October 02, 2014, 05:29:11 AM

Author Topic: Are Primes really better for portraits?  (Read 3266 times)

spinworkxroy

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2012, 01:42:44 AM »
Quote from: vuilang
TBH: when i read your post: 5dm3+portrait+L is too expensive+ portrait @ F5.6... I laughed & wondered: Did you think spending $3000+ on the 5d3 will make your photo to be much improved? what enforced ur stance on never "lower" than F4.0?
Try to loose it out a-little bit... Shoot at f1.4, f2.0 etc.. experience it, have fun with them.. the L lense are especially designed to shoot at those aperture... the 50 1.4 & 85 1.8 isnt a slouch.. they do performe amicably well


Well, i had those primes before i had a 5D3. And buying L equivalent of those lenses will cost way more than the 5D3…and since i'm not a professional and i don't get paid for my shoots, i can't justify replacing all my lenses with L equivalent.
Actually, i asked this question because of a recent shoot i did with a friend who was using a 24-70 but not a Canon so i can't borrow and well, we were basically taking the exact same shot and his image was much sharper than mine was in the eyes and i even had to do PP sharpening and still can't compare with his unprocessed.
That's why i figured maybe a 24-70 might be more versatile and sharper than an 85 prime that is so old in design.

So are there actually any portrait photographers who actually use a 24-70 for shoots?
Maybe i should give an example of what i mean..
This was shot at F4 and focus was on the eye on the right…but..it's not sharp IMO…

« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 01:45:44 AM by spinworkxroy »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« Reply #15 on: September 23, 2012, 01:42:44 AM »

Alrik89

  • PowerShot G1 X II
  • ***
  • Posts: 60
    • View Profile
Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« Reply #16 on: September 23, 2012, 03:03:00 AM »
Got a question concerning the last picture:

why is nearly the complete hat out of focus, although parts of it are in the same area as the sharp face. I'm talking about the sliver brooch look alike thing and the dark violett parts around it.

To answer YOUR question: The eyes seem to be sharp, as i said above: the rest of the pictures looks strange

spinworkxroy

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 261
    • View Profile
Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2012, 04:46:48 AM »
Got a question concerning the last picture:

why is nearly the complete hat out of focus, although parts of it are in the same area as the sharp face. I'm talking about the sliver brooch look alike thing and the dark violett parts around it.

To answer YOUR question: The eyes seem to be sharp, as i said above: the rest of the pictures looks strange

Don't look at the hat..the purpose was to showcase the eyes and the rather "blur" look of it..it's not the sharpness i would like from a prime lens.
This hat was made blur in post production..as with the entire photo..except the eyes…
I was trying to make everyting else OOF so that i can emphasize on the eyes but because on it's oww, they eyes weren't sharp IMO..it doesn't stand out at all

Here's what my friend took and his photo did not have ANY sharpening involved and yet his eyes are so much sharper and he was using a 24-70 lens.

« Last Edit: September 23, 2012, 04:49:04 AM by spinworkxroy »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Are Primes really better for portraits?
« Reply #17 on: September 23, 2012, 04:46:48 AM »