- Status
whaleofatime said:
First, you should tell us what body you use. You could help get a better answer by explaining what gear you have available, and posting some exampoes of what type of portrait you like. A prime lens will do a better job than a zoom, but a zoom has versatility and if you pose your subject far in front of the background, the background will be blurred.
You have received lots of answers, including many that assume you use the same body they use, whatever that is.
The answers from those who explain which body and lens to match they use should help you, it makes a huge difference, and it shows that they understand the difference.
Upvote
0
R
rocketdesigner
Guest
pwp said:
A well known blogger Jem Schofiled had a rather interesting response to this question in an on line interview:
http://bit.ly/thoNoq
He claims that the 70-200 L II F4 is his choice over the 70-200 L II f 2.8 because it "holds focus" better.
Since I just sold my f4 to get the f2.8, was I wrong ... is he technically correct?
I know lens choice is subjective, but he seems to make a fairly bold statement.
Upvote
0
wopbv4 said:
i've been using this alot lately for portraits and its very sharp and so nice and light too!
still i think i use the 70-200 more but its quite heavy and i've hurt my arm so shooting with the bigger lenses is hard at the moment so the 100 is a nice fallback
Upvote
0
I only shoot 1.3 crop until the 1Dx comes out. My favourite portrait prime is the FD 400mm 2.8 with my EdMika infinity focus 0.75mm EF-FD brass glassless adapter (soon to be replaced with the upcoming 0.5mm 90 degree rotated EF-FD brass glasses adapter).
First test shots FD 400mm 2.8 L by Ontarian, on Flickr
For zooms I'd have to say the only one I still have, my trusty 70-200 2.8 L IS II.
First test shots FD 400mm 2.8 L by Ontarian, on Flickr
For zooms I'd have to say the only one I still have, my trusty 70-200 2.8 L IS II.
whaleofatime said:
Upvote
0
L
Loswr
Guest
92101media said:
Available light isn't the only consideration. For portrait use in a studio, where you have pull-down or stand-supported backdrops, it would be fine. But it's important to be aware that one consequence of that 38.4-168mm equivalent focal length is that to frame a shot where you'd be at 85mm on FF, you're equivalent focal length on APS-C is 136mm...and as a consequence, to get the 85mm framing you must be further away from your subject, which increases depth of field.
So...just as the 'crop factor' affects the effective focal length, it also affects the DoF - by the same 1.6x. That means that for the same framing you'd get on FF, an f/4 lens on APS-C is equivalent to f/6.4 on FF. That means very poor background blur unless you are very close to your subject and the background is well-separated. Not that it can't be done...it's just not ideal.
Upvote
0
rocketdesigner said:
If you listen to Jem Schofiled's video - he is discussing his choice of lens for shooting VIDEO INTERVIEWS with a FF 5d2. The reason for using the 70-200 f/4 is that when he shoots the interview - he wants the subject to be able to move around and retain focus - hence he is forced to shoot at at least f/5 - to avoid a situation where if the subject for example leaned forward - they would appear blurred in the video. (thats what he means by "holds focus")
This has NOTHING to do with shooting stills portraits.
Upvote
0
OK, This might be a little off topic..... I see some of the posts saying that a 2.8 is really a stop slower on a 1.6 crop camera? I'm not sure how you figure that? Doesn't it still let the same amount of light go to the APS-C Sensor as it would a FF Sensor? ...And no, I really am not that smart!! And this is my next question.... Does the EF-S 17-55 F2.8 suffer the same thing as the EF lenses on an APS-C even though it's made only for the smaller sensor?
Thanks in Advance.
Matthew
Thanks in Advance.
Matthew
Upvote
0
- Status
