L Prime lens to replace L zoom lens for potrait

[dolina]

Where did u hear this from??

Primes are sharper than zooms. If your subject has pores the size of sesame seeds and pimples the size of beansprouts then expect more retouching work.

You only have to look at the prime & zoom MTF charts to see which one has a higher definition optical formula.

 

[Cartman2000]

L primes tend to be unforgiving to the subject so it may require more work to retouch than an L zoom.

On the contrary, big aperture lenses can often work to make skin blemishes less visible

 

[CS TAN]

On the contrary, big aperture lenses can often work to make skin blemishes less visible

Only when the person mishandled the DOF since it will be razor thin at f/1.2 or f/1.4 especially with FF camera.

 

[dolina]

On the contrary, big aperture lenses can often work to make skin blemishes less visible

So bokeh the details out? What about lenses like the 200/2L IS? The area in the DoF that the subject enters will show the blemishes while bokehing away the other parts of the face.

You would still need to retouch regardless. And when you stop down the 200 to match a 70-200/2.8L IS more blemishes will resolve.

I guess if you're using an old lens like a 50/1.0, 200/1.8 or 135/2 that is acceptable seeming they're not that high resolution.

 

[surrephoto]

L primes tend to be unforgiving to the subject so it may require more work to retouch than an L zoom.

Can you pls elaborate?

 

[7mac1]

replies are in red.
getting the shot is more impt than risking dust,
if dust is introduced, u can simply send it for cleaning, but if u miss the shots, it's lost forever.

I agree with this.. You'll find it's quite interesting to change lenses although it's a bit trouble some when you're in hurry and may miss some shots. however, you'll enjoy the results better than using zoom lens.

 

[wdEvA]

I agree with this.. You'll find it's quite interesting to change lenses although it's a bit trouble some when you're in hurry and may miss some shots. however, you'll enjoy the results better than using zoom lens.

hmm, unless TS is shooting portraits by joining those organized photoshoot, where someone poses the model / model poses, then will TS miss a shot, else if he poses the model himself or is doing a shoot by himself, then there's no worries on that

 

[dolina]

Can you pls elaborate?

Too lazy to give 100% crops. :bsmilie: But see above explanation about seeds and sprouts. :lovegrin:

Think of it this way... when you watch live HD broadcasts or high bit rate HD content in 1080p do you see wrinkles or heavily applied makeup? That's the fault of the high resolution of HD and high resolving power of the lens used

Again some people like the high resolving power of the lens because retouching isn't considered "extra work" or the subjects are that blemish-free. Trust me when I say that even beauty contestants do have flaws and these flaws may sprout from under the arms.

 

[Snoweagle]

Primes are sharper than zooms. If your subject has pores the size of sesame seeds and pimples the size of beansprouts then expect more retouching work.

You only have to look at the prime & zoom MTF charts to see which one has a higher definition optical formula.

On the bottomline, no point reading reviews and looking at charts to deduce what is actual or not. I have owned 2 L zooms before but sold for others and retained my prime. No doubt shaper than zooms but not in any way sharper until so obvious that it makes skin textures a whole lot of difference when taking with zooms.

I used to use my ex 70-200 f/4 for some portraitures and comparing to my 50 f/1.2, the sharpness of the 70-200 is very comparable when taking with the prime at the same aperture.

 

[dolina]

On the bottomline, no point reading reviews and looking at charts to deduce what is actual or not. I have owned 2 L zooms before but sold for others and retained my prime. No doubt shaper than zooms but not in any way sharper until so obvious that it makes skin textures a whole lot of difference when taking with zooms.

I used to use my ex 70-200 f/4 for some portraitures and comparing to my 50 f/1.2, the sharpness of the 70-200 is very comparable when taking with the prime at the same aperture.

No point in reading reviews or MTF charts if you don't understand what you are reading. That's why I don't bother reading Mandarin or Urdu.

I have 4 L zooms and many L primes. I do pixel peeping whenever I do a shot that I want to impress myself and my conclusions holds true and matches to a lot of observations by pro reviewers & user reviews.

I guess your 70-200 is as great as your 50.

 

[tongki]

I was thinking, let say theres an ample space available and I have time as well. Say to shoot for this particular model with this clothing. Let say she'd have 4 sets of clothing.

First, u got ample space to move around
Second, u got time as well
Third, u need the power of prime lenses

All of 3 advantages that u already had, u need a goals,
what picture do u want to create ?

I don't see any problems here because u had 3 advantage above,
forget about the dust, just change the lens when u fell u need it, don't think about dust,

dust is so small, so, it's a small thing for u to think about it

 

[spartacus.ret]

I guess if you're using an old lens like a 50/1.0, 200/1.8 or 135/2 that is acceptable seeming they're not that high resolution.

yar loh.

shoot portrait no need to be sharp. best to get the 75-300mm so that no need to do touch up.

 

[Snoweagle]

No point in reading reviews or MTF charts if you don't understand what you are reading. That's why I don't bother reading Mandarin or Urdu.

I have 4 L zooms and many L primes. I do pixel peeping whenever I do a shot that I want to impress myself and my conclusions holds true and matches to a lot of observations by pro reviewers & user reviews.

I guess your 70-200 is as great as your 50.

It's nearly as sharp as my 50mm on the tele end when compared to similar apertures in fact.

 

[Snoweagle]

yar loh.

shoot portrait no need to be sharp. best to get the 75-300mm so that no need to do touch up.

Get those holga or lomo better. ;p

 

[antacid]

primes would definitely be sharper than zooms, but i dont think the difference is significant enough for most hobbyists. unless you have agency requirements and/or have a high personal standard, the differences are probably secondary when compared to the inherent differences of these types of lenses.

i'm sure the difference is definitely not like HD tele and SD broadcasting - you really have to pixel peep at 2871.65% to see it.

most primes are attractive because of hte large apertures, so you will also have to deal with other problems like CA. i just got a 85/1.2 and was a little surprised at the extent of CA present. i wasn't even stress testing it by shooting tree branches against the sky or something. just normal everyday shots. but i can live with it since its not that obvious on web resolution and small prints

 

[dolina]

yar loh.

shoot portrait no need to be sharp. best to get the 75-300mm so that no need to do touch up.

Bingo. :thumbsup: