What is a lens that could produce this image?

[Joshh]

Hi there, I'm Josh and I'm new here! I felt maybe I'd be able to get an answer here from the experts!

So, here is my question: what is a lens that could produce an image such as this? I understand there is some post processing on the image, but as far as a base lens, what's something that could create such an image? I currently have a Canon T3 and if you do suggest something, please make sure it's compatible with Canon cameras. Thank you!

The image in question: (Gesi Schilling)

Thanks for all your help in advanced!

 

[dbvirago]

One of the experts here can probably look at this and tell you approx. what focal length was used based on compression and perspective, but what about this image are you wanting to emulate?

 

[Joshh]

One of the experts here can probably look at this and tell you approx. what focal length was used based on compression and perspective, but what about this image are you wanting to emulate?

Firstly, thank you for answering so quickly as well as your well-mannered nature. A lot of other forums are pretty harsh to newcomers.

What I love about this photograph is the depth of field. If you look through the gallery I linked to, you'll see there's a lovely blend of the subject as well as the background, with just enough depth of field that creates a beautiful flow. Not too much, not too little. Does that make sense?

 

[Derrel]

85mm, 100mm, 105mm, 135mm, 70-200mm seem like likely candidates. The background appears to be "magnified" and "pulled closer than in reality", so my vote tends to go to 135mm to 200mm.

 

[The_Traveler]

Unfortunately you are violating a rather strict rule that you can't post an image of which you don't own the copyright.

The depth of field is controlled by the aperture not the focal length.
From the look of this image, I think it could be produced by virtually anything in the 35 - 75 mm range.

 

[Patrice]

Welcome to the forum.

First off you should remove the image from your post if it is not yours. Post a link to it instead. A mod is going to give you a slap on the wrist if you post images that are not yours.

As for the image itself, there is nothing particularly technically difficult there. Almost any lens with a reasonably wide aperture can do this. A 50 mm lens on a crop body set to about f/4 or f/5.6 or so could easily replicate this.

 

[480sparky43 42]

I'd say it's not so much the lens that produces the depth of field, but the photographers' understanding of what it is and how to use a given aperture with a given lens to create it.

 

[Joshh]

The image has been removed.

Unfortunately you are violating a rather strict rule that you can't post an image of which you don't own the copyright.

The depth of field is controlled by the aperture not the focal length.
From the look of this image, I think it could be produced by virtually anything in the 35 - 75 mm range.

I understand the aperture is responsible for the depth of field, however, I was not certain as far as how wide the aperture should be to create the desired effect. In addition, I am question the focal length that could produce the image.

Thank you for all your responses so far. Could any of you recommend a lens that would be best for someone such as me who is familiar with cameras (I've been using mine for about a year and a half now), that could produce the image I've been talking about?

 

[480sparky43 42]

The image has been removed.

Unfortunately you are violating a rather strict rule that you can't post an image of which you don't own the copyright.

The depth of field is controlled by the aperture not the focal length.
From the look of this image, I think it could be produced by virtually anything in the 35 - 75 mm range.

I understand the aperture is responsible for the depth of field, however, I was not certain as far as how small the f-stop would be to create the desired effect. In addition, I am question the focal length that could produce the image.

Thank you for all your responses so far. Could any of you recommend a lens that would be best for someone such as me who is familiar with cameras (I've been using mine for about a year and a half now), that could produce the image I've been talking about?

Off-hand I'd say anything between 28mm and 300mm could produce it, provided you understood how focal length affects DOF. I'm with Derrel, though.... I'd testify in court to something between 100 and 200.

 

[Joshh]

The image has been removed.

Unfortunately you are violating a rather strict rule that you can't post an image of which you don't own the copyright.

The depth of field is controlled by the aperture not the focal length.
From the look of this image, I think it could be produced by virtually anything in the 35 - 75 mm range.

I understand the aperture is responsible for the depth of field, however, I was not certain as far as how small the f-stop would be to create the desired effect. In addition, I am question the focal length that could produce the image.

Thank you for all your responses so far. Could any of you recommend a lens that would be best for someone such as me who is familiar with cameras (I've been using mine for about a year and a half now), that could produce the image I've been talking about?

Off-hand I'd say anything between 28mm and 300mm could produce it, provided you understood how focal length affects DOF. I'm with Derrel, though.... I'd testify in court to something between 100 and 200.

I use a Rokinon 85mm fixed lens and I've found it very difficult to get wide angled shots such as what I posted originally. In fact, if someone is between myself and the subject, whether it be their shoulder or whatever, it's incredibly out of focus. It seems like the shot I posted above has a depth of field that doesn't over do it. Could that possibly be how wide I've set the aperture? I guess I should bump it up a bit.

 

[480sparky43 42]

I use a Rokinon 85mm fixed lens and I've found it very difficult to get wide angled shots such as what I posted originally. In fact, if someone is between myself and the subject, whether it be their shoulder or whatever, it's incredibly out of focus. It seems like the shot I posted above has a depth of field that doesn't over do it. Could that possibly be how wide I've set the aperture? I guess I should bump it up a bit.

An 85mm lens isn't really a 'wide' lens. It's about as short of a telephoto as is made.

It sounds more like you're not paying attention to the focus point of the lens.

 

[Joshh]

I use a Rokinon 85mm fixed lens and I've found it very difficult to get wide angled shots such as what I posted originally. In fact, if someone is between myself and the subject, whether it be their shoulder or whatever, it's incredibly out of focus. It seems like the shot I posted above has a depth of field that doesn't over do it. Could that possibly be how wide I've set the aperture? I guess I should bump it up a bit.

An 85mm lens isn't really a 'wide' lens. It's about as short of a telephoto as is made.

It sounds more like you're not paying attention to the focus point of the lens.

That's what I'm saying. I've used 85mm and struggled to get the wide angle feel that you see in the pictures above. I wasn't clear in my post, I meant to ask how could it possibly be 100-200mm? As far as I know, that's won't give a wide angle at all.

 

[Derrel]

It is not a wide-angle photo at all...the picture is about four people across in the foreground, and the background is somewhat narrow in angle of view. And also, the buildings appear "close".

My guess, judging from the green chromatic aberration on the buildings in the background? I'm gonna hazard a guess and say Canon 85mm f/1.2-L.

 

[480sparky43 42]

So by 'wide angle feel' you mean the sharp subjects and blurry background? That's from using the lens with a near-wide-open aperture. Look at the man on the right, wearing the watch.. Since he's looking straight forward, I would say he's the same distance from the camera as the bride and groom are. But look at his hands. His right hand is just as sharp as the newlyweds, but his left is out of focus. Same thing with the guy in the green shirt on the left. I'd say he's less than a foot closer to the camera than the groom, but he's OOF. In fact, it looks to me like the groom is a bit OOF as well, since he may be shooting them at a slight angle, letting the couple approach and then pass by on the left of the camera.

There's not much DOF there. You might be able to get that thin DOF using a 28 or 35mm, but you'd have to have a fast lens and shoot wide open, which is not ideal. You should be able to get the same effect with an 85mm, shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. Maybe a 50mm at f/2.8 or f/4.

But shooting at those apertures mean thin DOF, and that requires a precise focus.

 

[Joshh]

So by 'wide angle feel' you mean the sharp subjects and blurry background? That's from using the lens with a near-wide-open aperture. Look at the man on the right, wearing the watch.. Since he's looking straight forward, I would say he's the same distance from the camera as the bride and groom are. But look at his hands. His right hand is just as sharp as the newlyweds, but his left is out of focus. Same thing with the guy in the green shirt on the left. I'd say he's less than a foot closer to the camera than the groom, but he's OOF. In fact, it looks to me like the groom is a bit OOF as well, since he may be shooting them at a slight angle, letting the couple approach and then pass by on the left of the camera.

There's not much DOF there. You might be able to get that thin DOF using a 28 or 35mm, but you'd have to have a fast lens and shoot wide open, which is not ideal. You should be able to get the same effect with an 85mm, shooting at f/5.6 or f/8. Maybe a 50mm at f/2.8 or f/4.

But shooting at those apertures mean thin DOF, and that requires a precise focus.

A problem I run into when shooting at those apertures is the lack of light that the lens sucks up, so I have to open up the shutter speed to below 1/80th. How can I correct that?