Advice for all portrait Canon lens

PLS send me advice for portrait Canon lens (Canon 20D camera)

wrote in message
ups.com...
PLS send me advice for portrait Canon lens (Canon 20D camera)


http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=7306

Marten wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

PLS send me advice for portrait Canon lens (Canon 20D camera)



http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=7306



There's no real arguing with the above recommendation. However, if
owning a sharp and capable lens that is also inexpensive leaves you
feeling a little inadequate, you can spend three or four times the money
and get this slightly better (in the bokeh and low light performance
departments) lens:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=7307

Eric Miller

Eric Miller wrote:

However, if
owning a sharp and capable lens that is also inexpensive leaves you
feeling a little inadequate, you can spend three or four times the
money and get this slightly better (in the bokeh and low light
performance departments) lens:

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...ailAct&fcatego
ryid=152&modelid=7307

Eric Miller

I own the EF 50mm f/1.4 and hardly ever use it. I find it very soft
compared to my 16-35 f/2.8 L and my 70-200 f/2.8 L. I've not tried the
f/1.2 yet but the EF 50mm f/1.2L is supposed to be Canon's best 50mm.
Unfortunately it costs over 3 times what the 50mm f/1.4 costs. If I had it
to do over again, I'd not have 'wasted' my money on the 50mm f/1.4. Just
my opinion.

I own the EF 50mm f/1.4 and hardly ever use it. I find it very soft
compared to my 16-35 f/2.8 L and my 70-200 f/2.8 L. I've not tried the
f/1.2 yet but the EF 50mm f/1.2L is supposed to be Canon's best 50mm.
Unfortunately it costs over 3 times what the 50mm f/1.4 costs. If I had
it
to do over again, I'd not have 'wasted' my money on the 50mm f/1.4. Just
my opinion.

Either you have a bad 50mm f/1.4 or you are not able to use it correctly!
At f/2,8 it _should_ at least match, if not beat the 16-35mm f/2.8 L!

If you are using the 50mm at f/1.4 I'd say "no wonder" - it's not supposed
to be sharp at that aperture!

I have made very good shots with my 50mm f/1.8 even wide open (at ISO 1600),
but it clearly benefits from stopping down to about f/2.8...


Brian

On 2007-02-25, Marten wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
PLS send me advice for portrait Canon lens (Canon 20D camera)


http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=7306


That's not a portrait lense... though, of course, any lens you take a
portrait shot with could be argued to be one. Traditionally, though, any
lens from about 85mm to 135mm is considered to be a portrait lens. The
lower end is better for for full length, and 'bust' shots, while the 135
for close up head shots without having the camera in the sitters face.

The reason a 50mm isn't traditionally considered portrait is, that to
get tight shots of a face you have to be so close that the face will
have distorted perspective. This is the lens canon sells as a true
portrait lens:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=7308

It's got the added advantage[?] of soft focus if you like that kind of
thing.

Justin.

--
Justin C, by the sea.

"Justin C" wrote:
On 2007-02-25, Marten wrote:

wrote in message
ups.com...
PLS send me advice for portrait Canon lens (Canon 20D camera)


http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=7306


That's not a portrait lense... though, of course, any lens you take a
portrait shot with could be argued to be one. Traditionally, though, any
lens from about 85mm to 135mm is considered to be a portrait lens. The
lower end is better for for full length, and 'bust' shots, while the 135
for close up head shots without having the camera in the sitters face.

The reason a 50mm isn't traditionally considered portrait is, that to
get tight shots of a face you have to be so close that the face will
have distorted perspective.

How did you get this so wrong?

Did you miss the point that the OP is using a 20D?

Or do you not understand that, except for different DOF, a 50mm lens on a
1.6x camera produces exactly the same image on the print as an 80mm lens on
an FF camera?

This is the lens canon sells as a true portrait lens:
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/co...mode lid=7308

It's got the added advantage[?] of soft focus if you like that kind of
thing.

It's a good lens: sharp, light, reasonably fast, and quite cheap on the used
market if you can find one. But on the 20D, it functions exactly the same
way a 216mm lens does on a full-frame camera, and that's way too long for
all but very rare cases in portrait photography.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Brian Lund wrote:
I own the EF 50mm f/1.4 and hardly ever use it. I find it very soft
compared to my 16-35 f/2.8 L and my 70-200 f/2.8 L. I've not tried
the f/1.2 yet but the EF 50mm f/1.2L is supposed to be Canon's best
50mm. Unfortunately it costs over 3 times what the 50mm f/1.4 costs.
If I had it to do over again, I'd not have 'wasted' my money on the
50mm f/1.4. Just my opinion.

Either you have a bad 50mm f/1.4 or you are not able to use it
correctly! At f/2,8 it _should_ at least match, if not beat the
16-35mm f/2.8 L!

If you are using the 50mm at f/1.4 I'd say "no wonder" - it's not
supposed to be sharp at that aperture!

I have made very good shots with my 50mm f/1.8 even wide open (at ISO
1600), but it clearly benefits from stopping down to about f/2.8...


Brian

That's funny.


While styles change, I still prefer most portraits a little soft with a
shallow depth of field so only the eyes are sharp, giving a little sparkle.

In portraits those little imperfections that we all have tend to show up
like craters on the moon. A little softness helps a lot.

Now like most things photograph there are two parts to taking a photo.
The mechanical and the art. Don't let the mechanical part take first place,
it should always be second place to the art.

I would recommend something about 50 -70 mm with a f 1.4 range. It can
be a little soft, but hopefully a little sharper in the center.

Yea I know you can do a lot of this post exposure, but for my money it
is bet to do it at the exposure.



--
Joseph Meehan

Dia 's Muire duit

In article , Mardon
wrote:

I own the EF 50mm f/1.4 and hardly ever use it. I find it very soft
compared to my 16-35 f/2.8 L and my 70-200 f/2.8 L. I've not tried the
f/1.2 yet but the EF 50mm f/1.2L is supposed to be Canon's best 50mm.
Unfortunately it costs over 3 times what the 50mm f/1.4 costs. If I had it
to do over again, I'd not have 'wasted' my money on the 50mm f/1.4. Just
my opinion.

One does not want a portrait lens that is tack sharp.

"Lionel" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 18:49:30 -0500, Rita Ä Berkowitz ritaberk2O04
@aol.com wrote:

Mardon wrote:

I own the EF 50mm f/1.4 and hardly ever use it. I find it very soft
compared to my 16-35 f/2.8 L and my 70-200 f/2.8 L. I've not tried
the f/1.2 yet but the EF 50mm f/1.2L is supposed to be Canon's best
50mm. Unfortunately it costs over 3 times what the 50mm f/1.4 costs.
If I had it to do over again, I'd not have 'wasted' my money on the
50mm f/1.4. Just my opinion.

Don't waste your time with it, just get the 58mm f/1.2 Noct Nikkor and
discover what lens performance is all about.

On a Canon, with an adapter & manual focus only at f1.2? - Don't be so
bloody stupid.

I was beginning to wonder if it was only me that noticed "it's" constant
stupidity!



Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com