Best lens for portrait / facial images..

Status
Not open for further replies.
smoker said:
Soz, I was referring to the OP's comment: "I'm looking to get a combination of sharpness and depth with a lens purchase".
Click to expand...

I don't know the correct term.. but basically some of the higher quality, sharper shots (taken at 20-30mm) look very flat, they do not seem to capture the 3dness of the subject, and some features look out of proportion.

I'm wanting a lens which will retain the 3dness of the face but produce a sharp image. I'm not expecting top-end results from my entry level dSLR, but hopefully this new lens will go some way to improving my shots.

Lens dispatched, comes tomorrow.. also got some filters and a tripod.. happy day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:


ayesane said:
I think i'll do exactly that, I almost bought one from amazon the other night.

Do you have any experience of them?
Click to expand...

It's a cracking lens for the money. I have the original MK1 metal mount version but I dropped it from about a foot off the floor onto carpet and pushed the front of the lens in at an angle and it won't focus anymore :cry: I bought a Sigma 50mm 1.4 to replace it but wouldn't have done if I never dropped the Canon.
 
Out of interest, and a completely hypothetical question...

If you had a DSLR (Canon EOS 40D)...

with the following lenses:
Tamron 28-80mm
Tamron 70-300mm tele-macro
Canon 75-300mm (which may possibly be broken)...

and wanted to take portrait shots of a baby because the missus had developed a penchant for getting professional photos taken at ludicrous prices, what would you buy in order of importance?

Lens (which one?)
Backdrop?
Light boxes or other flash equipment?
Something different?

Like I say, completely hypothetical as I haven't got the money/equipment nor the aptitude to do a studio style photo shoot.
 
robcal said:
Out of interest, and a completely hypothetical question...

If you had a DSLR (Canon EOS 40D)...

with the following lenses:
Tamron 28-80mm
Tamron 70-300mm tele-macro
Canon 75-300mm (which may possibly be broken)...

and wanted to take portrait shots of a baby because the missus had developed a penchant for getting professional photos taken at ludicrous prices, what would you buy in order of importance?

Lens (which one?)
Backdrop?
Light boxes or other flash equipment?
Something different?

Like I say, completely hypothetical as I haven't got the money/equipment nor the aptitude to do a studio style photo shoot.
Click to expand...

I am no way an expert on this, but you have a 28-80mm lens which I think is round about the size you want for portraits, you can pick up reasonable back drops off ebay for a about £10-15 delivered from china. Play about with it and see what kind of results you get before spending any more money.

Without proper lighting or flash unit the photos may not be brilliant, but you will not have spent huge sums of money.
 
ayesane said:
I don't know the correct term.. but basically some of the higher quality, sharper shots (taken at 20-30mm) look very flat, they do not seem to capture the 3dness of the subject, and some features look out of proportion.

I'm wanting a lens which will retain the 3dness of the face but produce a sharp image. I'm not expecting top-end results from my entry level dSLR, but hopefully this new lens will go some way to improving my shots.

Lens dispatched, comes tomorrow.. also got some filters and a tripod.. happy day.
Click to expand...

Can you give us an example of a shot which loses it's "3d-ness"? I would normally have thought that this was lens compression, although this is an effect you usually get from a telephoto lens, rather than something as relatively wide as a 20-30 mm focal range.

In terms of the features looking out of proportion, this is probably the effect of using a wide-angle lens and getting in close.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
robcal said:
Out of interest, and a completely hypothetical question...

If you had a DSLR (Canon EOS 40D)...

with the following lenses:
Tamron 28-80mm
Tamron 70-300mm tele-macro
Canon 75-300mm (which may possibly be broken)...

and wanted to take portrait shots of a baby because the missus had developed a penchant for getting professional photos taken at ludicrous prices, what would you buy in order of importance?

Lens (which one?)
Backdrop?
Light boxes or other flash equipment?
Something different?

Like I say, completely hypothetical as I haven't got the money/equipment nor the aptitude to do a studio style photo shoot.
Click to expand...

Don't think you need to buy anything really. I would try to persuade her that studio style shots are so much less appealing than spontaneous portraits done under natural light (it may be a personal thing but natural light looks so much nicer for portraits than a studio set up IMO). If you want to do something in controlled circumstances find a spot near a window on a bright day and use a sheet or something as a backdrop if you want to keep things simple, and/or open the lens up to keep the background out of focus to give a cleaner more studio-like shot.

I can't bear the look of studio shots personally - cold and stiff, and the fashion for white backgrounds and the overexposed look that Venture and their ilk go for is getting very boring. All their photos look the bloody same.

Plus, the pleasure in a photo having captured a family moment (eg a day out) is infinitely greater than the memory of a trip to the studio, is it not. Even more so when the photograph is your creation, rather than that of a formulaic studio.
 
ThankHeavenForShed 7 said:
Can you give us an example of a shot which loses it's "3d-ness"? I would normally have thought that this was lens compression, although this is an effect you usually get from a telephoto lens, rather than something as relatively wide as a 20-30 mm focal range.

In terms of the features looking out of proportion, this is probably the effect of using a wide-angle lens and getting in close.
Click to expand...

It's not so much that it loses it's "3d'ness" completely it's just in comparison to other focal lengths it's quite noticeable.. I only have shots of the missus and the daughter so i wont post examples of my own shots but:

Logon or register to see this image


here's an example I found on the internet, 28mm on the left and 85mm on the right. Both nice shots but the left for me looks odd, almost like her facial features are painted on.. perhaps it's just me..

anyway - new lens has arrived this morning and I've had a play and i must say - it's fantastic.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ayesane said:
It's not so much that it loses it's "3d'ness" completely it's just in comparison to other focal lengths it's quite noticeable.. I only have shots of the missus and the daughter so i wont post examples of my own shots but:

Logon or register to see this image


here's an example I found on the internet, 28mm on the left and 85mm on the right. Both nice shots but the left for me looks odd, almost like her facial features are painted on.. perhaps it's just me..

anyway - new lens has arrived this morning and I've had a play and i must say - it's fantastic.
Click to expand...

That's distortion from using a wide-angle and getting in close to your subject. That's why you don't use a wide-angle lens for a portrait, unless you're deliberately trying to make the subject look like an Afghan hound!
 
ThankHeavenForShed 7 said:
That's distortion from using a wide-angle and getting in close to your subject. That's why you don't use a wide-angle lens for a portrait, unless you're deliberately trying to make the subject look like an Afghan hound!
Click to expand...

cheers mate
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ThankHeavenForShed 7 said:
That's distortion from using a wide-angle and getting in close to your subject. That's why you don't use a wide-angle lens for a portrait, unless you're deliberately trying to make the subject look like an Afghan hound!
Click to expand...

:lol:

My Samyang 8mm and Opteka fisheye adaptor are great for that Roger Daltry/Back of a spoon look.
 
interesting thread and a nice shot too, is it my eyes or did you use soft focus??
 
A photoboard success!

:)

btw: wad

edit: how old? lol
 
Searoad said:
interesting thread and a nice shot too, is it my eyes or did you use soft focus??
Click to expand...

I was messing abit with the focus, with the tree in the background and I liked this one at the time.. it's nice and soft and she's got an interesting facial expression. Also love the DOF.

I took about 400 of her, with the 50mm lens. Will be adding another couple to my Flikr.. she's a good freind of mine and takes a great picutre.

defo a photo board success..

Logon or register to see this image


http://www.flickr.com/photos/72726129@N07/6673997461/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/72726129@N07/6673996165/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/72726129@N07/6673996165/
Sarah by AyeSheamus, on Flickr
 
ayesane said:
I was messing abit with the focus, with the tree in the background and I liked this one at the time.. it's nice and soft and she's got an interesting facial expression. Also love the DOF.

I took about 400 of her, with the 50mm lens. Will be adding another couple to my Flikr.. she's a good freind of mine and takes a great picutre.

defo a photo board success..

Logon or register to see this image


http://www.flickr.com/photos/72726129@N07/6673997461/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/72726129@N07/6673996165/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/72726129@N07/6673996165/
Sarah by AyeSheamus, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Any 'other' ones marra? :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top