Where next?

Started Apr 4, 2011 | Discussions thread
OP Stimpz New Member • Posts: 7
Re: Where next?

Vipre77 wrote:

Stimpz wrote:

2.0 is better indoors, typically less reduces DoF too much. It is not really available in zoom lenses though.

Interesting, do you find e.g. (lower light) portraits on less than 2.0 too narrow DoF? Does this suggest that I should rather be shooting at narrower ap / higher ISO on a 5D, than having to resort to wider ap on a CF?

I've found on my Rebels (300D and 450D) that when I've used my 50mm f/1.8 with the aperture wide open to take portraits of my daughters that I'm not happy with the results due to the depth of field being too shallow. For example, if you focus on their eyes, their nose or chin may be out of focus. If that's the look you're going for, it's okay, I suppose, but I'm generally trying to get at least their entire face in focus. If there's more than one person in the shot, forget it. You'll be lucky if you can get by with the DoF at f/2.8 with that lens in that case. More likely to be at f/3.5 or narrower, actually. Fortunately, if you're shooting adults, they might be able to take direction a little better with where to stand to keep them in focus. For kids, though, forget it. They usually can't sit still for the life of them and you'll need a deeper DoF most of the time in those cases. For most of my family portrait work, I generally don't like going wider than f/2.8 or so with the 50mm f/1.8.

So, when you move to FF and get the shallower depth of field that comes with that, then I imagine the problems with DoF will only get worse the wider you go with the aperture.

That's my experience anyway, with shallow DoF. Take it for what it's worth, I guess.

Thanks Vipre very interesting.. Doing some back of the envelope DoF calcs your dof with a 50mm @ 1.8 should be around 2.5cm at 1m from the subject.. Quite tight. At 2m from the subject you've got a 10cm dof, which sounds more usable.. I wonder, is there a rule of thumb for ideal min dof requirement in portrait photography?

On a FF @ 2.8 I would expect to have around 40% more dof than the above setup, which perhaps might be enough at closer distances..

Beauty of a FF system though seems to be that you can narrow the aperture and still get around 2 stops for the same noise a higher iso? I guess I'd need those two stops at 2.8 for low light though..


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow