Spec Me A: Studio/Portraiture Lens

[Ksanti]

Hey guys, as some may have picked up I'm really starting to get into flash work and even a bit of studio work (I say studio... I mean in the loft ), but I get the feeling my 50 f/1.4 isn't the greatest lens for it, given sharpness isn't key for portraiture, nor is the wide aperture, and the fixed focal length limits just what I can do (it's a tad too long for full body shots in the loft).

I'm thinking about the Canon 28-135 right now, but again, I'm new to the world of flash photography so would appreciate any input. I was considering the 24-105 as then I'd have a fairly high quality good walkabout lens as well, but I'm not sure if I can quite justify the cost of the lens over the alternative of spending more on lighting equipment. I'd say up to roughly £500 would be my budget, but towards the top end I think it'd have to provide a use outside of portraiture.

Does anyone have any recommendations?

 

[POAH]

Canon EF 70-200mm f4L USM

 

[Ksanti]

I'm not sure I quite have room to use that in the studio setting, certainly not for full/three-quarter length shots, and the f/4 and lack of IS would mean the lens isn't all that useful outside of the studio.

 

[gingerweasel]

my 50 f/1.4 isn't the greatest lens for it, given sharpness isn't key for portraiture

Sharpness isn't key for portraits... in what way?

I found the 24-70L excellent for portraits of the kids, but the cheaper 24-105L was more than capable of producing great results too and in the studio you won't miss the wider aperture.

 

[Nawty]

Sharpness isn't key for portraits... in what way?

No one has perfect skin - who wants their blemishes captured in razor sharp clarity?

 

[Ksanti]

Sharpness isn't key for portraits... in what way?

I found the 24-70L excellent for portraits of the kids, but the cheaper 24-105L was more than capable of producing great results too and in the studio you won't miss the wider aperture.

In that lighting, modelling and styling are way more important? I meant more fashion. Plenty of professional fashion 'toggers shoot cropped DSLRs; given the increased apparent sharpness of my 5D in comparison to crops I don't need razor sharpness.

Both the 24-70 and 24-105 are approaching twice my budget new...

 

[gingerweasel]

No one has perfect skin - who wants their blemishes captured in razor sharp clarity?

I'll admit I'm only a keen amateur but this just doesn't make any sense to me. Portraits should be razor sharp and all of the best results I've ever seen are exactly that.

In that lighting, modelling and styling are way more important? I meant more fashion. Plenty of professional fashion 'toggers shoot cropped DSLRs; given the increased apparent sharpness of my 5D in comparison to crops I don't need razor sharpness.

Both the 24-70 and 24-105 are approaching twice my budget new...

I'm sorry I missed the budget. The 24-105L pops up on the for sale section fairly regularly for not much more than your budget. Ideal as a portrait zoom and the extra reach makes it perfect for a general walkabout lens.

Also sensor size does not determine the sharpness of an image.

 

[Ksanti]

I'll admit I'm only a keen amateur but this just doesn't make any sense to me. Portraits should be razor sharp and all of the best results I've ever seen are exactly that.
[/QUOTE]
Not true at all, as proven by professionals using crop sensor cameras and FF cameras (rather than exclusively medium format). Obviously you don't want something to be unnecssarily soft, but sharpness isn't anywhere near as much of a factor to effective images as it is in pretty much any other type of photography.

I'm sorry I missed the budget. The 24-105L pops up on the for sale section fairly regularly for not much more than your budget. Ideal as a portrait zoom and the extra reach makes it perfect for a general walkabout lens.

Also sensor size does not determine the sharpness of an image.

Perhaps it does, but I'm not entirely convinced given it costs so much more than the 28-135.

Yes it does. Crop an image down from full size and the sharpness drops. It's the same phenomenon when you use a smaller sensor, only with the smaller sensor you can't crop back out. You might have pixels at the same size, but the 35mm FF cameras images are more compressed or less blown up than the same from an ASP-C camera.

 

[gingerweasel]

Not true at all, as proven by professionals using crop sensor cameras and FF cameras (rather than exclusively medium format). Obviously you don't want something to be unnecssarily soft, but sharpness isn't anywhere near as much of a factor to effective images as it is in pretty much any other type of photography.

I can think of several reasons a professional portrait photographer would go full frame instead of medium format (Cost vs ROI, required output sizes) but I doubt one of those reasons would be to get less sharpness.

Yes it does. Crop an image down from full size and the sharpness drops. It's the same phenomenon when you use a smaller sensor, only with the smaller sensor you can't crop back out. You might have pixels at the same size, but the 35mm FF cameras images are more compressed or less blown up than the same from an ASP-C camera.

That made almost no sense to me, if you crop a full size image it does not lose 'sharpness'. Sharpness is based on three main factors; optical alignment (focus), subject movement and camera movement.

Your argument appears to be more based around resolution, but still doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe a more experience tog can come and chime in.

 

[Ksanti]

I can think of several reasons a professional portrait photographer would go full frame instead of medium format (Cost vs ROI, required output sizes) but I doubt one of those reasons would be to get less sharpness.

I'm not saying they're doing it because they're looking for softer images. If we go by that logic everybody without a medium format camera is doing it, in some part, to get less sharp images. I'm saying that the sharpness isn't so important that it overrules everything else, whereas professional landscape shooters will very rarely have anything other than full frame or higher.

That made almost no sense to me, if you crop a full size image it does not lose 'sharpness'. Sharpness is based on three main factors; optical alignment (focus), subject movement and camera movement.

Your argument appears to be more based around resolution, but still doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe a more experience tog can come and chime in.

You take a full frame image, and display it at 800*600, then compare it to a 100% crop of 800*600 pixels, and I guarantee the crop will look softer. Cropping in lowers the apparent resolving power of the lens ergo softer images.

Acutance might remain the same, but resolution is just as big a part, if not a bigger part of image sharpness as acutance.

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=6896131&postcount=15

 

[Ksanti]

If I had to go for a 70-200, I think I'd go for the Sigma 70-200 in any case. Sure it might not have the out and out sharpness of the f/4L, but it has f/2.8 AND IS which plant it miles above the Canon in terms of versatility for me.

 

[POAH]

I'm not sure I quite have room to use that in the studio setting, certainly not for full/three-quarter length shots, and the f/4 and lack of IS would mean the lens isn't all that useful outside of the studio.

so do you only shoot in low light and require paper thin DOF outside the studio?

There was no mention of full/three quarter length shots in your original question. sigma's 24-70 HSM f2.8 would be my choice going by the new information you have provided.

 

[HSC]

What about the 85mm 1.8
should be well in budget

if going over the 24-105 is great too

 

[SimonUK]

If your looking at Primes, i'd strongly suggest looking at the Samyang 85mm 1.4. I've only had mine 2 days, but i'm blown away by it. If youve got the time to Manual Focus then jump on getting one.

This was shot at 1.4 with no sharpening, just a import into lightroom the exported out to my desktop.

And the len's is so cheap its hard to pass up on it

 

[Ksanti]

so do you only shoot in low light and require paper thin DOF outside the studio?

There was no mention of full/three quarter length shots in your original question. sigma's 24-70 HSM f2.8 would be my choice going by the new information you have provided.

No, but adding up the benefits of OS and f/2.8, that's easily 3 stops of extra exposure with the Sigma than the f/4L. I don't always need it but I certainly need it sometimes.

Well I mentioned the 50 was a little too long, and it would take something like a cupboard for a 50 to be too long for headshots...

Maybe, but the Tamron 28-75 is about half the price of the Siggy and fills the same role while leaving room for even something like a 100 f/2.0 or 85 f/1.8 if I don't go for more lighting gear.

What about the 85mm 1.8
should be well in budget

if going over the 24-105 is great too

Please read the thread; the 70-200s are too long, how would a fixed focal 85 help me? :bonk:

 

[Ksanti]

If your looking at Primes, i'd strongly suggest looking at the Samyang 85mm 1.4. I've only had mine 2 days, but i'm blown away by it. If youve got the time to Manual Focus then jump on getting one.

This was shot at 1.4 with no sharpening, just a import into lightroom the exported out to my desktop.

And the len's is so cheap its hard to pass up on it

It's a very nice lens, yet, but I am awful at manually focussing unfortunately, and 85 is too long.

I'd like an 85, just not yet.

 

[SimonUK]

Ah slight problem then :/ If 85 is too long, maybe a 50 1.4 or a 30 1.4 then?

 

[Ksanti]

Ah slight problem then :/ If 85 is too long, maybe a 50 1.4 or a 30 1.4 then?

2nd line of OP: "... my 50 1.4"

I'm on a 5D, there's no decent c.30mm Canon prime until the 35L, and a 35 and a 50 would leave me with no real way to get headshots without loads of perspective problems.