Focal Length help ..

I've tried the kit lens a few times for portraits.
I didn't get on well with it. Speed wasn't an issue as I was using flash. It just wasn't producing the same quality images compared to when I use the 50mm f1.8 and the 70-200 F4 for portrait work.
 
I've tried the kit lens a few times for portraits.
I didn't get on well with it. Speed wasn't an issue as I was using flash. It just wasn't producing the same quality images compared to when I use the 50mm f1.8 and the 70-200 F4 for portrait work.

Fair comment :thumbs:

Its just Danny needs a shorter focal length on a budget:shrug:
 
the problem shootingpeople with wider focal lengths will be that you will start to distort features....

What sort of space are you shooting in (I mean size)? Can you get a 3/4 or a head and shoulders with the 50?
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what space he is shooting in but this shot I took will give a rough idea what a 50mm prime can do in a 3m wide bedroom.

5278306938_b9263b881e_b_d.jpg


I still had easily an extra 0.5-1m (give or take) space to play with which would have been decent for a good shoulders up shot, it would have started to become limiting for 3/4 shots.
 
i can get shoulders and head easily .. i can get down to almost waist .. but cant do a full length
 
In such a small area I'd advise against doing full length anyway. At such a wide angle it won't look right. Keep the 50 and stick to 3/4 and head and shoulders :)
 
BUT i would like to be able to have the versatility - the 50 is a great lens but gets boring when its the only focal length you have available in your bag!
 
Use your legs as the zoom. Same effect.
 
Use your legs as the zoom. Same effect.

Sorry but whenever someone says that it always annoys me as clearly it isn't always possible to foot zoom.

There's no getting away from the fact that sometimes, often even depending on what and where you shoot, being able zoom almost instantly without changing position is very convenient and could be the only way to get the shot.
 
Sorry but whenever someone says that it always annoys me as clearly it isn't always possible to foot zoom.

There's no getting away from the fact that sometimes, often even depending on what and where you shoot, being able zoom almost instantly without changing position is very convenient and could be the only way to get the shot.


Totally understand but the OP is shooting in a small room where space is an issue so not too difficult to step back/forward where required.

Using a wider angle is not likely to be so flattering on the subject and the 50mm is a cracking lens for the purpose.

I do appreciate however that it is a little long indoors.
 
So we're not just talkig about studio shots in your home?

99% of the time yeah .. otherwise the 50 isnt so bad as i can move like you say but the time i go into the garden and want to be longer or shorter etc

i understand i shouldnt go shorter than 30mm for portraits or i will distort :)
 
Yuo shouldn't go shorter than 50mm really.... the longer the better! but as you are tight in space 50 is great
 
ive been playing this morning lol self portraits though and its a bit kack!

5406885953_1e50e909b0_z.jpg
 
i do have alot more room than that btw! lol i can get shoulders and head!
 
I'd personally keep the 50mm at any cost. Nothing to do with the focal length, but the low light ability and fast focusing. No zoom will be close to matching it no matter the cost.
 
ive been playing this morning lol self portraits though and its a bit kack!

5406885953_1e50e909b0_z.jpg

Thats a good portrait, but you look like Scott Mills.. Thats bad.
 
scott mills! as if lol! ive been buggering around all morning and im stuggling :(

light science and magic just arrived though! :D
 
Well, if nothing else, this thread inspired me to try a self portrait like Danny's.

Much more handsome of course though :whistling:

So cheers!




DSC_9058-2 by TCR4x4, on Flickr​
 
Think yours is better TBH, but I guess everyone doesn't like their own face :gag:
 
Back
Top