lenses with good bokeh...

[xunjas]

hmmmm... that is a good point...

now i thinking if i shd invest 1st? or go rent one and try

die.... ahaha... drop in the BBB virus liaoz...

u can rent a 580ex @ 20SGD for student rates. =) renting is better.

personally, i find the 430ex is ample for most situations, unless u want the flash to fire a longer distance, then u need 580ex.

 

[Garion]

Cos 85mm on a 1.6x body will be too tele for me to do my model shoots.

Just wondering...why is that so? It translates to about 135mm with the crop factor...which falls within the focal length most often used for human portraiture (~50mm to 135mm equivalent on a FF body). Too tele? There's always 'foot zoom'. Unless you're talking about indoor studio shoots where space is restricted.

 

[unseenshadows]

Not everyone is comfortable with a 135mm focal range i suppose?

 

[xunjas]

135mm would be too long for some small indoor places..

 

[boredphuck]

135mm would be too long for some small indoor places..

i agree 200%. now wondering shld i get a 35 or 50 for indoor portraits. :think:

 

[Halfmoon]

i agree 200%. now wondering shld i get a 35 or 50 for indoor portraits. :think:

What camera are you using?

Think it also depends on the type of portraits, Full or half, and also, indoor, is it tight or not......

50mm FF will be easier to compose for portraits... to me....

135mm F2L is one of the cheaper prime lens.... the 35mm L or 50mm L is more than $2K....

 

[boredphuck]

What camera are you using?

Think it also depends on the type of portraits, Full or half, and also, indoor, is it tight or not......

50mm FF will be easier to compose for portraits... to me....

135mm F2L is one of the cheaper prime lens.... the 35mm L or 50mm L is more than $2K....

40D. i want something i can do all of those indoors. So considering between 50 or 35. My 85 is too far already. 135 is totally out of the answer although i think its the cheapest L prime and will get that if i own a FF eventually.

 

[Halfmoon]

40D. i want something i can do all of those indoors. So considering between 50 or 35. My 85 is too far already. 135 is totally out of the answer although i think its the cheapest L prime and will get that if i own a FF eventually.

I feel a 35mm on a 40D should be just ok.... more verstile than 50mm....... But it really depend on what you shooting, and what you wanna achieve.

 

[KangS]

Please ignore focussing point, at it was my mistake. :embrass:

But would this be considered 'nice bokeh' ?? :sweat:

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 on 40D

Taken at: f2.8: 50mm : 1/320 : ISO 125

 

[unseenshadows]

Think it could be sharper in the middle, with more detail of the stigma and anthers of the flower. But since you're asking about bokeh, i think its fine, but better bokeh could have been achieved with a prime. think a 50mm f/1.8 at f/2 would give better bokeh than this.

to boredphuck: simple way to determine whether you like 35 or 50mm better (in terms of focal length). Take any zoom lens (eg 18-55, 17-85) that offers both focal lengths, get a friend, and try different ways of framing your 'portrait' at 35mm and then and 50mm. Take a few shots, see which one you prefer most, and which you are most comfortable shooting at. That's how i decided i don't really look shooting at 50mm on a 1.6 crop.

 

[boredphuck]

Think it could be sharper in the middle, with more detail of the stigma and anthers of the flower. But since you're asking about bokeh, i think its fine, but better bokeh could have been achieved with a prime. think a 50mm f/1.8 at f/2 would give better bokeh than this.

to boredphuck: simple way to determine whether you like 35 or 50mm better (in terms of focal length). Take any zoom lens (eg 18-55, 17-85) that offers both focal lengths, get a friend, and try different ways of framing your 'portrait' at 35mm and then and 50mm. Take a few shots, see which one you prefer most, and which you are most comfortable shooting at. That's how i decided i don't really look shooting at 50mm on a 1.6 crop.

that was actually what i did before buying my 85mm. haha. :sweatsm: sort of forgot abt that method already. yeah. i think thats the easiest way. later go try out. thanks!

 

[xunjas]

i agree 200%. now wondering shld i get a 35 or 50 for indoor portraits. :think:

for 1.6x body, i would prefer 35mm as i can zoom in closer with feet. buying wider is better than buying narrow.. Overall, i would prefer a zoom to cover WA n Portraits for events. =)

 

[xunjas]

40D. i want something i can do all of those indoors. So considering between 50 or 35. My 85 is too far already. 135 is totally out of the answer although i think its the cheapest L prime and will get that if i own a FF eventually.

i was considering about 135mm before, but i afraid that it is quite long for indoors portraits. I get a zoom lens instead which is more versatile. However, i would get a prime 85mm if i am doing portraits, preferably still ones. Cheap n good lens with excellent bokeh.

 

[xunjas]

Please ignore focussing point, at it was my mistake. :embrass:

But would this be considered 'nice bokeh' ?? :sweat:

Tamron 17-50 f2.8 on 40D

Taken at: f2.8: 50mm : 1/320 : ISO 125

the further the distance between the subject and background, the better the bokeh. the framing in the flower can be further improved as well. =)

 

[Garion]

40D. i want something i can do all of those indoors. So considering between 50 or 35. My 85 is too far already. 135 is totally out of the answer although i think its the cheapest L prime and will get that if i own a FF eventually.

35mm f2 and 85mm f1.8 would make a good combo, given you're using a 1.6x crop factor body. 50mm maybe a bit too near to 85mm in terms of focal length.

I guess whether u shoot with zoom lenses or prime lenses for portraiture depends on what you're covering, and personal preference also. Almost all of the non-L prime portrait lens give pretty good image quality, comparable to those obtained from an L zoom. L primes is another story altogether... ;p

 

[KangS]

Think it could be sharper in the middle, with more detail of the stigma and anthers of the flower. But since you're asking about bokeh, i think its fine, but better bokeh could have been achieved with a prime. think a 50mm f/1.8 at f/2 would give better bokeh than this.

I would consider the 50 f1.8 bokeh as 'acceptable' at best ... the f1.2 L is a different story altogether though as a friend has them. Both on a cropped 30D and a FF 5D.

 

[calebk]

telephoto lens with large aperture value above f/4 would cause the background to blur, so large aperture is so critical for telephoto lens to achieve gd background blur.

Not true. Telephoto lenses will have a shallow DOF by nature. The large aperture does help, but even with a 400 f/5.6 wide open, you will still get very shallow DOF and nice background blur.

Regarding the 35mm vs 50mm issue, it really depends. I have both, and for different situations I will choose different lenses. Sometimes the 35mm with a tight head-shot will give a perspective that is not too flattering, hence sometimes it's better to go with the 50mm, as it is similar to the human eye's perspective.

 

[Snoweagle]

but that is an issue also i guess..

coz i like a zoom lens coz i will be able to play ard with the distance... a prime can't..

that is partially an issue...

guess being a newbie now, gives me loads of rooms to learn from..
ha..

As i've said, primes and zooms have their own uses and gd/bad points, it's all up to what u really need.

 

[Snoweagle]

telephoto lens with large aperture value above f/4 would cause the background to blur, so large aperture is so critical for telephoto lens to achieve gd background blur.

Actually tele lenses with large or small apertures can give very gd background blur. It depends on how far your subject is to u and to the background.

 

[xunjas]

Actually tele lenses with large or small apertures can give very gd background blur. It depends on how far your subject is to u and to the background.

that was a typo, i mean large aperture is not so critical for telephoto lens to achieve gd background blur.