I used to think that if you get a 1.2 lens, you should always shoot at 1.2. Wrong. It gives you the ability to shoot 1.2, and it better be good at that. However, for face shot, especially if model face is not parallel with the focal plane, it call for reducing the apperture to get a better DOF. Furthermore, I don't think you kill bokeh by shooting at f2 vs f1.2
50mm F1.2L and 135mm F2L
- Thread starter hokkaido88
- Start date
- Status
From your statement, u really don't know anything about shooting portraits.
well, did I say that we shd always use 1.2 ? or that bokeh will be killed by shooting at f2 ?
I don't know everything but definitely a lot more than u do. I've been shooting portraitures for more than 4 years.
surrephoto
Senior Member
It may be personal preference...
But seriously how many actually feel 50 mm on full-frame is good perspective for portraits?
Just a sudden thought.
Yupz, can double up as a walkaround too.
Not me.... I would prefer 85
Shin Howard
Senior Member
Sounds logical. My uncle's friend has been shooting portraits since 1970s, but his pictures are nothing unusual.
some how i share similar sentiments :sweatsm:
Clash of egos!!! Break out the popcorn!
I do concur that years of experience might not make you a master...
But let's face it, a portrait's not all about bokeh.
Shooting at f1.2 on almost anything is sure you get you a nice bokeh but does that mean it's a great background for your subject? Think again.
At 1.2 your DOF is razor thin, making for a superb picture... if you want to show off your equipment.
The whole point behind a 1.2 lens is
1. Fast fast fast. It swallows light and gets you the shot under conditions most older camera's af can't even lock on.
2. Selective focus. You get to control the dof to a much greater extend than a comparatively slower lens. But do you really want that all the time? What good is a portrait when only the eyes are sharp and the rest is a creamy blur all the time? If that's your style then be my guest, I sure am not paying you to shoot for me.
Having an f1.2 lens doesn't mean you need to shoot at f1.2 all the time, but it does give you the option to should you see the need for it.
That's why people laugh at your question.
You probably know better, but it could be the way you phrased it that gave others the misconception.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (be gentle please), but that's just my two cents.
I do concur that years of experience might not make you a master...
But let's face it, a portrait's not all about bokeh.
Shooting at f1.2 on almost anything is sure you get you a nice bokeh but does that mean it's a great background for your subject? Think again.
At 1.2 your DOF is razor thin, making for a superb picture... if you want to show off your equipment.
The whole point behind a 1.2 lens is
1. Fast fast fast. It swallows light and gets you the shot under conditions most older camera's af can't even lock on.
2. Selective focus. You get to control the dof to a much greater extend than a comparatively slower lens. But do you really want that all the time? What good is a portrait when only the eyes are sharp and the rest is a creamy blur all the time? If that's your style then be my guest, I sure am not paying you to shoot for me.
Having an f1.2 lens doesn't mean you need to shoot at f1.2 all the time, but it does give you the option to should you see the need for it.
That's why people laugh at your question.
You probably know better, but it could be the way you phrased it that gave others the misconception.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (be gentle please), but that's just my two cents.
Last edited:
your aperture selection should be a function of your distance and the size of your subject in question.
closer the distance, the smaller your aperture should be or else it will just be a mash of oof. larger surface area you want to be in focus, the smaller your aperture should be.
it is nothing unusual using 50L to stop above f1.2 or even above f2. 50L just gives you the option of getting f1.2 at longer range subjects while not compromising oof areas.
closer the distance, the smaller your aperture should be or else it will just be a mash of oof. larger surface area you want to be in focus, the smaller your aperture should be.
it is nothing unusual using 50L to stop above f1.2 or even above f2. 50L just gives you the option of getting f1.2 at longer range subjects while not compromising oof areas.
Pls let me repeat myself. When did I ever say that we shd always shoot at 1.2 for portraits ? From the pic posted by Snoweagle, it seems to me that a better portrait cud have been made by maybe at 1.4 to 1.6 with better bokeh and equal sharpness. The model face is quite parallel with the camera plane from wat i see. So why use f2 ? unless he is not so confident of the lens sharpness at 1.4 to 1.6 perhaps ? if the lens is sharp at such apertures , then he is simply wasting the lens capability.
I've posted some pics taken with the 50 f/1.2 in other threads, go search it yrself.
U still have no idea at all. Why should i shoot at less than f/2?? Unless i want to create more creamy bokeh especially when taking closer, else this is enough.
Anthony Lee
Senior Member
This thread is around for quite sometime and I see more words than photos to prove a point. IMHO, a photographer shoots what he likes to see and if he can develop his own style and make it popular and pleasing to the majority, then, success will follow. I don't own a 50L, but I am sure it's an extremely good lens for a good photographer to display his skills. Personally I prefer to appreciate and give encouraging comments in simple terms that will not lead to any misconception. I am a photographer since 1963 and I am not shy to say that I am still learning. Art has no frontier.
- Status
Similar threads
