fxt1 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I'm a new-ish (somewhat clueless when it comes to technology) portrait photographer with an EOS 30D. So far I've been using two main lenses for most of my work. Both are fixed length: I have the <a href="http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Fixed_Focal_Length/EF_50mm_f18II/index.asp">EF 50mm f/1.8 II</a> & the <a href="http://www.canon-europe.com/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Fixed_Focal_Length/EF_85mm_f18_USM/">Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM</a>..<p> I specialise in actors headshots, and for this I find the 85 is great. But recently I've been browsing the work of other portrait photographers - and noticed that some of them are using longer lenses... and their depth of field is far more sleek and sexy.. (please excuse the lack of photographic terminology)..<p> I'll compare a couple of images...<p> <a href="http://www.johnclarkphotography.com/Portfolio/Adult/images/20.jpg">This, by John Clark</a> - Shot on a Canon EOS-1DS, Shutter Speed: 1/400 second, F Number: F/4.5, Focal Length: 200 mm, ISO Speed: 800 <p> vs <p> <a href="http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/45447643/?qo=8&q=by%3Alithiumfx&qh=sort%3Atime+-in%3Ascraps">This, by me</a> - Shot on an EOS 30D, with the 85mm lens, shutter speed: 1/125 second, F Number: F/2.0, ISO Speed: 100<p> - <b><i>Basically,</i> from that picture and those spec, does anyone have any idea what kind of lens John Clark might have been using..?</b> Or alternatively, does anyone know of a lens which might be able to create the same soft delicate range of shading and beautiful 'bookah'... <p> Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated - I really am clueless with lenses...<p> Thanks, Faye<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 >> But recently I've been browsing the work of other portrait photographers - and noticed that some of them are using longer lenses... and their depth of field is far more sleek and sexy.. His site is not available. Can you post his picture here? From your description I'll guess it could be 135/2 or 200/1.8. Both have excellent bokeh. BTW, I had the 85/1.8 and think it has a very nice bokeh. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve santikarn Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 for people with perfect skin my sharpest portrait lens is the 100mm f2.8 macro lens. It probably shows too much detail ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 The photos in this page <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00JiaG&tag=" >HERE</a> have really nice bokeh IMO. Using 200 1.8L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxt1 Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 Ah, ok - here's the photo that wasn't working...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 My guess, 200/1.8. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxt1 Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 What.. the one that was discontinued in 2004..? :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trios by geo Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Greetings, I love the ef85 f1.8 very much. With its wide aperture, its a gem for outdoor portraiture. However, having spending more time recently in indoor studio photo sessions, one lens I keep reaching for is the 24-105 f4L IS. Its very very sharp and has very good contrast. This is my preferred lens now as I can go for tighter head shot and also I don't need the wide aperture. I'm shooting between f8 to f11 most of the time. Having said that, I think 85L (mkI or mkII) is still the king of portrait lens. Enjoy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mars c Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 The exif file says 200mm but the f number is 4.5, so it could either be the 1.8 or the 2.8 version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Hi Faye, if you're using the 30D then the 50mm f/1.4 "acts like" an 80mm lens on a full-frame or film camera due to the crop factor and can be had for a few hundred bucks. The 85mm f/1.8 "acts like" around a 135mm lens due to crop factor. IMHO, both would make great portrait lenses for not-too-much money. If you're rolling in dough check out the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS which, when I'm shooting portraits, rarely leaves my camera. It is a superb portrait lens, IMHO - although it's very heavy and very costly. If you like to shoot without a tripod, the Image Stabilization comes in very handy too. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxt1 Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 Sorry, I wasn't clear: <b>I already have both of the lenses mentioned above</b> - I'm looking to acquire a third, and I'd really like to get something like the mystery lens used in the photo by John Clark that I've posted... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason hinds - columbus, oh Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I have the 135 f2L, and I LOVE it...it's truly a remarkable lens. Some argue it's the best lens that Canon makes. I wouldn't disagree with them. Beautiful out-of-focus rendition, and the 2.0 aperture allows you to shoot in the dark - a whole stop more than the 70-200 f2.8L. I've heard the 200 f2.8L is a nice lens as well, although I've never used it personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m_barbu1 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Maybe this is a silly suggestion, but why don't you try shooting at a smaller aperture, first? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxt1 Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 Not really a silly question - and I'll probably be crucified for saying this... but I only got my canon a few months ago, and I haven't figured out how to set up half of the controls... most of the time I just deal with the focus and composition, and let it get on with the rest... *waits for uproar* ...prior to the canon I used an ancient manual pentax where everything was a lot more straight forward. ...and there goes my credibility as a member of this forum. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 >> Sorry, I wasn't clear: I already have both of the lenses mentioned above - I'm looking to acquire a third, and I'd really like to get something like the mystery lens used in the photo by John Clark that I've posted... Are you ready to spend ~3K on a 3Kg lens? Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fxt1 Posted January 30, 2007 Author Share Posted January 30, 2007 I'd be willing to spend up to ?800 on a lens if it would significantly improve the quality of my work... I guess that's about 1500 US$ ish... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jwhite3.0 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Faye, don't worry about your credibility. Sounds like you at least know and are willing to do more exploring of your new dSLR. Don't worry about what everyone else is doing or using. As someone already mentioned, the 85mm f/1.2L is the "king". Subjective but I agree. However you already have the 85mm f/1.8 which would be the "king's son". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Faye: The two classic focal lengths on full frame were, 85 and 135. You can scale that (divide by 1.6) for a crop camera and get the same perspective and working distance (photog - subject rapport), but you will not get that same DOF control. As noted a 100 makes a good portrait but is close enough to 85 I can?t see the point. I guess from what you want you need to try a 85/1.2L II or 135/2L. If you have enough room the 200/2.8L II also gives lovely bokeh. By the way stunning shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I'd recommend trying the 135/2. Happy shooting, Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rainer_t Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 I'm not sure, but looking on the two pictures presented here, it seems to me the difference comes much more from the setup of the lighting than from the lenses. just my 2 cts ... Rainer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lester_wareham Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 "I'm not sure, but looking on the two pictures presented here, it seems to me the difference comes much more from the setup of the lighting than from the lenses. " You have a point. Looking at the example shot I would guess there is a reflector just out of shot below the model, this is filling in under the chin and adding those low catch lights in the eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Rainer just posted the very obvious answer. You cannot make a comparison of the "soft delicate range of shading" between two lenses without equal lighting situations. Your 85/1.8 is capable of the same tonality. Secondly, the bokeh is created by shooting at wider apertures. Your 85/1.8 is also fully capable. Where do you shoot? If indoors, you may simply need more distance between the subject and background, to 'maximize' bokeh. If outdoors, like the Clark shot, the lenses you have are ideal. As for your apparent WANT of a longer focal length lens, i can note that i video clip i saw recently showed a man in L.A. who is supposed to be one of the premier 'Headshot Photographers.' He was working with a Nikon 180mm/2.8 lens on a FILM body. He shot in his garage, with the door open for indirect sunlight. His approach was very well standardized, and his results were extremely professional. If i can find the link, i'll post it. Here's a site you might like: www.altphotos.com Take a look - Browse Photos by Category > Portrait. You'll find lots of samples of images with similar "shading and bokeh," made with the glass you already own, and images far better than the example you've provided. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommyinca Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 My 2 cents, lighting and other stuff a side, he is using a 200mm @ f4.5 with a full frame DSLR (1DS). For simular prepective and OOF look, you will need to use a 135mm and shoot it arround f2.8. Something like a 135/f2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Here's the video clip. The photographer's name is Kevyn Major Howard. Known as the "king of actor headshots" or somesuch. The clip features him working in his garage studio at about half-way through the video. http://www.headshot-photography.com/media.htm I'm not advocating this style, and i'm not posting this on the basis of any artistic merit. This person just seems to do what you're looking to do, and he does it well, per industry standards. As for the various recommendations above, i personally think that with your camera's crop factor, a 200mm lens would be far too long (and the 200/1.8 would be far too expensive).... Even the 135/2L, while a fantastic lens, might be too long with a 1.6x crop factor. The closest thing to what Howard is using would be a 100mm/2 or the 100mm/2.8 Macro by Canon, or a 105mm Sigma Macro. Eolo Perfido uses both the Canon and the Sigma macro lenses. The former on a 1.6x Canon digital, and the latter on a Nikon film camera: http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=208391. Lighting, though, is still the secret. If you shoot outdoors, you should consider a BOUNCE REFLECTOR.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beauh44 Posted January 30, 2007 Share Posted January 30, 2007 Here are a few portraits, some shot indoors under lights, at least one, outdoors, with the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, wide open: http://www.photo.net/photo/4761976 <--outdoors http://www.photo.net/photo/4618683 <--indoors with a hotlight http://www.photo.net/photo/4175826 <--indoors with strobes http://www.photo.net/photo/5337836 <--indoors with strobes I walk around a lot while shooting and so I love having Image Stabilization and the bokeh's not bad either. You could get one for around $1600 USD I *think*. But it's a beast - very heavy. But I love mine. While not quite as fast as some of the primes mentioned, you would get the flexibility of one of the best zooms there is, imho - not to mention the IS. Good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now