Thoughts on primes

[Haydn1971]

Having just bought a 50mm f1.4, I'm hooked on low light primes ! I've now got a christening coming up, with some opportunity for low light use both in the small (English Village) church and the pub afterwards. I've been playing about with focal lengths in my house on my 15-85mm, I'm finding that 85mm seems a tad wide for one person shots on my 1.6x crop, 100 & 135mm about right, 200mm just silly. Given the pub will have similar proportion rooms to my house, but the church being much bigger, I'm pondering 85mm f1.8 now and a 135mm later or 100mm f2 for both now with a mind to something longer later, either 135mm or 200mm.

I've tried the 70-200 f2.8, it's huge and I'd not wish to carry it for any length of time as a "hobbyist", I'm fairly happy with my 70-300mm non L currently, but may consider either a 70-200mm f4 or some teleconverters on a longer prime later.

Thoughts and experiences would be helpful, especially for on crop bodies !

BTW, I'm the godfather (again) ;-)

 

[Flake]

That's what primes are for! Fast apertures and light & compact designs, most of them are pretty cheap too. The fastest zooms are f/2.8 and anything over 70mm is bulky heavy & expensive.

Of course the drawback is that you cannot compose a shot by standing still, you have to 'zoom by walking' so if you think 85mm is a little wide, just walk a bit nearer - you are a godparent, it's not as though you'll be tucked away at the back!

For a shoot like this though I'd be worried the other way around, that the lenses aren't wide enough, especially on a crop frame.

 

[UncleFester]

85 wide for ports? 1.6 x 85 = 136. Are you sure you're putting your lenses on the right way??

 

[Loswr]

As UncleFester points out, 85mm equivalent to 135mm on FF, and that's the 'classic' (meaning film days) focal length for tight portraits. The reason for those classic focal lengths (50mm for full body, 85mm for torso, 135mm for head shots) is that they provide a good perspective for the shot - not so close that features are exaggerated, far enough for compression to have a mild flattening effect, not so far that compression has too much of an effect). Note that perspective is solely a function of distance from the subject, so those focal lengths are used to get the right framing at the right distance.

Personally, I found 85mm on a 1.6x body to be ideal for tight portraits (head/shoulders, or a young child). So much so, that with my 7D, I went from the 85mm f/1.8 to the 85mm f/1.2L II for thinner DoF, then when I added a 5DII to my kit, I also added the 135mm f/2L (which delivers the equivalent framing and DoF as 85mm f/1.2 on APS-C).

 

[7enderbender]

For your 1.6x camera format I second the 85 1.8 for what you're planning to do. And it's very reasonably priced so you can put the rest towards your godchild's college fund ;-)

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Having just bought a 50mm f1.4, I'm hooked on low light primes ! I've now got a christening coming up, with some opportunity for low light use both in the small (English Village) church and the pub afterwards. I've been playing about with focal lengths in my house on my 15-85mm, I'm finding that 85mm seems a tad wide for one person shots on my 1.6x crop, 100 & 135mm about right, 200mm just silly. Given the pub will have similar proportion rooms to my house, but the church being much bigger, I'm pondering 85mm f1.8 now and a 135mm later or 100mm f2 for both now with a mind to something longer later, either 135mm or 200mm.

I've tried the 70-200 f2.8, it's huge and I'd not wish to carry it for any length of time as a "hobbyist", I'm fairly happy with my 70-300mm non L currently, but may consider either a 70-200mm f4 or some teleconverters on a longer prime later.

Thoughts and experiences would be helpful, especially for on crop bodies !

BTW, I'm the godfather (again) ;-)

Its all about how you want your portraits to look, and the distance to your subject.

100mm f/2 or 123mm f/2, 200mm f/2, of even 300mm f/2.8 are sometimes used for portraits. I like my 135mm f/2 L when used with my 5D MK II.

Do your own thing, and don't worry too much about what someone else prefers.

My son with 5D MK II and 135mm L its all about how far back you can move.

 

[Haydn1971]

Oh don't worry, I don't tend to worry what others think, it's more about getting a feel for opinions I guess. I'm a Civil Engineer who specialises in Traffic Engineering, which means I do a lot of consultation on schemes, as diverse as motorways, safety schemes and parking restrictions, I tend to have formed a general view early on with most things, but like a second opinion in life, as the little old lady often points something very important out which us "pros" have completely missed at the concept design stages ;-)

Tell ya what I'd also love to see right now, a low cost good quality wide prime - something in the 12-15 range, perhaps a second in the mid 20's, specifically for APS-C with a low f of about 1.8-2.0 to pair up with my current 15-85mm for low light wide use, pancakes perhaps ? What else ? How about a APS-C specific (L quality) 50-150mm f2.8 with IS ? to give crop bodies a decent 70-200mm alternative ? With an APS-C specific teleconverter - I don't want a big fat heavy lens and body hanging around my neck !

 

[dr croubie]

Tell ya what I'd also love to see right now, a low cost good quality wide prime - something in the 12-15 range, perhaps a second in the mid 20's, specifically for APS-C with a low f of about 1.8-2.0 to pair up with my current 15-85mm for low light wide use, pancakes perhaps ? What else ? How about a APS-C specific (L quality) 50-150mm f2.8 with IS ? to give crop bodies a decent 70-200mm alternative ? With an APS-C specific teleconverter - I don't want a big fat heavy lens and body hanging around my neck !

i think you've just quoted my wish list right there too. there was a patent app on this site i saw for an EFS 11 f/2, that would be perfect. A canon answer to the sigma 30 1.4 DC (ie, sharper wide open, i'd pay more for it, just smaller and cheaper than the 1.4L). And the protrait zoom, ~ 40-160 f/2.8 would be my range (to couple the 16-35), even make it FF and L, perfect for all-round wedding lens.

I've just had a look through a few of my favourite portrait shots of the past few months, - with the missus on a ferris-wheel with the niftyfifty head only,
- in a park with 15-85 at 55mm full body and a tree, 70mm waist-up from a lot closer,
- with friends in a park with the 70-300L at 124mm full body, 300mm head and shoulders, 200mm waist-up, i even let him touch my camera to take some shots of me (not as good) 70mm full body with a lot of extra space coz he held it horizontal.
(but ok, i don't do portraits (or anything else) professionally, these were opportunistic with the lenses i was carrying at the time.)

So yeah, they're all really over the shop, it really depends on how much space you've got.
the only advice i'd think of is that you can always crop an 85mm shot down, if you get the 100mm or 135mm, there's only so far you can walk back before you hit a wall. unless you're going to print them as 3'x4' posters, you don't have to fill the frame to use every pixel you can...

 

[dstppy]

Tell ya what I'd also love to see right now, a low cost good quality wide prime - something in the 12-15 range, perhaps a second in the mid 20's, specifically for APS-C with a low f of about 1.8-2.0 to pair up with my current 15-85mm for low light wide use, pancakes perhaps ? What else ? How about a APS-C specific (L quality) 50-150mm f2.8 with IS ? to give crop bodies a decent 70-200mm alternative ? With an APS-C specific teleconverter - I don't want a big fat heavy lens and body hanging around my neck !

i think you've just quoted my wish list right there too. there was a patent app on this site i saw for an EFS 11 f/2, that would be perfect. A canon answer to the sigma 30 1.4 DC (ie, sharper wide open, i'd pay more for it, just smaller and cheaper than the 1.4L). And the protrait zoom, ~ 40-160 f/2.8 would be my range (to couple the 16-35), even make it FF and L, perfect for all-round wedding lens.

I've just had a look through a few of my favourite portrait shots of the past few months, - with the missus on a ferris-wheel with the niftyfifty head only,
- in a park with 15-85 at 55mm full body and a tree, 70mm waist-up from a lot closer,
- with friends in a park with the 70-300L at 124mm full body, 300mm head and shoulders, 200mm waist-up, i even let him touch my camera to take some shots of me (not as good) 70mm full body with a lot of extra space coz he held it horizontal.
(but ok, i don't do portraits (or anything else) professionally, these were opportunistic with the lenses i was carrying at the time.)

So yeah, they're all really over the shop, it really depends on how much space you've got.
the only advice i'd think of is that you can always crop an 85mm shot down, if you get the 100mm or 135mm, there's only so far you can walk back before you hit a wall. unless you're going to print them as 3'x4' posters, you don't have to fill the frame to use every pixel you can...

I'll take a super fast, ridiculously sharp EF-S 15mm please

I second the sentiment about crops and 85mm. I love the 85, but it's always felt too-tight for indoors for me. Full-face portraits and big rooms, certainly. 50mm (the one the OP mentions) feels the best on my 60D for FOV . . . I'm usually close to my subjects though.

 

[koolman]

I have a t2i and use 60mmEF-S macro for portraits. Its opx 100 mm on a crop, very sharp, and creates a comfortable distance from the modal - not to close - but not to far either so you can get a good shot, keep eye contact, and not have to stand way off.

Even the 85mm on a crop - will be tight in many indoor situations, forcing you to stand way back.

The 50mm 1.4 you have is also great for head and shoulders shots.

 

[Eagle Eye]

+ for the 85mm. I use the 135mm on my 5D for stuff like ballets. On APS-C it's going to be really close. If you like portraits where the head fills the frame and then some, go with the 85mm and you can always crop it tighter.

 

[Loswr]

Here are a few 85mm samples from APS-C:


Rebel T1i, EF 85mm f/1.8 USM, 1/2000 s, f/1.8, ISO 100


EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, 1/1250 s, f/1.4, ISO 100


EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, 1/2000 s, f/1.6, ISO 100


EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, 1/1250 s, f/1.6, ISO 100

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Cute kid! I didn't think I had a reason to get the 85mm f/1.2, aside from forward compatibility with full frame, if I get to that point. The TS-E 90mm seems pretty long to me for people work but it has been great for product photography, so I'll think that over again.

 

[Haydn1971]

OK, had my day today, the 50mm f1.4 worked out fine, with some close up <1.5m shots giving a full head of Jessica (the baby) framed on the 50mm on a 1.6x crop, head and shoulders (of adults and youngsters) framed nicely at about 2.0m, full torso of adults at about 3.0m. On the whole, my focus was a tad off today, but captured some lovely memories of today.

Afterthoughts ? Well perhaps the 28mm f1.8 would have worked for some shots, but I'm pleased I didn't jump at getting a 85mm or 100mm this week, as they both would have been a tad too long for today. I'm still keen to grab a 85mm and 135mm over the next few years, along with a 28mm, because I just can't quite bring myself to carry a pair of monster f2.8 zooms and whilst my trusty 15-85mm will reside on my camera most of the time, it's quite reasonable to make a choice of a couple of useful primes to also carry along to suit where I'm going to be taking photos.

 

[Edwin Herdman]

The funny thing about the 50mm is that I tend to shoot it at f/5.6 (or f/8 ideally), or wide open. The out of focus highlights look bad enough when partially stopped down and the sharpness improved little enough that I tend to just go for f/1.4.

 

[dr croubie]

The TS-E 90mm seems pretty long to me for people work but it has been great for product photography, so I'll think that over again.

Also if you'r considering the TS-E 90, especially for product photography, consider a Zeiss Biometar 80 for Pentacon six through a tilt adapter. They're sharp (more), fairly cheap, the only downsides are manual focussing and no shift, neither of which matter for product photography. Can get adapter plus lens under €200, get six of each for the price of one TS-E 90 at €1300...

 

[Edwin Herdman]

Thanks for that link. I was aware of shift adapters - Pentacon lens combo before I got my TS-E 90mm but I never jumped on it. I might just look into it for a longer lens, though - Hartblei released a 120mm f/4 Superrotator but aside from being likely very expensive and impossible to locate, the aperture seemed a tradeoff compared to the 90mm. Probably focuses closer though.

I will say this - focus confirmation on TS lenses is way overrated (at least as far as anybody who would consider losing it with an adapted lens a sizable negative). It can be useful though...but not working at close distances and wide apertures. Of course, if the adapter has this feature, it's no big deal. I'd be more worried about incorrect or lacking EXIF data really.

 

[dr croubie]

There's also Zeiss Biometar 120 f/2.8 for pentacon six, can get one $100-150 on ebay.

as for AF confirm, you can also get the chips on ebay by themselves.
- No idea how you mount them on an adapter, glue or self-sticky or what
- some sellers will program them for you before shipment to whatever exif you ask for (obviously only lens name and length, no aperture).
- some say you can do it yourself via PC (assuming they give you software and a way to attach it?).
- some say you can do it on your camera (i assume this is a typo, only nikons do that?)

but then, for tilt/shift, live-view is the only way to go, so no point in AF confirm in my opinion. exif would be useful, but unless you have an adapter per lens, or can re-program every time you swap lens, also not very useful for me (with six P6/Kiev lenses)

On the superrotators:
hartblei made them years ago, from Arsenal lenses. look for the deep scalloped edges on the rings like this one. they allegedly used Zeiss glass (or at least the designs from Jena), and were damn good quality for a tiny price.
they used to sell them from hartblei.com

then everyone realised they were good, they stopped making them, sold out of the old stock, and you're lucky if you see them on ebay for the prices they used to be.
then they started working with zeiss 5 years ago, selling via hartblei.de, changed the design to more thinly-sliced focus rings, wrote 'Zeiss' on the front, and now they sell for as much as a canon TS-E (but arguably more versatile)

scratch that, i found a price list. one was $4000, double a canon TS-E 24 II

 

[bycostello]

i'm saving my pennies for 100mm macro prime... light, 4 stops IS, and macro... very nice....

 

[Haydn1971]

Although I mentioned in another thead, I stumbled upon a three year old 135mm 2.0 last week, wasn't what I wanted right just now, but the £200 odd saving against new made me go take a look and play, then oops, dropped my debit card into the machine ! How did that happen ;-)

Anyways, played around the next day at a meet up in a pub with several friends, phew, I'm really pleased with the look the lens gives me, couldn't resist using it wide open, but finding my focus was a tad off when close up... I'm getting the feeling I should switch to AF Servo more when taking pictures of heads moving around in close proximity when wide open.... So, lessons learnt ? Don't go looking on the second hand webpages of my local camera shop !

I'm pondering a 17-55mm now, partly as I'm feeling reluctant to spend on several wide primes, especially when the wider cheaper ones seem to get a bad write up and I'm running out of space in my camera bag !