After 50mm 1.4, what do you recommend?

sincere · Aug 27, 2007

i mainly want to shoot people and do portrait stuff. The thing i didnt like about the 50mm is that the angle was often just too small, just like the rooms i was in..what do you recommend?

Stick with the normal/wideangle lenses or get something with zoom or else?

Don Simon · Aug 27, 2007

Not really sure what to suggest in this case... for portrait work I would normally recommend a telephoto lens longer than 50mm. But if you find the angle of view on a 50mm to be too narrow already, then obviously a longer lens is not going to be any better.

A zoom that includes wide-angle focal lengths (something like the 18-55mm you already have) would help with your problem of shooting in small rooms. Wide-angles do not normally make very flattering portrait lenses though.

Johnboy2978 · Aug 27, 2007

Like Zaphod said, normally 50mm is the widest angle many would choose. On a cropped sensor, it will appear as though it is a 75mm lens due to the 1.5 (or maybe 1.6) crop factor of most DSLRs. I use mine frequently when I am shooting in my den. My den is approximately 12x20' and I can usually get the job done with that. Getting something longer is going to make your problem worse so that's not the solution. In shooting w/ wider angles you will have some distortion around the edges, but if you keep the subject in the center you might pull it off eventhough you have to compromise on composition a bit.

JIP · Aug 27, 2007

Budget???

sincere · Aug 29, 2007

Well, right now i am not even thinking about budget, i just want a solutiuon and work around this. And yeah, my camera has the 1.6 crop factor and me getting like a 85 or so would be contra-productive. In addition, i liked the "picture quality" the lense gave so thats also another thing i am looking at.

Don Simon · Aug 29, 2007

Um ok... well you said the problem is that the angle of view on a 50mm is too small. So the solution has to be a wider angle lens than 50mm. That could mean any number of primes - 14, 20, 24, 28 or 35mm - or zooms like the 10-22, 16-35, 17-40, 17-55, 17-85, 24-70mm, etc...

... I suppose the best way to narrow your choice down, would be to try using the 18-55mm lens you already have, and based on that, decide how wide you need to go.

sincere · Aug 29, 2007

Great idea! As far as quality, i really liked the quality so what(brand and possible series) should i look into? Doesnt have to be a Canon,lol..

Don Simon · Aug 29, 2007

A 50mm f/1.4 is a really great lens. To get the same quality with a shorter focal length usually costs a lot more money.

If you want something really on the same level, I would stick to Canon "L" lenses.

If on the other hand you don't need it to be quite on the level of the 50mm, but still want an excellent lens that is significantly better than your 18-55 "kit lens", then there are plenty of other zooms and primes by Canon and by third-parties (Tamron, Sigma, Tokina) which would fit the bill.

First I would take a look at the 16-35mm f/2.8 L II (hey, you said budget wasn't an issue :lol:

)... if the price seems a little steep then take a look at the Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM... if the price is still too high then the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 SP... all are excellent, the only question is how much excellence you are willing to pay for :wink:

By the way, I've been assuming that you are ok with the range of your 18-55mm and just want better quality... unless you find that even 18mm is not wide enough?

EOS_JD · Aug 29, 2007

For portrait work you do not want very wide lenses as the perspective is very different. Ultra wide lenses will distort the features of your subject in a very unflattering way although they can be used for creative portraiture.

For a 1.6 crop body, the good portrait range is anywhere from 30mm up. The Sigma 30mm f1.4 is a fantastic lens that is very cl,ose in quality to the 50mm lens you have.

Also if you need a zoom lens, look at the 24-70 f2.8 Canon lens or you even the 24-105 f4L IS. Both are very sharp although the extra stop of the 2.8 lens is useful in low light and produces a nicer bokeh.

There are also other zooms like the 17-55 f2.8 IS which is a great lens too.

The Last post from ZaphodB is a very useful post. Don't go too wide for portraits. In my view longer is better but obviously it comes down to the room in which you are using the lens.

Don Simon · Aug 29, 2007

:thumbup: It depends on the kind of shot too. It is certainly easier to make flattering portraits with a telephoto. For "head & shoulders" portraiture (as in photographs including head and shoulders, not ones for selling shampoo :mrgreen: ) a longer lens is definitely better. For full-body shots or environmental portraits a wider lens can be necessary though. Often I use a 24mm (on both 35mm film and APS-C digital) for these purposes, but it's harder to get it right.

sincere · Aug 29, 2007

Thanks for the great replys you guys! The 18-55mm range would be great for me, i just want better quality in pictures so thats what i am looking into.

The other reason i am asking is because i saw this chicks work and this is what she uses:

10-22mm EFS
18-55mm EFS
100mm f/2 EF
17-40mm EF
15mm EF (fisheye)

sabbath999 · Aug 30, 2007

Chick?

How very 1974.

EOS_JD · Aug 30, 2007

sincere said:
Thanks for the great replys you guys! The 18-55mm range would be great for me, i just want better quality in pictures so thats what i am looking into.

The other reason i am asking is because i saw this chicks work and this is what she uses:

10-22mm EFS

18-55mm EFS

100mm f/2 EF

17-40mm EF

15mm EF (fisheye)

Just be aware of the perspective when shooting with an Ultra Wide Angle lens like the 10-22. Also the fisheye is not really a portrait lens either.

She has some cracking portraits there and I'd guess many are with the 17-40L and 100 f2.

sincere · Aug 30, 2007

EOS_JD said:
Just be aware of the perspective when shooting with an Ultra Wide Angle lens like the 10-22. Also the fisheye is not really a portrait lens either.

She has some cracking portraits there and I'd guess many are with the 17-40L and 100 f2.

100 f2? How could you possibly determine that? WOuldnt a 100 be too close, even for a full sensor?

Don Simon · Aug 30, 2007

Nothing is too close if you stand back far enough

100mm is actually still fairly moderate, it's just obviously not ideal for when you don't have much space to work. Since most of her work is outside, that wouldn't be a problem... but you say you are shooting in small rooms, so for you it could be a problem.