Bad choice of lenses? 30D Beginner

[glanville_gilly]

I have just purchased my much researched (I thought) 30D body only (wanted the

5D but not enough experience to justify the $$). Into portraits so went with

50mm 1.4 and 17 - 40 mm 1:4 L USM. Worried I might have doubled up now, as once

home and shooting on AF realised that perhaps I should have considered a more

general lens or a telephoto. (Advice appreciated)

Have I wasted my money on lenses that are too difficult to start learning with

and should I have gone for the 85mm over the 50mm for my portrait work?

 

Just a beginner putting in the self study and research to learn my craft of

choice (I hope!)

Many thanks

[david.wagle]

I'm a beginner as well, so don't put too much stock in what I have to say .. but ...

 

for portraits why would you want a wide-angle to normal lens?

 

The 50/1.4 is a great fast lens that you'll get a lot of use out of, pair it with a 70-200 f/2.8 and you'll be able to do all kinds of great stuff. If you know you want to do only portraits, get the 100mm f/2 or a similar fixed focal length lens to lessen weight.

 

I'm not sure how much use you'll get out of a 17-40 for portrait work. Everything I've read suggests that something in the 80-135 range is where most portrait work is done.

[photo_dark]

the 85mm is definitely a better choice for portraits than the 50mm, although both will work just fine. Typically the wider lenses are better suited for landscapes than for portraits as they tend to distort facial features somewhat. A longer lens (50-120mm) will de-emphasize the nose, and will help decrease DOF to de-emphasize the background.

 

That being said, both lenses you have are excellent lenses, but for strictly portrait photography, an 85mm would be a better option overall than the 50mm.

[jim_larson1]

Hmmm. I tend to disagree. I have both a 50/1.8 and 85/1.8. For portraits, I tend to use the 50 more often. Although, part of that is due to space constraints.

 

The 50/1.4 and 17-40/4L is a great way to start a kit.

[roger.a]

You have got exactly the right pair of lenses for portraits on a 30D.

 

The 17-40 makes a great all purpose zoom on that body.

The 50/1.4 will give you low light ability and portraits with shallow depth of field.

 

Shoot with those two lenses for a year before adding any other lenses.

[glanville_gilly]

Sorry I meant I got the 50 mm for the portrait work and the 17 - 40mm for a more general lens. I find it a bit of a 'nothing' lens and keep going back to my 50mm but I guess I should keep it and use it for its real use - wide angle! Jim et al - considering my kit thus far - what (from yr experience) is the best tele for my needs - also plan to photo kids at sport - looking at it for an income source not as a soccer mom! Tks

[thomas_sullivan]

great pair of lenses.

 

this is a 1.6x crop camera. So, the 50 becomes and 80mm, effectively, so it's ideal for portrature..........not that you can't shoot portraits with ANY lens, the 80mm "field of view" generally is considered the ideal (whatever that is). Plus the f/1.4 is a fast lens, allowing you to do very low light photography......especially coupled with the 30Ds ISO 1600.

 

As said above, the 17-40 f/4.0 (which is equiv to apprx. 28mm to 64mm field of view compared to full frame 35mm cams)is an ideal walk around lens...general photography....although the f/4.0 will tend to stop you for natural light a bit after sundown (but then you pull out your 50mm f/1.4) if you don't use flash. But, when you have enough light, which is 75% of the time, the 17-40mm is an awesome lens.

 

In other words, you did well.

[ronald_moravec1]

My pet peeve with small sensors is the lens support was never really provided with the proper primes.

 

Wedding work is usually more 3/4 portrait or couples than head shots so the 50 translates to 80mm so it is fine. For heads, I like 90 mm on film, so the 60 macro would do that for me and it is a better lens than those you have. Weddings don`t have much heads shots in them though.

 

So no you did not make a mistake.

 

I probably would have 20, 24, 35, 50, 60, for digital weddings. Use the zoom unless you don`t like it, then try a prime without selling it first. All the wedding pros I know do 90% with a 50mm on film, 35 for large groups, 90mm for formal portraits.

 

My friend and neighbor ran a first class wedding business from 1955 to 1975 or 1980. He had 5 photographers working for him and they all did two weddings a week or more. They were all provided Leica cameras and 35/50/90 lenses. Every Sunday evening in the season he developed 125 rolls of film. People came during the week to help print the negs. He bought 100 foot rolls of film by the case lot.

 

Work on posing and lighting to make the work profesional. Attend some tax deductable workshops to learn all this and don`t get hung up on cameras. That is not what makes the pros. Then get the the prints made at a profesional wedding printer so they look proper.

 

I suggest AIProLab.com (Advanced Imaging).

 

Mourn for the best teacher, Monte Zucker. He inspired hundreds of photogs.

[thomas_sullivan]

"...a bit of a 'nothing' lens..."...keep that 17-40mm lens on the cam......you'll eventually see where it's beauty lies.

 

For sports, especially......no.....absolute necessity...., of the indoor variety......youth hockey, basketball......you need a 70-200 f/2.8. With the f/2.8 being key. It may look like a lot of light in the hockey rinks, but when you need 1/250th MINIMUM shutterspeed to stop the moving players, f/2.8 is a must, even with an ISO 1600. It is a HEAVY lens though. So, if your kid sports will definitely be by daylight (meaning no night games either), you may get away witha 70-200mm f/4.0........but, I don't guarantee that.

[rjlewis]

Sounds like you have a nice choice of lenses. The fact is any lens can be used for portrait work, depending on the style you're shooting. The 50 is just fine for the more "classic" look. I would not have thought of using a shorter zoom for portraits until I found this fellow's collection. He's using primarily a 16-35 and does fine work.

 

http://www.photo.net/photos/isaac%20madera

 

Don't get too hung up on getting the "perfect" gear since it's all subjective. Better to get really good at using what you have, which are fine quality lenses.

[michael_taylor5]

There probably are as many different opinions as there are photographers. Here's mine:

 

I use the 17-40 in studio for full length shots. The 50mm 1.4 is a wonderful lens and will provide you with the ability to control depth of field greatly.

 

However, while a 50mm lens on a 1.6x crop factor camera has the equivalent field of view of an 80mm lens, it still has the reach of a 50mm lens and you can distort your subjects features, such as nose, hands, legs, etc., depending on your shooting angle/perspective. Your 50mm lens will not become an 80mm lens, and the 17mm-40mm lens will not be the same as a 27mm-64mm.

 

My recommendation for head and shoulders portraits, assuming you have the space in which to shoot, is the 85mm lens or longer.

 

The 50mm lens will work, but you'll have to be mindful of the above.

 

You have lenses that will suit your purpose, but you must be aware of their limitations and strengths for them to be used effectively.

 

Michael Taylor

www.taylorfoto.com

[mark_ryan2]

I started with the 18-55kit lens that broke, then added a 50/1.4 then a 17-40, then a 70-200/2.8IS.

 

The 50 is a great portrait lens, maybe more of a head and torso shot than a pure head shot. Best of all the 1.4 keeps the viewfinder nice and bright.

 

With the 17-40 on a 1.6x body, the 40 end does OK in a pinch. It still is a great lens since you can switch from a wider angle group portrait and still use the 40 end for a reasonable 2 person shot.

 

I mainly use the 70-200 outside for action shots of my son. It is pretty hard to use inside (houses) since the effective length is about 100mm.

 

I'd consider the f4 version. Lots of times for portraits with the 2.8 I use an F4 because the depth of field is sooo shallow when you do a head shot of a two year old, his whole face won't be in focus.

 

I plan on getting a 5D for my 17-40 and keep the 70-200 on the 20D for a high low mix. Maybe a Digitial rangefinder for the middle ground.

 

Mark

[rjlewis]

I have to weigh in on this perspective issue again. It's easy to test and I suggest it to anyone who does not yet believe it. When you frame a subject identically, whether using a 50mm on a 1.6 crop camera, or an 80mm on a full frame sensor, the perspectives are identical. Perspective depends on the distance of the sensor from the subject. To get the identical frame you have to be at the same distance, hence, the 50mm cropped behaves exactly like the 80mm full frame at the same distance.

 

Perhaps the confusion comes from using the term "cropped sensor". It gives the impression one is taking something off the photo. If one used a full frame sensor and an 80mm lens at distance A, then walked towards the subject and took another image at distance B but cropped it down to what a 1.6 sensor would see, then you would see a perspective difference. That would be due to a different distance from the subject.

[steve_dunn2]

<p>The 17-40 is a high-quality general-purpose lens when used on a 1.6-crop body. It's my most used lens on my 20D. If I stick with 1.6-crop, I do plan on trading this one in on the 17-55, which didn't exist at the time I bought the 17-40; the extra reach would help cut down on lens swaps, the extra stop would be nice, and having shot for a few years before with a film body and the 28-135 as my main lens, I do miss having IS on my general-purpose lens. The 17-85 has a great range for general-purpose use (same range of FOVs as my old 28-135 gave me on film) and it's a very good lens optically for a consumer zoom, but the 17-40 is a step above so I decided to get it instead.</p>

 

<p>Perspective has nothing whatsoever to do with your choice of lens and everything whatsoever to do with the distance between you and your subject. Standing at the same distance from your subject, a 50 on a 1.6-crop body and an 80 on a full-frame body will give you exactly the same framing and perspective. 80 is at the short end of the traditional portrait range on a full-frame 35mm body. <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/friends_and_family/0909Deeplayingguitar.jpg" target="_blank">This shot</a> was taken with the 50/1.4 on my 20D and gives one example to suggest that it can indeed be used as a portrait lens. The other end of the traditional portrait range on a full-frame 35mm body is 135mm; the 1.6-crop equivalent is 85. So if you want to step back a bit farther, or stay in the same spot and get tighter framing, the 85/1.8 would be an excellent choice; like the 50/1.4, it's sharp and fast.</p>

[sgpix]

I don't think you've done anything wrong... but then:

 

A) I am not you and;

B) Why would you care what I think?

 

I won both the lenses you have bought and they are both great. For a general 'walkabout' lens, I favour the 24-105/4L over the 17-40/4L (which I mainly use for landscape and architechture shots) but that's just my style.

 

My experience is that L lenses and popular non-L lenses (like the 50/1.4) have a good 2nd hand return, so don't worry too much... enjoy and, when you get enough shots under your belt to know that you want different/more lenses, sell and buy to accomodate your growing habit... errr... hobby :)

 

Good luck

 

Simon

[michael_taylor5]

Rick:

 

"When you frame a subject identically, whether using a 50mm on a 1.6 crop camera, or an 80mm on a full frame sensor, the perspectives are identical. Perspective depends on the distance of the sensor from the subject. To get the identical frame you have to be at the same distance, hence, the 50mm cropped behaves exactly like the 80mm full frame at the same distance."

 

I don't believe I wrote anything that disagrees with your definition of perspective. I, in fact, concur with your analysis.

 

I don't believe I said there was any difference in perspective when framing the subject the same, with both lenses.

 

What I said was, in so many words, was that with a 50mm lens on either a full-frame or "crop factor" camera, there is the potential for exaggerating a head and shoulders subject's features, depending on shooting angle and perspective (distance from subject to sensor). Was I mistaken? That has been my experience. The 85mm lens, in my experience, lends itself nicely to minimizing the potential for those exaggerations.

 

My next statement was that a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor camera does not become an 80mm lens. I believe this is true. Is it not still a 50mm lens (distance between center of lens and film/sensor when focused on an object some distance away)? I think, though, that the subject magnification is equivalent to an 80mm lens.

 

However, perhaps I should have just said to be careful of shooting distance and angle, rather than having used the word "perspective."

 

Thanks for the clarification of the term perspective.

[anders_carlsson]

Great lenses. These are the two I would personally choose for a two-lens solution on a 1.6x crop camera. My guess is that by the time you've realized their qualities and learned how to work around their few limitations, you're not likely to be willing to exchange them for anything else.

[digitmstr]

With your camera, the 24-70L is a perfect portrait/do-it-all lens (if you like zooms).

 

As for primes, it's obvious that the 50 and 85 will make great portrait lenses as well. Personally, I like to shoot portraits with longer lenses as well.

[rjlewis]

Hi, Michael.

 

Didn't mean to start anything. Points taken.

[thomas_sullivan]

heh...now, someone tell her how far away she has to be to do a head and shoulder shot with an 85mm on a 1.6 crop cam....and how much room is needed behind the subject to the backdrop. I agree on the distortion stuff.......but you may as well give her all the facts.

 

And then, if she is to follow Michael's lead...assuming she saw his website...someone please tell her about the couple thousand dollars she has yet to spend in lighting, stands, power supplies, backdrops, and umbrellas/softboxes to achieve what Michael does. And again, there is nothing wrong with it all.

 

I just think someone should detail out the steps PAST lens choice for portraits done correctly.

 

btw - some nice stuff there Michael.

[glanville_gilly]

Thanks for your responses! I guess I am impatient to recognise the value in my choices made and also can't hope for one lens to do everything aka. Nikkor 17 - 200!

I am happy I chose Canon!

[sitemistic]

Hey. Just go out and take some photos! You aren't a pro, so you have only yourself to please.

But talking about lenses is no substitute for taking photos with them! Take it from an old

gear head, you can take good photos with just about any camera and lens. You have two first

class lenses. Enjoy them!