Portrait Lens
- Thread starter shinji_45
- Start date
- Status
me. i use f1.4 or even f1.2.
if u think 1.8 is shallow... try 1.4, or 1.2...
but...having said that... its great to shoot wide open.. just takes some getting used to..
I recommend T90mm as well for 2 reasons.
(1) it can be used for macro when you want to shoot macro
(2) it is sharp wide open at f2.8 which is decent enough for portriature unless you need f1.8 or f1.2 per say.
(3) for portriature shot, this lens does not extend out as much and is light for handholding (in macro focusing, the lens does protrude quite a bit but that does not bother me).
(4) The lens is highly seeked by Macro shooters on a budget and you are a NSF. =p though NSF earns quite a bit now if you are of higher rank.
But then this lens suck in 1 category,
(1) Auto focusing (slow and loud - for insects and not models). indeed, its very tough to focus on DSLR. Take up a film and I immediately know how big a vf can get!
If you want to get a cheap portriat lens, I guess go for the 50mm f1.8. Cheap and good? Very cheap in fact for canon i think. Also, with the 1.6 crop factor of canon camera unless you using full frame, that would make it 80mm. Light and easy to handle too, handshake become less of a problem.
Good luck getting a suitable lens for yourself. =)
Regards,
tltan
(1) it can be used for macro when you want to shoot macro
(2) it is sharp wide open at f2.8 which is decent enough for portriature unless you need f1.8 or f1.2 per say.
(3) for portriature shot, this lens does not extend out as much and is light for handholding (in macro focusing, the lens does protrude quite a bit but that does not bother me).
(4) The lens is highly seeked by Macro shooters on a budget and you are a NSF. =p though NSF earns quite a bit now if you are of higher rank.
But then this lens suck in 1 category,
(1) Auto focusing (slow and loud - for insects and not models). indeed, its very tough to focus on DSLR. Take up a film and I immediately know how big a vf can get!
If you want to get a cheap portriat lens, I guess go for the 50mm f1.8. Cheap and good? Very cheap in fact for canon i think. Also, with the 1.6 crop factor of canon camera unless you using full frame, that would make it 80mm. Light and easy to handle too, handshake become less of a problem.
Good luck getting a suitable lens for yourself. =)
Regards,
tltan
1. We are talking about shooting portrait, NOT macro. The T90 is an ok portrait lens at best, that applies to most short telephoto macro lens. If you want to shoot portrait, get a portrait lens, such as the 85 1.8 we had been discussing all along.
2. It's not just the speed. 2.8 to 1.8 is not that much faster. I feel the 85 1.8 handles color better for portraiture, and gives nicer bokeh.
3. Again, TS is looking for a portrait lens. Both lens are pretty light. There is no advantage in getting the T90 for weight.
4. Can you understand the original question by the TS, PORTRAIT LENS!
Yes, the 50mm becomes 80mm with a 1.6x crop, however, it's not an ideal porgtrait lens. The lens is still a 50mm, nomatter what the crop is, and with a 50mm, you have problem with distortions.
The TS mentioned four things which should be taken into consideration
1 "Main purpose is to take portraits"
2 He likes to take "tight head shots"
3 He was also tempted by the possiblity of using the same lens for macro
4 He has some financial contraints
Do people truly understand the TS's question, intent, and considerations???!!!!
Taking into considerations these 4 points, my comments to the TS are:
#1 I do not know how "tight" is "tight". But I know that a macro lens will generally make "tighter" shots than a plain "portrait" lens.
#2 If the TS is asking this question, the difference in quality between the two lenses are not likely to be significant to him. And I suppose also to most members of CS. Quality in images are more a fucntion of the photographer's ability than the equipment.
#3 Not having AF is to me, unimportant. It may be important to people who have very bad eyesight (but if one has very bad eyesight, then what is he seeing?), but manual focus has its own advantages. Certainly none of those nonsense like back-focussing etc.
1 "Main purpose is to take portraits"
2 He likes to take "tight head shots"
3 He was also tempted by the possiblity of using the same lens for macro
4 He has some financial contraints
Do people truly understand the TS's question, intent, and considerations???!!!!
Taking into considerations these 4 points, my comments to the TS are:
#1 I do not know how "tight" is "tight". But I know that a macro lens will generally make "tighter" shots than a plain "portrait" lens.
#2 If the TS is asking this question, the difference in quality between the two lenses are not likely to be significant to him. And I suppose also to most members of CS. Quality in images are more a fucntion of the photographer's ability than the equipment.
#3 Not having AF is to me, unimportant. It may be important to people who have very bad eyesight (but if one has very bad eyesight, then what is he seeing?), but manual focus has its own advantages. Certainly none of those nonsense like back-focussing etc.
woh. didnt know that giving my thoughts is also wrong. paiseh. I am out of here. Not into portriat. Just thinking of the part that he is toying with macro as well. an 85mm cant shoot macro well enough though.
Peace. Dont mean to start any war here.
Regards,
tltan
anyway, i agree with your points.
Quality of the lens is always important.
However there are at least two things which you did not take into considerations
#1 The TS "experience" in taking portraits.
Anybody who has a reasonable expertise in taking portraits will not be asking this question here. He is starting out, and he has budjet constraints. This will not be the last lens he will buy, assuming that he continues with photography. His financial latitude will widen like most of us here. When his experience in photography (and portrait-making ) improves, he will be in a much better postion, financially and expertise-wise, to make better choices.
#2 It might not be wrong to say that there are few very bad lenses today. The Tamron is certainly not one of them. Lenses today are much much better than those of yesteryears. Yet great and memorable iconic images had been made with lesser quality lenses. Better lenses may make technically better images, but not necessarily better photographs.
deadpoet said:
This I agree 100%, as far as making portraits are concern.
That's why it's usually the hobbyists, or those with an artistic inclination that like to shoot at 1.2 and 1.4 and 1.8. Most of them are usually too amazed by bokeh and feel that as long as got bokeh = good photo.
lets try not to make too many generalisations shall we?
theres many reasons for getting a wide aperture lens. bokeh being only one of the factors.
LOL Relax.. No generalisations at all. I was talking about shooting at 1.2/1.4/1.8, not about getting such lenses. I also did mention "usually".
I really enjoy the use of very shallow DOF by some pros. However, more often than not I cringe at the unnecessary need of hobbyists/equipment collectors/artists to shoot all their portrait shots at F1.8/1.4/1.2 just because they can.
Me, I'll just put it as artistic difference. Just like how never in my life will I understand and appreciate abstract art, and how there are others who will pay millions for what I consider a piece of crap.
- Status
Similar threads
