17-55 f2.8 for portraits?

Thanks everyone for the kind comments.

Alejandro Daz del Ro Fery said:

Want you share with us mostly used focal, aperture, ISO... 55mm,
f:2.8, 100... ?

Click to expand...

In the link below most images are D2x, iso 100-200, 38-50mm, 1/60-1/180 f. 2.8-5.6

http://www.lost.art.br/paraibadreams.htm

I think the choice of a shorter lens makes for more intimate portraits. Even if without technical knowledge the viewer gets a sense that there was interaction between the photographer and subject.

Image below, Luxor, Egypt, D2x, iso 100, 17-55mm @ 40mm 1/320 f5.6

Hi.
4 postes in 5.9 years, what a lotery, you have answer my question !

Ig said:

Thanks everyone for the kind comments.

Click to expand...

You're wellcome.

Ig said:

Ig said:

Want you share with us mostly used focal, aperture, ISO... 55mm,
f:2.8, 100... ?

Click to expand...

I think the choice of a shorter lens makes for more intimate portraits. Even
if without technical knowledge the viewer gets a sense that there was
interaction between the photographer and subject.

Click to expand...

Good thought.

Ig said:

In the link below most images are D2x, iso 100-200, 38-50mm,
1/60-1/180 f. 2.8-5.6

Click to expand...

Thanks for sharing.

Ig said:

http://www.lost.art.br/paraibadreams.htm
Image below, Luxor, Egypt, D2x, iso 100, 17-55mm @ 40mm 1/320 f5.6

Click to expand...

Great shot.

Ig said:

Click to expand...

--
Regards, Alejandro.

This lens was my #1 lens on DX. I would say any softness at 55mm is at an academic level. My portraits with this lens were sharp and contrasty, even at f/2.8, and optimum sharpness comes already around f/4. The 55mm end is just enough to shoot portraits, even if you have to get a little close to get a tight portrait.

Here are some samples, all at 55mm, and at least the first one is f/2.8, second might have been at f/4, and last one I think was f/2.8 as well. And they hold up just as well at 100% magnification as you would think/hope from these resized shots:







Thomas.

At 55mm:



Best,
--
Ray Soares

See my pictures at http://www.pbase.com/raysoares

The 17-55 is sharp, with excellent local contrast and color, and nice defocus characteristics. It also focuses quite close, which makes it even more versatile.

However -- I have always found the images it makes very dry, almost clinical. I am the first to admit that I cannot explain what that means. I just know that portraits I take with my 70-200 have a sweetness or "glow" about them that is lacking with the 17-55. Nothing about the otherwise excellent portraits posted elsewhere in this thread has changed my mind. I think they all have the dry character I see in images taken with this lens.

I'm not saying this is a bad lens. On the contrary, I am very pleased with many pictures I have taken with it. It's just that most of those aren't portraits.

Ray

Thanks for the images, great shots and the lens looks pin sharp, and still good at higher ISO's

Thanks

Ian

what you really mean is that even the DX crop can not hide the wide angle heritage of this lens.

Regardless of the many fine images I have seen from this lens posted here and elsewhere. I still reach for an 85 or longer lenses, when I need a "portrait" lens. Next the content, the magic is in the perspective. I prefer compressed perspective...
--
Tony K

it's great!
just buy it

--
rui lebreiro
http://www.yesterdayslife.com/photofront/ruilebreiro

Hey Flecth i see you treturning the 70-200... are you going to replace it with another one or something else...
--
http://www.me.com/gallery/#home

dmfrank said:

However -- I have always found the images it makes very dry, almost
clinical. I am the first to admit that I cannot explain what that
means. I just know that portraits I take with my 70-200 have a
sweetness or "glow" about them that is lacking with the 17-55.

Click to expand...

I think I know what you mean. I have to admit that specifically for portrait shooting I usually reach for my 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.4 or even my 35-70mm 2.8, which I very much like for portraits. I think this zoom often gives almost a "prime-like" delicacy to images, especially if shot wide open.

But, isn't the 17-55mm 2.8 here a little similar with the much lauded, Nikon's new 24-70mm lens? Many think that both of these are almost "too sharp" zooms for portraits, preferring something like the older 28-70 mm 2.8 ("the Beast"). Too sharp for some work (hmm??), both rendering extremely clear, almost 3-D images, making you feel like "being there" within the scene or with the object - but at the same time removing those magic veils of light around people some other lenses like to caress and enhance...

-risto-

Iusefilm said:

what you really mean is that even the DX crop can not hide the wide
angle heritage of this lens.
Regardless of the many fine images I have seen from this lens posted
here and elsewhere. I still reach for an 85 or longer lenses, when I
need a "portrait" lens. Next the content, the magic is in the
perspective. I prefer compressed perspective...
--
Tony K

Click to expand...

Completely agree, that´s the reason people looks better with a lens from 85 mm...

--
http://www.ramonvaquero.com