portrait lens

Eric Lamont · Mar 6, 2006

Pbase is chalk full of portraits at f1.2 using the 85mm. One photog's work in particular convinced me that this is the lens I want. Should be here later this week.

Now for a tight head shot, I agree its too narrow a DOF for most portraits. But for isolating a subject, blurring the background, but still getting a full length shot, f/1.2 - f/1.8 can be perfect.

Example (NOT MY PICTURE):

Eric

ioannis said:
ioannis said:

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

Click to expand...

--
Yiannis

When I was a very small boy,
Very small boys talked to me
Now that we’ve grown up together
They’re afraid of what they see
That’s the price that we all pay
Our valued destiny comes to nothing
I can’t tell you where we’re going
I guess there was just no way of knowing

--
Eric Lamont
http://www.pbase.com/elamont
http://www.ericlamont.com/

'Above all, it's hard learning to live with vivid mental images of scenes I cared for and failed to photograph' - Sam Abell

Eric Lamont · Mar 6, 2006

Mine will be here this Thursday or Friday. I cant wait either!! =)

graphicaldeb said:
the f1.2, 85mm from b&h, will receive tomorrow or wed. i CAN'T
WAIT!!! i'll let you know what i think of it.

thanks for all the help!

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

--
Eric Lamont
http://www.pbase.com/elamont
http://www.ericlamont.com/

'Above all, it's hard learning to live with vivid mental images of scenes I cared for and failed to photograph' - Sam Abell

graphicaldeb · Mar 6, 2006

LOL

what's the next best thing (a little less expensive?)

the 2.8 100? the 1.8 85? or the 135?

thx
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

pso · Mar 6, 2006

I don't think you can go wrong with all of the above.

Listen to the experts here though, they've already provided a lot of great advice.

graphicaldeb said:
LOL

what's the next best thing (a little less expensive?)

the 2.8 100? the 1.8 85? or the 135?

thx
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

--
Pak K So

MarkLe · Mar 6, 2006

considering that you already have the 85 I believe that only the 135L will please you.

I do shoot portraits with a 100 2.8 but that's a macro, and you'll need to step back a little because that lens is reveiling too much

every single imperfection on the face will be recorded.

The 135L is an extremely sharp lens, meant to be used as medium/tele portraiture. It will pair the 85 1.2 beautifully

graphicaldeb · Mar 6, 2006

so i'm looking for something to "replace" it that isn't as expensive.

what's the difference other than the L-glass of the 1.2 85 and the 1.8 85??? is it really noticible? huge price difference...
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

graphicaldeb · Mar 6, 2006

so what would be good for a very tightly cropped headshot with little background? the macro lens?

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

graphicaldeb · Mar 6, 2006

very helpful people here...
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

pso · Mar 6, 2006

I think that if your hubby won't flip at the 135L, that's a hell of a lens and probably the one to get.

If that's too pricey as well, than perhaps the 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, or 100 f/2.8 macro.

I've seen many samples of the 85L and compared to the 85 f/1.8 (which I own), it appears the color and bokeh are better from the 85L. That said, the 85 f/1.8 still will deliver a fantastic image. Plus, it's a lot smaller and has lightning fast autofocus.

graphicaldeb said:
so i'm looking for something to "replace" it that isn't as expensive.

what's the difference other than the L-glass of the 1.2 85 and the
1.8 85??? is it really noticible? huge price difference...
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

--
Pak K So

MarkLe · Mar 6, 2006

ok, in that case you have a good alternative to consider:

the 85 1.8

the 100 f/2

the 100 2.8 macro

I have the 100 macro and 85 1.8, while I had the 100 f/2 for a year or so: that said I don't usually shoot children and the lens I like most is with no doubt the 100 macro (on a full frame camera) because of the sharpness and most importantly the contrast and colors. The 85 1.8 and the 100 f/2 are really almost the same quality.
I don't know the camera you're using so I'll risk this final advice:

on a full frame get the 100 macro (but don't get too close)

on a crop camera get the 85 1.8

both are good lenses, you'll love the results regardless of the choice you'll make.

graphicaldeb · Mar 6, 2006

so that means the 100 f2.8 macro is the best choice. either that or the 135 that i've heard from ppl. does it matter so much that the DOF is 2.8 rather than 1.2 or 1.8? does it make a huge diff?

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

sugar208304 · Mar 6, 2006

read th eforum instead of repeating the same stupid questions all over

graphicaldeb said:
can someone please recommend a good canon portrait lens to get
(either zoom or fixed focal length)??? top of the line? i don't
mind spending the money but i want amazing results, extreme 2.8 or
wider.
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I can crop at the long end myself if I want to
There's no substitute for mm²

some humble pictures : http://www.flickr.com/photos/67259727@N00/

graphicaldeb · Mar 6, 2006

i don't know what your referring to or what your problem is, but i do read the forum as much as i have the time to do. if you don't like what i post, don't respond, it's pretty simple.

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

sugar208304 · Mar 6, 2006

but if you want me to be, just ask me, I will do an effort

graphicaldeb said:
i don't know what your referring to or what your problem is, but i
do read the forum as much as i have the time to do. if you don't
like what i post, don't respond, it's pretty simple.

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I can crop at the long end myself if I want to
There's no substitute for mm²

some humble pictures : http://www.flickr.com/photos/67259727@N00/

thejaybird · Mar 6, 2006

graphicaldeb said:
so that means the 100 f2.8 macro is the best choice. either that or
the 135 that i've heard from ppl. does it matter so much that the
DOF is 2.8 rather than 1.2 or 1.8? does it make a huge diff?

f/1.8 is quite a bit more versatile than f/2.8 in indoor/low light situations. It's 1 1/4 stops of light (125% more light). The 85/1.8 is really the darling of the Canon lineup of non-L primes, it would be my choice. The 135/2L is great as well but $$$

--
http://www.pbase.com/thejaybird

MarkLe · Mar 6, 2006

on a 5D the 100 macro will do beautifully. I use it on a 1Ds and I find myself with this lens more than the 85. Nothing can be compared to the bokeh you get with the 85 1.2, but in the case of 1.8 and 2.8 the fact that you'll need to back up a little will compensate. Besides, the "tele" effect on a portrait doesn't involve just the bokeh, it involves the focal and the distance as well. With the 85 you'll get a little closer to your baby with the risk of a little distortion: I believe that 100mm is the best choice. besides, the bokeh of the 100macro is very good as well.

Let me put it in this way: if I need to shoot a model 3/4th I'll get the 85, if I need an headshot I'll get the 100macro.

The 135 L is more "gentle" while the 100 macro is kind of aggressive on details, but the pictures are very similar in terms of contrast and colors, with the 135 being a bit better.

With the 5D you can do what I can't: going up on ISO

good luck!

John W Peterson · Mar 6, 2006

Can you -
pull the strobes back to a greater distance to the subject ?
use diffusers eg softbox to lower output ?
What lights are you using ?

Eric Lamont · Mar 6, 2006

pretty much any decent lens is fine for a head shot. The point of the 85 f/1.2 not being good for that was only if you are shooting at 1.2. The DOF would be so shallow that if you focused on the eye, the tips of the lashes would be in focus while the eyeball would be blurry.

If you wanted a larger DOF, just stop the lens down to f/8 or f/11. There is no reason you can ONLY shoot the 85 at 1.2....

graphicaldeb said:
so what would be good for a very tightly cropped headshot with
little background? the macro lens?

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

--
Eric Lamont
http://www.pbase.com/elamont
http://www.ericlamont.com/

'Above all, it's hard learning to live with vivid mental images of scenes I cared for and failed to photograph' - Sam Abell

graphicaldeb · Mar 6, 2006

given my now-reduced pricerange

[[ahhhh, the husband - he's a dentist, what can you expect?]]
--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

graphicaldeb · Mar 6, 2006

--
Deborah H. Israeli, MA
New Baby BOY! 10/14/05 Reuvi Asher
http://www.graphicaldeb.com/reuvi

portrait lens

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts