40 mm lens mistake?
May 31, 2013 02:04:29 #
georgevedwards wrote:
Everyone is still missing the point.
EVERYONE??????
I think not.
Give it a rest, please!!!!!!!
Where are you getting your misinformation?
Wait, don't answer it.
It will prolong this thread, (I'm guilty, but can't sleep)
May 31, 2013 02:24:29 #
georgevedwards wrote:
Everyone is still missing the point. Anything belo... (show quote)
You're the one missing the point. The consensus has been that the 40mm was not appropriate for portraits. Jessica will find her best (optimal for her) focal length by continuing to practice with her zooms.
Maybe you should watch the short video suggested earlier by mdorn:
http://cheezburger.com/50663425
May 31, 2013 02:47:45 #
Bram boy
Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
georgevedwards wrote:
Everyone is still missing the point. Anything belo... (show quote)
No your missing the point your 85mm on a dx is 127 mm its ok , but i used a
85 mm for portraits on a 35mm fx film camera , which would be around 58 on
a dx . That would be 87mm which is a good portrait lens . Or a 105 ff Which is a 70 mm on dx
May 31, 2013 02:56:14 #
Bram boy
Loc: Vancouver Island B.C. Canada
Bram boy wrote:
No your missing the point your 85mm on a dx is 127 mm its ok , but i used a
85 mm for portraits on a 35mm fx film camera , which would be around 58 on
a dx . That would be 87mm which is a good portrait lens . Or a 105 ff Which is a 70 mm on dx
85 mm for portraits on a 35mm fx film camera , which would be around 58 on
a dx . That would be 87mm which is a good portrait lens . Or a 105 ff Which is a 70 mm on dx
There talking about 85 mm on a full frame not on a dx , it is a great portrait lens on a ff but you put that on a dx and your into 127.5 mm on a dx the face will not look as normal as it should
May 31, 2013 11:05:52 #
I don't see what that video even has to do about portrait lenses. I rest my case!
Mogul wrote:
You're the one missing the point. The consensus has been that the 40mm was not appropriate for portraits. Jessica will find her best (optimal for her) focal length by continuing to practice with her zooms.
Maybe you should watch the short video suggested earlier by mdorn:
http://cheezburger.com/50663425
Maybe you should watch the short video suggested earlier by mdorn:
http://cheezburger.com/50663425
May 31, 2013 11:11:30 #
You sound confused. I don't have an 85 mm lens. I have a 50mm FX lens on a DX camera which is "like" a 70mm DX lens. The point I was making is that 85mm is the best lens for portraits, just be careful that your DX's and FX's match.
Bram boy wrote:
No your missing the point your 85mm on a dx is 127 mm its ok , but i used a
85 mm for portraits on a 35mm fx film camera , which would be around 58 on
a dx . That would be 87mm which is a good portrait lens . Or a 105 ff Which is a 70 mm on dx
85 mm for portraits on a 35mm fx film camera , which would be around 58 on
a dx . That would be 87mm which is a good portrait lens . Or a 105 ff Which is a 70 mm on dx
May 31, 2013 11:19:05 #
I am getting my information from "Photography, Art and Technique" by Alfred Blaker, page 355: "If you use a normal or wide angle lens and move in close enough to fill the viewfinder with the persons's head and shoulders, the nearer parts-perhaps the nose, or one ear-will appear disproportionately large." I think some people here would rather argue aimlessly rather than discuss facts.
GoofyNewfie wrote:
EVERYONE??????
I think not.
Give it a rest, please!!!!!!!
Where are you getting your misinformation?
Wait, don't answer it.
It will prolong this thread, (I'm guilty, but can't sleep)
I think not.
Give it a rest, please!!!!!!!
Where are you getting your misinformation?
Wait, don't answer it.
It will prolong this thread, (I'm guilty, but can't sleep)
May 31, 2013 11:24:52 #
georgevedwards wrote:
I am getting my information from "Photography, Art and Technique" by Alfred Blaker, page 355: "If you use a normal or wide angle lens and move in close enough to fill the viewfinder with the persons's head and shoulders, the nearer parts-perhaps the nose, or one ear-will appear disproportionately large." I think some people here would rather argue aimlessly rather than discuss facts.
That part I totally agree with!
Your previous post about variations using an FX lens on a DX body?
No. I do it all the time.
A 50mm lens on a DX camera (3100) give about the same angle of view as a 75mm lens on a full frame camera. A few degrees difference won't matter. The angle of view of both options gets you the sane distance away from the subject, which is the biggest factor in distortion.
And I want to apologize for my post late last night.
Sleep deprivation and pain meds don't make for a very clear mind.
georgevedwards wrote:
If you put a Nikon prime lens on the 3100 you are putting a full frame lens on a crop sensor camera, which introduces all kinds of variations. I bought a prime 50mm FX lens full frame lens for my 3200 because it was "quoted to be a great portrait lens on a DX camera giving an effective 70mm." and found that was not entirely true. I saw a video comparing a true 70mm DX lens with the 50mm FX lens and the field of view was different.
May 31, 2013 14:55:32 #
georgevedwards wrote:
I am getting my information from "Photography, Art and Technique" by Alfred Blaker, page 355: "If you use a normal or wide angle lens and move in close enough to fill the viewfinder with the persons's head and shoulders, the nearer parts-perhaps the nose, or one ear-will appear disproportionately large." I think some people here would rather argue aimlessly rather than discuss facts.
It's obvious, some of you did not checkout my link to another thread about this very topic (not the cheezburger link). If anyone makes it over there, checkout PalePictures portrait work with a 24mm lens. Furthermore, this also confirms MT Shooter's comment in another thread:
"The biggest problem with people with "knowledge" is that many of them really have very little and simply quote internet postings, many of which are incomplete and even totally false, yet they feel the need to voice their opinions and display their ignorance."
Not my words, but his. I'm sure he won't mind if I quote him. If you care to join that discussion, it's located here:
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-122321-1.html
Goofy - No apology needed. It might be better to read this thread while under the influence of pain meds---I'll have to try it. :-)
May 31, 2013 14:57:03 #
You guys do realize that JessJus2009 hasn't posted in this thread since the 29th, they received the information they needed and have move on.
:thumbup:
:thumbup:
May 31, 2013 15:01:15 #
Annie_Girl wrote:
You guys do realize that JessJus2009 hasn't posted in this thread since the 29th, they received the information they needed and have move on.
:thumbup:
:thumbup:
Don't even start Annie!! It's not about JessJus anymore! :-)
http://cheezburger.com/50663425
May 31, 2013 15:10:06 #
mdorn wrote:
:mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Jul 30, 2013 10:33:40 #
JessJus2009 wrote:
I've been doing some research and asking lots of q... (show quote)
My personal choice for 35mm candids and headshot portraits was always the 75mm to 105mm nikkor. These focal lengths seemed to me to deliver the most pleasing facial proportions, particularly when shooting full-face straight-on, and gave me more control over the background when using ASA 100 film. This interpolates to a 50-55mm lens when used with a cropped-sensor DSLR like Nikon or Canon with 100 ISO selected (I think).
Try it. You might like it... :thumbup:
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.