austin man
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 09:18 PM |
|
|
portrait lens
getting a bit of conflicting information for portrait lenses I have been told that it needs to be an 85mm f2.8 lens and the a 50mm f1.8 lens. new to
all this so could do with a bit od advice, Camera is a Sony A200 I have seen this on the bay of e
Sony DT 50mm f1.8 SAM Lens **NEW!!** UK STOCK!!** on eBay (end time 29-Jan-11 10:39:03 GMT)
advice please
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
|
|
snapper
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 09:27 PM |
|
|
50mm is the standard prime lens optimised for a 35mm format camera, the lens I use least of all.
85mm lens is good for portraits, but I prefer 100 to 135mm
If you use a digital camera, full frame sensor this is true, if a smaller sensor then my preferred lens focal lengths are effectively longer on the
smaller chip, I.e 100mm on a full frame = 140 on a smaller digital chip.
There are other pros on hear that will give there opinions, I for one would happily give my advise via u2u or email if it would help.
I eat to survive
I drink to forget
I breath to pi55 my ex wife off (and now my ex partner)
|
|
|
skodaman
|
| posted on 21/1/11 at 10:30 PM |
|
|
I use 100mm in 35mm and 150mm Mamiya in medium format.
100mm micro-Nikkor is my weapon of choice for portraits but that's for portraits of fish.
I've not got into that new-fangled digital stuff yet. I don't think it's reached this far norf yet.
Skodaman
|
|
|
Liam
|
| posted on 22/1/11 at 12:03 AM |
|
|
Presumably you have a kit zoom lens or two, so sit someone down, stand about where you think you ought to be, zoom to compose a portrait, then see
what focal length your lens is at. That should help you decide on an appropriate focal length. In studios longish lenses tend to be used so the
photographer isn't right in the subject's face, but if it's just a bit of family fun you could go a bit shorter to save money and
get a bit closer to the subject. Other important thing for good portraits is a nice low f number to allow you to blur the background and just plain
old quality. Those two normally come hand in hand which makes it a bit easier.
|
|
|
austin man
|
| posted on 22/1/11 at 12:14 AM |
|
|
I have the standard kit lens, 18-70 f3.5 also a 80 - 200 f5.6 and 100 - 300 f5.6
[Edited on 22/1/11 by austin man]
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
David Jenkins
|
| posted on 22/1/11 at 08:35 AM |
|
|
It's not just a case of "not being in the sitter's face" - the image will change according to the focal length.
For example, try taking a portrait with a wide-angle lens - the image will be full of nose, with the rest of the face tapering away into the distance
- not flattering! A long telephoto lens will have the opposite effect, flattening the portrait - not so unpleasant, but not ideal.
For 35mm cameras they always used to recommend lenses between 80mm and 135mm for the best compromise and the most natural perspective. I'm not
sure how these equate with digital camera lenses (refer back to Snapper's post above!).
quote:
Originally posted by Liam
Presumably you have a kit zoom lens or two, so sit someone down, stand about where you think you ought to be, zoom to compose a portrait, then see
what focal length your lens is at. That should help you decide on an appropriate focal length. In studios longish lenses tend to be used so the
photographer isn't right in the subject's face, but if it's just a bit of family fun you could go a bit shorter to save money and
get a bit closer to the subject. Other important thing for good portraits is a nice low f number to allow you to blur the background and just plain
old quality. Those two normally come hand in hand which makes it a bit easier.
|
|
|
adithorp
|
| posted on 22/1/11 at 08:35 AM |
|
|
Your subject won't appreciate you using a 50mm lens. It'll make their nose look big... they'll say huge!
75-100mm always used to be the recommendation, but then that was back in the day of steam driven cameras.
"A witty saying proves nothing" Voltaire
http://jpsc.org.uk/forum/
|
|
|
hughpinder
|
| posted on 22/1/11 at 10:57 AM |
|
|
Your camera has a sensor that is smaller than 35mm film camera by a factor of 1.5.
This means a 50mm lens is the equivalent of a 75mm on an old film camera so is probably ok for the 'shorter'end of the range.
The 'old' advise was 80 to 135mm for a portrait lens, depending on personal preference, (how close you want to be to your subject - some
people find they like to be closer so they can chat more easily etc), the sort of portraits(just head shot, head and shoulders, body etc) and lastly
how big your 'studio' is(you need a big room to get a whole person in the frame with a 135mm equivalent lens).
Personally I think the 50mm lens you looked at would be quite a good lens for portraits. If you are only doing 'head' shots I'd go
for an 85mm(equivalent to a 130 mm on film). Get the biggest aperture you can (smallest f number), eg f1.8/f2.8. Using the lens'wide open'
allows you to have the face sharp and the background as an out of focus blur. Because you have a smaller sensor camera, your depth of field will be
greater than for a 35mm film camera, at a given aperture, so a f1.4 50mm at f1.4 gives you the same depth of field as you would get at f2 on film(or
is it f2.8, I can't remember exactly).
As someone else said, use your zooms at first, and buy the lens closest to the focal length you find you use most.
Regards
Hugh
|
|
|
.jpg)
