CANON 100/2.0 LENS AND CINTIA
Jun 28, 2019 12:04:50 #
I just bought a used Canon 100/2.0 lens and used it a couple of days ago for first time. Taken of a young woman who is from Mexico and whom I have known since she was 16. She is now 21 and a waitress and hairdresser.
I have had the 85/1.8 which was sharp but I think the 100 lens is sharper, as shown in these pics.
I have had the 85/1.8 which was sharp but I think the 100 lens is sharper, as shown in these pics.
Jun 28, 2019 12:14:51 #
AntonioReyna wrote:
I just bought a used Canon 100/2.0 lens and used it a couple of days ago for first time. Taken of a young woman who is from Mexico and whom I have known since she was 16. She is now 21 and a waitress and hairdresser.
I have had the 85/1.8 which was sharp but I think the 100 lens is sharper, as shown in these pics.
I have had the 85/1.8 which was sharp but I think the 100 lens is sharper, as shown in these pics.
Jun 29, 2019 10:10:29 #
AntonioReyna this young talent certainly has stunning sapphire blue iris albeit the band lashes are a tad overstated in my humble estimation... but then again I'm a bridal makeup artist and would never send a bride down the wedding aisle with "costume" grade band lashes... Those are pretty much germane for stage performances...
As for the acuity of the optics used? Unless you attach a larger file to your post I don't believe any meaningful inferences can be made... What I will say is you have chosen delightful compositions to showcase this talents features... However in the first image you have greatly exceeded the dynamic range of the image sensor and appears you've totally lost detail in the "blown" highlights of this talent's "T-Zone". From the catch lights and nose shadow it appears you were using "paramount" illumination pretty much on axis (slightly off to the camera left) which is a de facto standard for beauty narratives...
However in the second image you changed this up resulting in an overly bright background which competes for the viewers attention...
Bottom Line? It is the illumination patterns which totally trump optics in studio portraiture... having a fast lens is mote i.e. of little importance in a studio... It only becomes an important attribute on location where it can (and does) provide a wonderful effect of blurring out distractions in the background (and occasionally the foreground)... Use your f/1.8 and f/2.0 on location where they can lift an otherwise mundane cluttered image entirely to the next level, k?
Hope this helps or is at least food for thought...
I wish you well on your journey
As for the acuity of the optics used? Unless you attach a larger file to your post I don't believe any meaningful inferences can be made... What I will say is you have chosen delightful compositions to showcase this talents features... However in the first image you have greatly exceeded the dynamic range of the image sensor and appears you've totally lost detail in the "blown" highlights of this talent's "T-Zone". From the catch lights and nose shadow it appears you were using "paramount" illumination pretty much on axis (slightly off to the camera left) which is a de facto standard for beauty narratives...
However in the second image you changed this up resulting in an overly bright background which competes for the viewers attention...
Bottom Line? It is the illumination patterns which totally trump optics in studio portraiture... having a fast lens is mote i.e. of little importance in a studio... It only becomes an important attribute on location where it can (and does) provide a wonderful effect of blurring out distractions in the background (and occasionally the foreground)... Use your f/1.8 and f/2.0 on location where they can lift an otherwise mundane cluttered image entirely to the next level, k?
Hope this helps or is at least food for thought...
I wish you well on your journey
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.