steve_brown13 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Hi there - my first new topic... :) First of all, I have to say that I really like my EF 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM II lens. It's a good versatile lens, light, compact, and has been adequate for my needs... so far. However, I'm now concentrating on fashion/beauty photography and although the lens has a perfectly useable (I might almost say 'ideal') zoom range for both full-length fashion and close-up headshots on my 20D, I've started to notice that the bokeh on outdoor headshots at full zoom is less than pleasing. It's not horrendous, but it's not exactly pretty either - and for the type of work I want to specialise in "pretty" is just about the most important quality a photo can have! So, is there anything with a comparable zoom range that has better bokeh on full zoom? I'd been considering the 70-200 f/4L but have decided it would be too long for getting those angular full-length shots with whacky perspective - everything would be flat as I'd be standing 20 feet away! I also don't really want to switch to primes like the 100 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 just for the bokeh as, again, this would sacrifice the ability to get close full length shots with the same lens. As for getting a 2nd body and working with 2 cameras... not just yet :) Any ideas? Budget up to around $500 and I don't mind buying used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_brown13 Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share Posted July 17, 2007 Correction, budget up to around $700 - math is not my strong point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Tamron 28-75/2.8 Di perhaps? Personally I'd use the 50/1.8 if I could, or the 50/1.4 if I could afford it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Yes...it is a generally useful, but ugly lens. I know that from experience. It is not the sharpest one either, although is is acceptable most of the time. You might find the 24-105 L perfect as a replacement. It has IS too. However, if you are selecting a lens just for the quality of the background blur, you will probably like medium telephoto fixed-focal-length lenses like the 85, 100, or 135 best. There are two versions of each. An L and a regular one for the 85 and 135, and an f/2 regular and f/2.8 macro for the 100. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 As for budget, the 24-105 is a little stretch, even used, but if you sell your current lens it would help. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_brown13 Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share Posted July 17, 2007 Thanks for the fast responses... "if you are selecting a lens just for the quality of the background blur" No - I want everything! But, of course, how *is* the bokeh on the 24-105L? As for budget, the best price I can find new is around $1100 from HK and there isn't a single used one on UK eBay ATM - which I guess must say something - but maybe $1100 for better bokeh is somewhat OTT? I'm not a gear fanatic, so maybe I should just save the $$ and spend more time with the 'blur' functions in PS for those shots where the bokeh annoys me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keith_lubow Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 You might consider just waiting and getting by with what you have until your budget increases. Keith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_brown13 Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share Posted July 17, 2007 Sounds like that might be the best bet... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek_stanton2 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 The Tamron is a nice lens for the price, but its bokeh is not exemplary. Steve, I have to say that i think you're going to have to compromise somewhere. There's a reason why the most prominent fashion shooters use primes. Zooms may be more convenient in some respects, but when you have the pressure of budgets, plus models, stylists, MUAs, art directors and entourages all watching you work, and expecting professional results, you have to suffer a little. I'm sure no reasonable person would want to schlep a Pentax 67 or Mamiya RZ on location, but when the results are so impressive, the 'suffering' just becomes a part of the process. I'm not sure why you'd need to get full-length and close-ups with the same lens. Nor why you'd need to shoot with two different bodies in order to use two lenses. Just change lenses like everyone else who isn't shooting for Conde Nast. If you're Mario Testino or Bruce Weber, sure, you can have four Pentax 67s, each with the same lens. But, 99% of the rest of us just change lenses. Have you done many fashion shoots? One might think the pace might be so quick that you'd need to be able to immediately react to new ideas, but in practice, if you really need to go from a full-length shot to a close up, you have time to either change lenses, or move in closer to shoot it with the same lens. With a full-frame 35mm camera: 50mm, 35mm, 85mm, and maybe a 100mm Macro. It can/should be that simple. ["Blur functions in PS" are never convincing in this kind of work.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fourfa Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 bokeh is definitely not the strong suit of the 24-105 IS. wiry, jumpy, with mildly hard edged OOF highlights at some settings. the Canon 24-70 and 28-70 2.8 zooms have very nice bokeh in portraiture but you might find the cost, size, and weight somewhat extreme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arie_vandervelden1 Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I would seriously reconsider the prime option. You'll be astounded by the color, contrast, sharpness, bokeh, and ability to control dof compared to your zoom. Changing lenses only takes three seconds, and putzing with blur in PS can take hours.... Primes like 60/2.8 macro or 85/1.8 would fit your budget with room to spare. I say, get a prime, get quick at changing lenses, and be quick on your feet moving around. I bet the results will speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_brown13 Posted July 17, 2007 Author Share Posted July 17, 2007 Hi Derek, thanks taking the time to respond. I'm just starting out in this type of photography after doing non-photographic "paying" work for 20 years, so I'm learning every day. However, at the moment, when outdoors I find I prefer to move to, from and around the model looking for shots, and the convenience of being able to go from shots with the equivalent of a 45mm FF to a 170mm FF lens without changing lenses, gives me the flexibility to get lots of different "looks" from a single session. In the studio (my spare room!) I am rather cramped for space, so again the ability to re-frame without walking backwards & forwards 10 feet is invaluable! I suspect as I settle on a "style" (and get a bigger studio!) that I may also find I can change to a handful of primes, but for the time being I'm just looking for better bokeh on an focally equivalent zoom lens. [bTW, my reference to "blur functions in PS" was somewhat tongue in cheek as I don't own a copy of PS yet either! However, I do use Ulead PhotoImpact, which has some tools that can help "beautify" the bokeh on shots where it annoys me, but I do also know it's not a substitute for a lens with beautiful bokeh, as otherwise I wouldn't have asked the question in the first place :)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
des adams Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 The Canon EFS f2.8 17-55 USM IS is a good lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Michael Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 IMO you have too many criteria you wish to address in one stab. Prioritize them and address the highest: for example if it means budget and bokeh get a 50mm F1.4 or an 85mm F1.8 or 100mm F2 or 135mmF2L. On the other hand if it is convenience of `everything` and budget: then wait, save and get 70 to 200mm F2.8L IS USM. These are two extremes, and there are many options in between but I trust yo get the idea: you need to cull the list of needs to a priority list and address what you can realistically address: going around in circles with a long list of unsustainable criteria, just results in frustration. WW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark u Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Best bokeh at ~105mm is probably from the 100mm f/2. I think you would do well to learn the discipline of shooting with primes. It will make you think about your photography in a different way. Also, I think you will really notice the extra control of background blur that comes with the fastest apertures, giving you a creative dimension that is lacking with your current zoom (especially on a crop camera). It also opens up more low light options without flash. I suspect once you have tried it, you will be hooked. You ought to be able to start with the 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8 and 100 f/2 or 85 f/1.8 for $700. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknagel Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Nice boken above f/2.8 is hard to achieve for that price and focal range, f/4 is way to small. As many have suggested, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 both should stay close to your budget. At f/2.8 a longer lens will do better, but also cost more. This shot is 300mm @ f/2.8, out of you budget, but to show you long shouldn't be ruled out if you NEED a zoom. m<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy_labana Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 For the type of photography you plan to do, I think the best lens is Canon EF24-70 f2.8L. Fast focusing, good zoom range, superb bokeh, excellent IQ, excelent build quality, Cons: heavy and expensive. Many wedding photographer use this lens. Hope you find a way to afford it. Sandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandy_labana Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Steve: Sorry. I did not realize that you are using 20D for which I would recommend Canon EFS 17-55 f2.8 IS. this lens is also expensive. Sandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ulrich_brandl Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 There is no zoom covering your favourite range with significantly more background blur. Effectively you get more blur at 105mm with f4 than at 70mm with f 2.8. Therfore the 17-55mm or the 28-75mm f2.8 solutions will be only a slight improvement in the overlapping focal ranges. They will not deliver more blur than your lens at its long end. The 24-105L is expensive and is only a half stop improvement at its long end. I don't see a real alternative to using primes or go with an expensive 1:2.8 70-200mm zoom. Ulirch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_smith2 Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Try the Tamron 28-105/2.8. No longer in the catalog, but there are probably some leftovers around or used versions. The only serious negative is the very slow AF... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
athinkle Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 If you're really dead set on keeping the zoom range you're using I'd have to add another vote for the 24-105 f4 L. Granted, it's not going to give you the bokeh that a fast prime will, but if you keep a decent amount of space between your subject and the background you should be able to make due. The beauty of the 24-105 is that it looks great wide open (at least mine sure does!) If you really must have the bokeh then, as others said, it's time to buy some primes. The Canon 100mm macro is another nice lens in addition to the afforementioned 50 and 85mm options. As a side note, I must advise against choosing the Sigma 105 macro for this task (if you were considering it.) That lens is my workhorse for macro, but it really sucks wide open compared to other comparable primes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beaglefur Posted July 18, 2007 Share Posted July 18, 2007 Another vote here for a prime lens or two. Get the 85/1.8. It's favorite portrait lens. Perhaps a bit long on a 20D, but if you're outdoors you shouldn't have trouble backing up a little.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotograf Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Stay away from zooms, if your goal is fashion/beauty photos and if bokeh is desired with a beautiful background blur. Two recommended lenses would be either Canon's 85mm f/1.8 or the EF 135mm f/2L which costs less than a thousand bucks. The 85mm can be purchased for around $400.00 I've used both lenses and they are incredible lenses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_brown13 Posted July 19, 2007 Author Share Posted July 19, 2007 Guys, thanks. Given so many votes for it here - and almost universal priase for its qualities everywhere else I've looked - I'm now pretty sure I will supplement my current lens with an 85 f/1.8 and try to break my addiction to zooms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve_brown13 Posted August 1, 2007 Author Share Posted August 1, 2007 Well, I got the 85 f/1.8 the other day and I'm pretty pleased with it! Here's a shot I took today:- http://i199.photobucket.com/albums/aa264/frameinamillion/IMG_0808_C_427x623.jpg 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