Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Lens to buy?
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
Dec 9, 2021 23:15:38   #
User ID
 
foathog wrote:
Why don't you make him a deal on your canon 85?

Although I did recommend that lens to the OP, I haven’t noticed him choosing that option. But you are correct that I should find a new home for mine. But before I can sell it I’ll hafta find it !

Reply
Dec 10, 2021 09:40:31   #
ez22 Loc: The World
 
Canon 80mm f1.2 nothing better if you use Canon. When I used Nikon in the 70s, the 105mm was my king for head shots.

Reply
Dec 10, 2021 09:44:35   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
ez22 wrote:
Canon 80mm f1.2 nothing better if you use Canon. When I used Nikon in the 70s, the 105mm was my king for head shots.


Excellent lens, but it’s an 85mm

Reply
 
 
Dec 10, 2021 09:59:10   #
User ID
 
TriX wrote:
Excellent lens, but it’s an 85mm

You’ve used an 85/1.2 ?
Or tried to use one ?

I have three 85/1.8 (& 2.0), and so I’ve experienced how little DoF they offer. No one seems alert that the DoF at 85/1.2 equals the DoF of 50/0.7. Useless.

I had both the 85/1.4 and 100/2.0 and got rid of them long ago. No regrets.

Reply
Dec 10, 2021 10:28:41   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
User ID wrote:
You’ve used an 85/1.2 ?
Or tried to use one ?


I don’t own one at all (I have an 85 f1.8) - I was just correcting the FL. But I take your point - the DOF is super thin wide open (just over 2” at 10 feet on a crop body like the OP’s) Lens Rentals says they get more complaints about this than any other lens, apparently for that reason. Personally, I’m happy with my 1.8, but if I had money to burn, I might consider the 85 1.4L

Reply
Dec 10, 2021 10:32:41   #
User ID
 
TriX wrote:
I don’t own one at all (I have an 85 f1.8) - I was just correcting the FL. But I take your point - the DOF is super thin wide open (just over 2” at 10 feet on a crop body like the OP’s) Lens Rentals says they get more complaints about this than any other lens, apparently for that reason. Personally, I’m happy with my 1.8, but if I had money to burn, I might consider the 85 1.4L

“Burn” is an appropriate verb.
On that much we agree.

Reply
Dec 10, 2021 10:44:47   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
"User ID" You opened another question. Why do you need a 1.2 or a 1.4 lens when you shoot f5.6,f8 or f11. The lenses are bigger, heavier and much more expensive. I am not saying that some of us use the 1.4 or what ever but most of us will not. Just a question not looking for a war.

Reply
 
 
Dec 10, 2021 11:11:57   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
User ID wrote:
“Burn” is an appropriate verb.
On that much we agree.


That we can agree on anything is a disturbing thought.

Reply
Dec 10, 2021 12:25:36   #
User ID
 
Picture Taker wrote:
"User ID" You opened another question. Why do you need a 1.2 or a 1.4 lens when you shoot f5.6,f8 or f11. The lenses are bigger, heavier and much more expensive. I am not saying that some of us use the 1.4 or what ever but most of us will not. Just a question not looking for a war.

Every now and then an 85/2.8 is offered. Never sells well cuz it’s not exciting. And also some of them are quality oriented, not economy models, which means you “pay more to get less (prestige)”, again not a great marketing ploy.

I had three compact 90/2.8 Sigmas, Nikon, Canon and Sony, and still treasure the two that still work. The dead one still works but only on film era Canons so it’s dead to me (I gave it away). The closest replacement I’ve found is a Voigtlander 90/3.5 SLII. Cost about the same as an 80/2.8 Sonnar. To me it’s worth it, but it was yet another marketing flop and so I hadda search a bit to get one.

Reply
Dec 11, 2021 18:55:58   #
mundy-F2 Loc: Chicago suburban area
 
E.L.. Shapiro wrote:
First of all, what are you doing? "Headshot" is a term borrowed for modelling/ theatrical agency lingo pertaining to a head and shoulder or tight closeup portrait used for publicity or modelling or acting /entertainment portfolio or what used to be called a "glossy. Some folks use the term "headshot" for a business or corporate portrait, etc. Some cleit or the agencies want an authentic unretouched or embellished image, others want a more flattering image, and she may need a port study- a dramatic image that is extremely sharp and revealing- kind wats and all.

I can understand if you want a "sharper" lens than the one you are presently using but having a faster lens, as you specified, does not necessarily provide more sharpness. Do you want a faster lens, one with a wider aperture, to provide better "bokeh", more selective focus, more shallow depth of field? If you have an image where the eyes are tack sharp and the ears and background are significantly softer, the perception of sharpness is more pronounced.

I use my Canon 24-105 for portraiture so that I can change focal lengths repeatedly during sessions to accommodate closeup, 3/4 length and full-length images without changing lenses. I have prom lenses that are sharper, however, that lens at f/11 is sharp enough - 2 two attached images were made with the lens at 105mm.
These are relatively low-resolution files/ The 16x20 prints made for the original files were too sharp! Most of my clients do not was to see their pores in their "headshots"!

If you need a better rendition of texture- that is a function of lighting.
First of all, what are you doing? "Headshot&q... (show quote)


Very nice images.
Mundy

Reply
Dec 13, 2021 09:16:03   #
monroephoto
 
70-200 provides a more compressed look, generally making people look better. While the 85 is a great portrait lens, it is a different look. As for f-stops, you're really increasing your depth of field options more so than sharpness. I have the Canon 85 mm f/1.2. Awesome lens but rarely do I use the 1.2 setting.

Reply
 
 
Dec 13, 2021 15:26:22   #
napabob Loc: Napa CA
 
I have most of the lenses mentioned and I use my 100mm2.8L and 135mm2L and more clients go with the 135 shots over the 100

Reply
Dec 13, 2021 16:03:30   #
Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb
 
I would buy a good zoom lens in the, full frame size, of 70 or less to 135 or more and that should cover all your needs for people pictures. A wide open f stop is not necessary aqnd added cost.

Reply
Dec 13, 2021 17:53:47   #
TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC
 
napabob wrote:
I have most of the lenses mentioned and I use my 100mm2.8L and 135mm2L and more clients go with the 135 shots over the 100


As Paul (ChgCanon) once posted, it’s hard to point the EF 135 f2L at anything and not produce a great shot - it is really my favorite Canon FF lens.

Reply
Dec 13, 2021 19:02:17   #
tgreenhaw
 
I second the Canon 85 1.8. I have the 1.4, and rarely use wide open as the DOF is super shallow.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 5 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.