skoobey said:
buy a 77mm polariser and get a 67mm to 77mm step up ring. the step up rings are dirt cheap on ebay
Upvote
0
I'm going crazy over here! What Canon lens for fashion/portraits???
- Thread starter skoobey
- Start date
- Status
buy a 77mm polariser and get a 67mm to 77mm step up ring. the step up rings are dirt cheap on ebay
only downside is you cant use the hood doing it with the step up ring but i wouldnt worry about that too much especially for a CPL
Upvote
0
That's a rare call for the 90 TS-E. For fashion & beauty? I have the 90 TS-E f/2.8 and while it's really useful for products & some static subjects, for dynamic shoots that fashion and beauty really SHOULD be, the manual focus of the 90 TS-E makes it a non-starter. No IS as well...pdirestajr said:
OP should be happy as a cricket with a 100L Macro f/2.8, which BTW, is my next lens purchase. It's my 135 f/2 which is languishing on the studio shelf, largely because my shooting style benefits so much from good IS.
-pw
Upvote
0
pwp said:
Agree, IS on any lens over 85mm is essential for me (even 50mm would be nice). I love the 135L but most of the large aperture adv is negated by having to keep it above or near 1/160s. I'm losin out on those dimly lit backgrounds even with flash. Ambient light is rarely 1/160! Great for outdoors though!
What anyone would need a TS in fashion is beyond my scope of understanding but I'll take a guess.
The models are particularly tall and require a shift to correct distortion.
Or just to keep the subject all in sharp focus no matter the angle?
Or for selective focus effects.
I wish I had bought the macro instead of the 135L now that I think about it. Then again I'm not a macro guy. For OP it's perfect.
Upvote
0
If you can live with extension tubes for macro'ish shots, the 200 f2.0 has zero distortion and is as sharp in the far corners as the center from wide open f2.0. And no difference in sharpness from 2.0 until 6.3. Killer AF and the best bokeh ever. And unlike the 180mm, it has a very effective IS, and you can use 52mm filters.
Upvote
0
Nah, I'm getting the 100l macro, and I'll be back to show how it's faired for me. I'll take it purely because it is sealed, and the IS, as I plan on using this lens a lot and 300 bucks is nothing if I compare it to the amount of frustration I'd get from motion blurred images over the years.
180mm is not suitable for full body shots due to my studio size, if I had a bigger studio, I might have considered it. And also no IS at 180mm? I don't think I could handle that.
200 is way too long to be my workhorse, not to mention the lack o IS, but given the image quality/price point, I'd be tempted to get it rather than a zoom as my tele-lens.
I'll get something more compressed later. Probably the 70-200 with IS. I played with my lens with IS OFF, and it really is a must have feature on any lens.
I've shot with TS-E 90 and I loved it, but it is really only suitable to shoot fashion if model is sitting down and you're shooting from a tripod, as focus is crucial in modern photography.
There are plenty of current editorials that benefit from "focal plane" of the tilt shift lens.
It's just that those knobs on Canon are way to small for my taste.
And, as it is MF, there really is no reason for anyone into tilt not to just purchase a used lens and use an adaptor for their camera.
180mm is not suitable for full body shots due to my studio size, if I had a bigger studio, I might have considered it. And also no IS at 180mm? I don't think I could handle that.
200 is way too long to be my workhorse, not to mention the lack o IS, but given the image quality/price point, I'd be tempted to get it rather than a zoom as my tele-lens.
I'll get something more compressed later. Probably the 70-200 with IS. I played with my lens with IS OFF, and it really is a must have feature on any lens.
I've shot with TS-E 90 and I loved it, but it is really only suitable to shoot fashion if model is sitting down and you're shooting from a tripod, as focus is crucial in modern photography.
There are plenty of current editorials that benefit from "focal plane" of the tilt shift lens.
It's just that those knobs on Canon are way to small for my taste.
And, as it is MF, there really is no reason for anyone into tilt not to just purchase a used lens and use an adaptor for their camera.
Upvote
0
My guess is that we are talking about two different DISTORTIONs here. One can be partially controlled by software, the other only by changing one's viewing distance to the image to approximate the original angle of the lenses' view. That's why everyone is tending towards a longer focal length, and the 100L is indeed a good recommendation.
Upvote
0
ME said:
Oh my.
VitC said:
Exactly. And even the "regular" meaning barrel or pincushion distortion always carries a "moustache" effect, so it can't really be removed, but it's removal can rather be simulated.
And the face will be appearing distorted on all focal lengths on all cameras, but the "calming" effect of longer lenses seems to be most pleasing for portraits and fashion work, but conventions are there to be broken, unless you do want to create something "normal" and that is what I'm striving to do currently.
My personal choice would be 135l, but it's too long for full body shots in my lighting setups, and at the same time has no is, so it's use "in the field is rather limited to a tripod in low light, so I really hit the nail on the head at 100mm, and I do need a macro, so there it goes.
Now I'm wondering weather to go for 70-200 f4 or 70-200 2.8 for my telefoto? 70-200 especially the is IS version VERY heavy and bulky.
Is there a massive difference between f4 and 2.8 considering sharpness? Taking the dof aside?
If only 2.8 non is were a bit lighter. Chucking about 10 pounds of camera all day isn't my idea of fun.
Upvote
0
I never do software lens corrections when people are in the shot they always end up looking a bit weird especially with wider angle lenses but if shooting buildings or architecture i will correct
Upvote
0
So, yeah, get the 100L. It is truly very good. You can use the 1.4 Extender if you add an 12mm extension tube between it and the lens to get more working distance, e.g. insects.
I had a 70-200 4L, it was sharp, but I missed the IS. It was supposedly sharper than the IS version, but I cannot vouch for this. It was as good as my 70-200 2.8L IS version1 that I had at the same time, but way lighter. I gave it to a good friend along with my original 5D.
My 70-200 2.8L II is definitely a step above the older version, and weight being the only "problem". But weight also stabilizes. I remember the old days, when I carried around an Arriflex all day. My arm muscles were amazing. It's just part of the job, let the weaklings fall by the side.
My 85 1.8 is quite nice, but lacks sharpness and contrast when compared to the 70-200 2.8L II. But it has its uses.
Good luck! And, keep that 24-105 4L IS. I think it has made me more money than any other lens, and I've had at least 50 lenses in my past.
I had a 70-200 4L, it was sharp, but I missed the IS. It was supposedly sharper than the IS version, but I cannot vouch for this. It was as good as my 70-200 2.8L IS version1 that I had at the same time, but way lighter. I gave it to a good friend along with my original 5D.
My 70-200 2.8L II is definitely a step above the older version, and weight being the only "problem". But weight also stabilizes. I remember the old days, when I carried around an Arriflex all day. My arm muscles were amazing. It's just part of the job, let the weaklings fall by the side.
My 85 1.8 is quite nice, but lacks sharpness and contrast when compared to the 70-200 2.8L II. But it has its uses.
Good luck! And, keep that 24-105 4L IS. I think it has made me more money than any other lens, and I've had at least 50 lenses in my past.
Upvote
0
VitC said:
Uh, so much weight, and when I add another camera and those heavy (probably Mamiya) lenses, I'm truly gonna became a bodybuilder. No wonder so many photographers are buff, this is hard work. hahaha :
I'm keeping the 24-105 for sure, it's one of those "when in doubt" lenses. It does it all, is a pretty good 35-60mm lens.
wickidwombat said:
Yes they do end up looking strange! And not just on wider angles. If you compare a lens with strong distortion at 35mm and the 35mm with little distortion, and "correct" them both, you'll clearly get the difference. That is because the light is not just curved between the sensor and the back of the lens, but also between the subject and the lens, not to mention between the elements(hence the greater distortion on zooms). And that's why I insist on minimal captured distortion.
Upvote
0
If you owned a full frame body and you want a perfect fashion and portrait lens, no doubt is the the Canon 70-200mm f2.8L IS II. It's fast, sharp and its focus is dead on. I also use the for portraiture the Canon 100mm f2.8L IS and this is also a fenomenal lens: insanely sharp, lighter and responsive, except for sometimes hunting in low light, but rememeber you have to zoom with your feet.
If people would be mostly static, Canon 100mm f2.8L IS would a way to go.
If you shoot with cropped sensors, I suggest the 24-70mm f2.8 (Mark I or II) since focal range of 100mm is probably to long.
If people would be mostly static, Canon 100mm f2.8L IS would a way to go.
If you shoot with cropped sensors, I suggest the 24-70mm f2.8 (Mark I or II) since focal range of 100mm is probably to long.
Upvote
0
- Status
