on ur personal taste. U may like it more den the usual perspective longer lens give or u may find it really wierd. but considering 50mm are used for protraiture n give good results (imho), this might be good coupled with the flm on the 10D u are getting....except for the difference in stops, which might influence ur background blur.

28th June 2003	#12
togu Moderator Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: ToFusland Posts: 5,563	EF 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus

29th June 2003	#14
Tweek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: East Posts: 2,149	honestly... I find the 50mm f1.8 good for portrait IF you are using a DSLR with 1.6x FLM. It becomes a 80mm f1.8 lens which is extremely sharp. I did use the 17-40L with the 1.6X FLM for portraits, and it ain't that bad if you take a lot of wideangle shots. If you have to zoom in near the 40mm range, then it's a better bet to use the 50mm already. The 85mm or 135mm portrait lenses are very good, but with the FLM your working distance will have to be further. This is taken with the 17-40L, processed in photoshop, also softened.

30th June 2003	#20
redman2 Member Join Date: May 2003 Location: East Posts: 198	17-40L So any comments on the 17-40 F4L itself? Read some online reviews that it's a crap... works well with 10D with a 1.6x crop factor but no good with film etc... Some insist that 16-35 F2.8L still the better choice, provides an extra stop, but also burn a hole in our pockets. Existing users to comment?