Do I need a new lens?

[Aayria]

The standard "portrait" lens is traditionally the 85mm. That would mean, on a full frame camera, the focal length is 85mm. On a crop sensor camera, you can get close to the standard 85mm by using the nifty fifty. Anything less than 50mm (on a full frame, which would be your 35mm on your crop sensor) is going to start showing distortion.

A focal length of 50mm is like we would view thing with our own eyes. We view the world as though looking through a (full frame) 50mm lens..Or a (crop sensor) 35mm lens. You can do a search on this forum or google if you need more expansion on the difference between crop sensors vrs full frame cameras...but it's actually very simple. A full frame shows the full viewing area of the lens, a crop sensor cuts off the edges, essentially "zooming in" a bit more.

I agree with the people who said you need to either find a larger space, or back up more if you can.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Ill do it tonight because i have a 500D (cropped), 5D (full frame) 35 and 50mm.

 

[kundalini]

If I could add in my own little comparison test taken one lazy Sunday afternoon. The tests comprised of using a Full Frame body and Cropped body with 35mm and 50mm lenses.

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rence-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html

 

[Robin Usagani]

^^^ crap.. totally forgot about that. I only wish K had used deeper and wider subject so you can see the distortion difference.

 

[shortpants]

They look very close with a subject head on! I'd still love to see a comparison from a different angle.

 

[behanana]

I would have to agree with shortpants, from the link you can see the difference in the crop body to the full frame, but I would like to see an example like schwetty stated, a car from the fender to the rear taking the entire frame, could be a very good example.

 

[kundalini]

I believe the OP wanted to discuss focal lengths of 35mm & 50mm lenses for portraits. Showing a comparison of car shots would not be of much value to her. Perhaps Schwetty would be so kind as to run the car shot tests.

 

[Robin Usagani]

No K.. I just want to fill the frame with the subject. Doesnt matter if it is a stuffed animal or a car. I will probably shoot a toy or something.

 

[SabrinaO]

If 35 is too long then you need to have a new studio. Sorry I think 35mm is way too wide. Maybe buy a full frame camera first.

Haha... My studio is pretty big! It's just when I back up to get a full landscape shot a lot of details are lost... Like light in the eyes which I kind of big on.

 

[SabrinaO]

LOL. I don't believe I've ever heard anyone complain about a 35 being too tight in a studio! I love your threads Sabrina, I hope you never leave. Seriously, at the very least on a crop body I'd want a 50, ideally an 85. Not to sound like a dick, but I agree with Schwetty. Maybe you need to improve your shooting space to accommodate a more appropriate fl. With a longer fl you'll have better control over your bg blur. A 35 loses bg blur pretty quick as you back up from your subject. 50 not as much, 85 even less.

Thing is I have a 35 on a crop body so it pretty much makes it a 50mm.....

 

[Overread36]

If its purely detail resolution at a greater distance then a glass upgrade might be able to give you that extra detail - the 35mm F1.4 Nikkor might be an option to consider.

However as you move back from a subject finer details are, eventually, going to get lost. Better glass and better cameras with a higher MP value can help reduce this, but won't prevent it. At that point you've two options;

1) Understand that in moving back you lose the finer close details, but gain detail in the wider scene you are covering (ie back up from 100% views and view the photo as the whole).

2) The method has a name, but I can't remember it at all (Someone will chime in with it) but stitching is the key. That is you take a series of shots very quickly with a longer focal length lens, moving the lens around rapidly to build up a series of shots that cover the whole scene. You then stitch them together in editing to build up a composite - very much like stitching together a landscape shot.
OF course you've got to have a fast shutter speed (right lighting) and a pretty immobile background (or one with so much motion you can let it blur) and subjects able to hold still for a short moment (and be prepared to have to go in and fix little errors like hair stands twinning from fine air motions and the like).

I've seen this method used outside - in a studio it might work or it might not.

 

[SabrinaO]

subsuck, my appologies for slightly derailing this tread into a semi-intellegant conversation. She posted another thread earlier today, I figured I could derail one and everyone would be ok with it. For the short time I've been really learning about photography, what everyone has basically said is what I've seen, 50mm is close to "normal", 35 and 85 are good "all around" prime lenses for wide and zoom. All this being based off the full frame bodies, and exceptions do apply. And who the hell knows, she might be using a closet as a studio, would be easy to control the light , just pop her 600 in there and waa-laa, light!

I wish there were a dislike button here... And all the dislikes would be right by peoplesnames so I would know who to not take seriously. I just asked a few questions......I'm just tired of people tryin to be comedians or playing "who can give the most sarcastic/a**hole remark. I just come here to learn.

 

[Dao]

If 35 is too long then you need to have a new studio. Sorry I think 35mm is way too wide. Maybe buy a full frame camera first.

Haha... My studio is pretty big! It's just when I back up to get a full landscape shot a lot of details are lost... Like light in the eyes which I kind of big on.

So the lost of details you mentioned earlier, do you mean the catch lights in the eyes looks different? Or you mean there are details lost when zoom in 100% (compared with shots taken with portrait orientation)?

 

[SabrinaO]

I have to back up considerably to get in landscape orientation, then detail is lost in eyes

I think Sabrina's studio may be big enough since she mentioned she need to backup. But I think the problem she had was related to details lost in the eyes when shooting with the 35mm lens in landscape mode when the subject is correctly framed.So she thought the lost of details was related to the distance between the subject and the camera. I am not 100% sure what she meant by lost of details. But 1 thing I know for sure is, when you compare 2 photos with same setup while one is taken with camera closer to the subject, the one with camera closer to the subject should show more details in 100% crop.

Yes yes yes!!! everything you said is exactly what I meant! So should I just back up or should I get a wider lens?? Probably not because of the distortion. So maybe I should take schwettys advice and get a FF? Thanks for actually reading

 

[SabrinaO]

If 35 is too long then you need to have a new studio. Sorry I think 35mm is way too wide. Maybe buy a full frame camera first.

Haha... My studio is pretty big! It's just when I back up to get a full landscape shot a lot of details are lost... Like light in the eyes which I kind of big on.

So the lost of details you mentioned earlier, do you mean the catch lights in the eyes looks different? Or you mean there are details lost when zoom in 100% (compared with shots taken with portrait orientation)?

Yes the catchlights and just details are lost in eyes when I back up. When u do back up eyes just look like dark holes... But u guess here is no avoiding that. Just figured I'd ask