show me your 85mm portrait shots on crop sensors

fontmoss

fontmoss

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,227
Name
Dave
Edit My Images
No
Playing with sigma 50-150 lens and feel like 85mm is bit too long for me (eary days mind) but seen a few very nice shots on crop sensors with this focal length so let me see what you've got. f1.8 is what id be after but im happy to see work with f1.4 :)
 
3178426478_11750666de.jpg


2898089881_6e23c75af4.jpg


They were taken on the Canon 85 f/1.2 dude... but should give you an idea

ads
 
3150892043_ea09fa497d_o.jpg


85mm f1.8 shot @ f/2.8
 
cheers guys, my biggest concern would be how far away you are from the subject. not so much the space required but doesn't it feel a bit distant to have a rapport with them? Also if you wanted a full portrait youd end up miles away? im very new so shoot me down if im talking nonsense
 
The same question is making me wonder whether I should buy a D700 :bonk: Any excuse!

I do find that even with a 50mm on a crop body (D80) it is tricky to get both the framing right and a nice bokeh behind your subject unless the background is significantly further away. I guess this would become even more tricky with an 85mm.

Paul
 
For indoor shots 85mm on a cropped sensor is okay (though for full-length you need some serious room)...I preferred to use it for portraits outside tbh.

As I've mentioned a number of times the Sigma focal length covers all eventualities IMHO. The arguably superior alternative is to use primes throughout the range...35/50/85/105/135
 
I know sdb and ive used the sigma, its good for flexibility but it weighs a frickin ton. im thinking of an 85 as an alternative to buying a grip to help with sigma, id rather invest in glass than accessories. Still at the planning stage at the mo but dont worry i do listen, honest!


would be for outside work anyway and *cough* hopefully on a full frame at some stage (i am happy with fuji before you say it, I have listened to you)
 
thats another option but although it ends up close to 85 in effective length im not sure the effect would be the same? be good if someone could clarify here but i put up another thread asking something similar
 
fontmoss said:
thats another option but although it ends up close to 85 in effective length im not sure the effect would be the same? be good if someone could clarify here but i put up another thread asking something similar
Click to expand...


Well your sensor's crop factor it x1.5 so 50 x1.5 = 75 :D

Chris.
 
yes i know but im not sure the optical effect would be the same, i was under the impression a longer lens had less distortion to sense of perspective in portraits and also gave nicer bokeh? i could be wrong. anyway im not sure that would be the case using a 50mm on a crop sensor, hopefully someone can clear it up
 
fontmoss said:
yes i know but im not sure the optical effect would be the same, i was under the impression a longer lens had less distortion to sense of perspective in portraits and also gave nicer bokeh? i could be wrong. anyway im not sure that would be the case using a 50mm on a crop sensor, hopefully someone can clear it up
Click to expand...

Kind of - 135mm f2.8 on a full frame camera will give precisely the same shot as an 85mm f1.8 on a crop sensor (at those settings), but the crop sensor would have used a faster shutter (at the same ISO) because of the large aperture.

Try the numbers: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html.
 
i know that but i wondered if effective focal length will give the same effect as actual focal length?

ie an 85 on crop will give same field of view as 135 on full frame but will the perspective and other effects be the same too?
 
Firstly, a 50mm lens does not become a 75mm lens on a crop body, it will always remain a 50mm lens. It would have the FOV of a 75mm lens, but share no other characteristics (bokeh etc)

Also, the 135/85 is not a valid comparison. (for what you are saying at least)
 
Firstly, a 50mm lens does not become a 75mm lens on a crop body, it will always remain a 50mm lens. It would have the FOV of a 75mm lens, but share no other characteristics (bokeh etc)
Click to expand...

this is what i mean, a 50 on crop sensor wont produce the same effect as an 85 on full frame then? same field of view etc but difference in images produced?
 
Well, I just don't see how you can possibly compare 1 lens at f/2.8 and a significantly different focal length at a significantly different aperture and use it as an argument for being able to multiply a lens on a crop body by 1.5 and its all hunky-dory. (if thats what you were saying).

And, yeah. All 50mm on Crop is, is a 50mm on FF, but cropped (effectively, this would give it the same FOV as a 75 on FF), so it will have the same bokeh (one of the main reasons people love the 85mm) as it would on FF.
 
I just don't see how you can possibly compare 1 lens at f/2.8 and a significantly different focal length at a significantly different aperture
Click to expand...

what? i dont follow. EDIT: i understand you but dont know where this comment comes from?

um ok maybe i should clarify: i thought (and shoot me down if needed) that an 85 lens compared to a 50 lens (on full frame) gave a nicer effect when taking portraits. i wasnt sure if this was entirely due to field of view or whether it was because a longer (actual not effective) focal length gave nicer bokeh and blurred the background better?

i then wondered if a 50mm lens on a crop sensor (thereby a similar field of view to 85 on full frame) would give the same effect as an 85 lens on full frame? note, effect not field of view as they would certainly be similar
 
Sam, they are equivalent. The sensor size affects more than just the focal length assuming the same size of print. This can be seen (in the extreme) by the almost infinite DoF using tiny sensor compacts even though the lens proudly claims "F4".
 
fontmoss said:
i then wondered if a 50mm lens on a crop sensor (thereby a similar field of view to 85 on full frame) would give the same effect as an 85 lens on full frame?
Click to expand...


Yes (assuming a 1.6x crop factor) but you'd need a larger aperture on the crop to get the same DoF as that on the FF.
 
I think too much emphasis is placed on the 'right focal length' for portraiture. The most important thing is to get a connection with the subject and I find that using a zoom makes that far easier than 'zooming' with my feet.

Also, unless I want a particular effect, I tend now not to shoot below f:4 if have too, favouring a range between f:4 and f:8.

On my D3 I like the flexibility of my Nikkor 24-70 and have the Sigma 50-150 on my D300. I'd say that getting a Sigma 24-70 (presuming that the Nikkor might be a bit much) would compliment your 50-150 perfectly. (I always prefer a bit of overlap with my zooms as you're then less likely to be shooting at the extreme focal lengths)

If you're still set on getting an 85mm f:n, then bare in mind that at 3m, the depth of field at f:1.4 extends 3.4 cm before and 3.4cm after the point of focus, while at f:1.8 it's 4.3cm and 4.3cm instead. 0.9cm difference either way isn't going to make a whole world of difference to your photos so I wouldn't buy on aperture alone.
 
ah now we're getting somewhere, cheers for the link

northernnikon i know what you're saying, it was more the weight of the sigma that put me off but i shall continue to experiment and try lay my hands on a 24-70 to play with as well

cheers all
 
I got the sigma for my D300, really good lens for studio stuff :D

Chris.
 
sure but the sigma is 2/3 of the weight of most 70-200s and makes a difference but i get your point: MTFU


EDIT: had another play with the sigma, amazing what a difference using auto focus makes! much easier on the wrists. thanks to all for contributing to the thread btw
 
Not to put a downer on it but the 135F2 is a completely different beast to a 85 , mainly because its regarded as Canons sharpest lens and has rediculous DOF to boot...sure you can get a good effect with a 85 on crop, but you just know when somethings been shot with the 135L.
 
Yeah I appreciate that Martin. I really like my 50/1.8 but on so many occasions I have wanted just a bit extra throw. I think the 85 would fit in nicely.

I am not expecting the quality/clarity of the 135L!
 
I just bought the 85mm 1.8G - it's top of the rankings on DXO, if that helps sway you. Ahead of the very respected 85mm 1.4G. For 1/3 the price.

It's a cracker of a lens. I would much prefer it on FX though. I had the older D version for DX, used it on a D200 and D90, and just found it too tight for indoors.

What about a 60mm? you get macro capabilities on top, the 60mm 2.8G is a little cracker and not expensive.
 
As I said above, I much prefer it on FX, though haven't anything up on flickr from the FX/85 combo just yet. On DX I rather a 50 or 60mm
 
A great lens and works well both indoors and out.

This is shot from approx 7ft away giving a good head & shoulders that doesn't need cropping.

VC.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top