Reading mode: Light Dark

50-1.4 or 28-1.8 on D60?

Go to last post
G

Guillaume in Paris

Senior Member
Messages
1,919
Reaction score
0
Location
Paris, FR
I'm puzzled about this choice. Photodo's ratings apart (50 is rated 4.4 and 28 is 3.2) i have to think in terms of multiplier factor. Most people say that the 50 is a perfect portrait lens (and low light, which is what i'm looking for) but on a D60 it becomes a 80mm. I can't figure how a 80mm lens would behave for portraits, isn't it a bit too telephoto-ish?

I'm thinking about the 28mm which would become a 45mm on a D60, much closer to the "ideal" focal length, and f1.8 looks good for dark places...
The 35-1.4L is too expensive for the use i want, and the 35-2.0 isn't USM.
What do you think about this little 28-1.8? other brands?

Thanks a lot
 
Suprisingly (well not really), 80mm is THE ideal portrait focal length. You want the low telephoto to help get rid of the background and compress the image a bit. On a D60, it would become quite a nice portrait lense.
e2polgui said:
I'm puzzled about this choice. Photodo's ratings apart (50 is rated
4.4 and 28 is 3.2) i have to think in terms of multiplier factor.
Most people say that the 50 is a perfect portrait lens (and low
light, which is what i'm looking for) but on a D60 it becomes a
80mm. I can't figure how a 80mm lens would behave for portraits,
isn't it a bit too telephoto-ish?
I'm thinking about the 28mm which would become a 45mm on a D60,
much closer to the "ideal" focal length, and f1.8 looks good for
dark places...
The 35-1.4L is too expensive for the use i want, and the 35-2.0
isn't USM.
What do you think about this little 28-1.8? other brands?

Thanks a lot
Click to expand...
--
  • Martin Hofmann
 
For film I've used an 85mm lens for head and shoulder shots, and a 135mm for head shots. With a borrowed D30 (D60 on order!) I find I can use my 50mm 1.4 for head/shoulders, and my 85mm for head shots!

A 50mm equivalent lens (just over 30mm actual) requires you to be too close to the subject, resulting in an unpleasant perspective.
e2polgui said:
I'm puzzled about this choice. Photodo's ratings apart (50 is rated
4.4 and 28 is 3.2) i have to think in terms of multiplier factor.
Most people say that the 50 is a perfect portrait lens (and low
light, which is what i'm looking for) but on a D60 it becomes a
80mm. I can't figure how a 80mm lens would behave for portraits,
isn't it a bit too telephoto-ish?
I'm thinking about the 28mm which would become a 45mm on a D60,
much closer to the "ideal" focal length, and f1.8 looks good for
dark places...
The 35-1.4L is too expensive for the use i want, and the 35-2.0
isn't USM.
What do you think about this little 28-1.8? other brands?

Thanks a lot
Click to expand...
 
Photodo says the 28-2.8 is sharper (3.8) and it's also cheaper.
It doesn't have the USM, but is that important?
OTOH the normal-lens perspective isn't usual for headshots,
if that's what you're looking for.
 
Guillaume in Paris said:
The 35-1.4L is too expensive for the use i want, and the 35-2.0
isn't USM.
Click to expand...
The 35/2 is very good, if you can try one, you might find that it could be worth to sacrifice USM for this one.
e2polgui said:
I'm puzzled about this choice. Photodo's ratings apart (50 is rated
4.4 and 28 is 3.2) i have to think in terms of multiplier factor.
Most people say that the 50 is a perfect portrait lens (and low
light, which is what i'm looking for) but on a D60 it becomes a
80mm. I can't figure how a 80mm lens would behave for portraits,
isn't it a bit too telephoto-ish?
I'm thinking about the 28mm which would become a 45mm on a D60,
much closer to the "ideal" focal length, and f1.8 looks good for
dark places...
The 35-1.4L is too expensive for the use i want, and the 35-2.0
isn't USM.
What do you think about this little 28-1.8? other brands?

Thanks a lot
Click to expand...
 
Stefan:

Hello.

I have been cosidering this 35/2.0.

Would/could you be so kind as to email me a picture you have taken with it?

Something that you feel really shows off the lens' capabilities?

Edited or unedited, I don't care.

My email is [email protected]

Thanks!

Rm
Stefan Klocke said:
Member said:
The 35-1.4L is too expensive for the use i want, and the 35-2.0
isn't USM.
Click to expand...
The 35/2 is very good, if you can try one, you might find that it
could be worth to sacrifice USM for this one.
e2polgui said:
I'm puzzled about this choice. Photodo's ratings apart (50 is rated
4.4 and 28 is 3.2) i have to think in terms of multiplier factor.
Most people say that the 50 is a perfect portrait lens (and low
light, which is what i'm looking for) but on a D60 it becomes a
80mm. I can't figure how a 80mm lens would behave for portraits,
isn't it a bit too telephoto-ish?
I'm thinking about the 28mm which would become a 45mm on a D60,
much closer to the "ideal" focal length, and f1.8 looks good for
dark places...
The 35-1.4L is too expensive for the use i want, and the 35-2.0
isn't USM.
What do you think about this little 28-1.8? other brands?

Thanks a lot
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
[email protected]
http://www.50mm.net
 
I know we've heard so much about the 1.6 fov factor but once you actually start using the camera you'll see that a 50mm will NOT give you the same effect as using an 80mm lens on a film camera. Sure the crop is that of an 80mm lens but that's it. I think there was a line somewhere on the Canon site saying that you should think of yours lenses as they are and not the 50=an 80 or the 100=a 160.

danny
 
For the more experience folks, correct me if I'm wrong or if things have changed. But what I remember from my college photography classes and other workshops, the 50mm is actually more of a lens that gives you the perspective of what one actually sees when mounted on a regular SLR. The good portrait lens focal lengths are from 80mm to 135mm as mounted on a regular SLR. So, as far as a 50mm on a D60 as a portrait lens, yes, it falls within the 80mm-135mm range that is considered good for portraits. A 50mm on a regular SLR will give a more accurate rendition of what was actually seen with the unaided eye at the time of exposure. So to help answer your question, for portraits go with the 50-1.4 if you wish to have a prime and not a zoom and go for the 28-1.8 if you wish to record what was seen with the eye perspective. :)
e2polgui said:
I'm puzzled about this choice. Photodo's ratings apart (50 is rated
4.4 and 28 is 3.2) i have to think in terms of multiplier factor.
Most people say that the 50 is a perfect portrait lens (and low
light, which is what i'm looking for) but on a D60 it becomes a
80mm. I can't figure how a 80mm lens would behave for portraits,
isn't it a bit too telephoto-ish?
I'm thinking about the 28mm which would become a 45mm on a D60,
much closer to the "ideal" focal length, and f1.8 looks good for
dark places...
The 35-1.4L is too expensive for the use i want, and the 35-2.0
isn't USM.
What do you think about this little 28-1.8? other brands?

Thanks a lot
Click to expand...
--
http://www.goldfrost.com
 
If you put a 50mm Lens on a D30/60 the Field of view (FoV) will be the same as an 80mm (50x1.6=80) lens on a film camera.

Perspective, the aparent size of objects with distance is controlled by the camera subject and other objects in the scene different. If you use a 50mm lens on a D30/60 and an 80mm lens on a film camera, and frame the subject the same, you will be standing in the same place and the perspective will be the same.

Focal length is a physical property of the lens and does not change, but when you change the size of the film or imager, the FoV changes. If all one is worried about is image size, then the "magnification factor" works, but it will get very confusing if one then tries to apply optical formula with the "effective focal length" because it is only "effective" in terms of FoV and nothing else.

Depth of field is another subject an is affected by the "true" focal length. It turns out that assuming you are going to print the whole image in both cases, if you use a 50mm on a D30/D60 and a 80mm Lens on a 35mm Film camera the DoF will be greater on the D30/D60 by 1.6X but the peak sharpness at the focus point will be lower by 1.6X (basically, the overall image is slightly less sharp, but the change in focus with depth falls off slower). DoF tends to change linearly with F-number so you would need a 1.6X lower F-number to get the Same DoF one the D30/60 with the 50mm, a good first approximation is to use one stop (1.4X lower F-number) wider. -- All this assumes simple enlarging.

Karl
dannyjl said:
I know we've heard so much about the 1.6 fov factor but once you
actually start using the camera you'll see that a 50mm will NOT
give you the same effect as using an 80mm lens on a film camera.
Sure the crop is that of an 80mm lens but that's it. I think there
was a line somewhere on the Canon site saying that you should think
of yours lenses as they are and not the 50=an 80 or the 100=a 160.

danny
Click to expand...
--
Karl
 
Perspective is ONLY related to the relative distance between the viewer/camera an the subject. It is a simple ratio of distances. The focal length has nothing to do with it per say.

What happens when you use a shorter focal length is that you tend to move closer to the subject to overall frame the subject the same as with a longer focal length. IT IS THE ACT OF MOVING CLOSER that changes the perspective, not the lens itself. If you stood in the same place and use a 50mm lens and a 200mm lens and cropped the 50mm image to be the same as the FoV of the 200mm lens, the perspective would be identical.

Lets say you are going to take a full body and just a head shot of a person. To get their face to have the same perspective, you would like to use a longer focal length for the face shot, in this way you would not have to move closer (or that much closer) to the person.

Then there is the whole debate of what is a "normal" lens and the related question, what is a human's FoV. The human visual system is non-linear with sharp resolution in the center and limit resolution, more just sensing, the the peripheral vision.
Gary T said:
e2polgui said:
I'm puzzled about this choice. Photodo's ratings apart (50 is rated
4.4 and 28 is 3.2) i have to think in terms of multiplier factor.
Most people say that the 50 is a perfect portrait lens (and low
light, which is what i'm looking for) but on a D60 it becomes a
80mm. I can't figure how a 80mm lens would behave for portraits,
isn't it a bit too telephoto-ish?
I'm thinking about the 28mm which would become a 45mm on a D60,
much closer to the "ideal" focal length, and f1.8 looks good for
dark places...
The 35-1.4L is too expensive for the use i want, and the 35-2.0
isn't USM.
What do you think about this little 28-1.8? other brands?

Thanks a lot
Click to expand...
--
http://www.goldfrost.com
Click to expand...
--
Karl
 
Not sure if we're talking about the same thing or not. What I was getting at is the 50mm, on a regular SLR acts as a normal lens with normal being defined as image size of normal unaided vision, (see http://www.cvco.org/science/audubon/coles.html ). Now since I'm at work, I don't have access to all my photography books so that web site reference will have to do.

I might have used incorrect terminology in my last post, but what I intented was to convey that the 50mm is classified as a normal lens and how a normal lens is defined.
Karlg said:
Perspective is ONLY related to the relative distance between the
viewer/camera an the subject. It is a simple ratio of distances.
The focal length has nothing to do with it per say.

What happens when you use a shorter focal length is that you tend
to move closer to the subject to overall frame the subject the same
as with a longer focal length. IT IS THE ACT OF MOVING CLOSER that
changes the perspective, not the lens itself. If you stood in the
same place and use a 50mm lens and a 200mm lens and cropped the
50mm image to be the same as the FoV of the 200mm lens, the
perspective would be identical.

Lets say you are going to take a full body and just a head shot of
a person. To get their face to have the same perspective, you
would like to use a longer focal length for the face shot, in this
way you would not have to move closer (or that much closer) to the
person.

Then there is the whole debate of what is a "normal" lens and the
related question, what is a human's FoV. The human visual system
is non-linear with sharp resolution in the center and limit
resolution, more just sensing, the the peripheral vision.
Click to expand...
--
http://www.goldfrost.com
 
Karlg, I just reread what you posted and my apologies. Yes, we are talking about totally different things. My brain cells just clicked in and my original intent was to say the image is a 1:1 rendition. Sorry, I used the wrong terminology.
Gary T said:
I might have used incorrect terminology in my last post, but what I
intented was to convey that the 50mm is classified as a normal lens
and how a normal lens is defined.
Karlg said:
Perspective is ONLY related to the relative distance between the
viewer/camera an the subject. It is a simple ratio of distances.
The focal length has nothing to do with it per say.

What happens when you use a shorter focal length is that you tend
to move closer to the subject to overall frame the subject the same
as with a longer focal length. IT IS THE ACT OF MOVING CLOSER that
changes the perspective, not the lens itself. If you stood in the
same place and use a 50mm lens and a 200mm lens and cropped the
50mm image to be the same as the FoV of the 200mm lens, the
perspective would be identical.

Lets say you are going to take a full body and just a head shot of
a person. To get their face to have the same perspective, you
would like to use a longer focal length for the face shot, in this
way you would not have to move closer (or that much closer) to the
person.

Then there is the whole debate of what is a "normal" lens and the
related question, what is a human's FoV. The human visual system
is non-linear with sharp resolution in the center and limit
resolution, more just sensing, the the peripheral vision.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
http://www.goldfrost.com
 
thanks! my collection of acronyms is growing day after day.

ok, 50mm in the article was the lens with a 1:1 magnification, 50mm wouldn't be useful for head shots, but i fear 80mm is a bit small for head and shoulder shots... i'll try both in the shop :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top