which canon fit lens for portraits?

Chrisly2009

Chrisly2009

Suspended / Banned
Messages
49
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
Hey guys
I'm having problems with getting desirable results when photographing people in their own home.

I have a 17-40 L lens which causes distortion, a 70-300mm lens which is not practical in small faces and never fits full subjects in and a 50 mm 1.8 lens which is great in low light but only good for one person and not groups. What lens would help out in small areas with groups of people please?
 
35mm probably, anything wider and you'll get distortion if you get too close, which body are you using, crop or Full Frame?
 
Sigma 30mm f1.4 or a Canon 35mm?
 
Would tend to agree with the above as you've ruled out / tried various options.

With your 17-40 - what focal length were you not happy with ?

What body are you using - FF or crop ?
 
canon don't make anything called a lens lol

chrisly said:
Hey guys
I'm having problems with getting desirable results when photographing people in their own home.

I have a 17-40 L lens which causes distortion, a 70-300mm lens which is not practical in small faces and never fits full subjects in and a 50 mm 1.8 lens which is great in low light but only good for one person and not groups. What lens would help out in small areas with groups of people please?
Click to expand...
 
Sorry its a canon 20d so it has the x1.6 factor. Is it best to have prime or zoom in my case.....mostly indoor family portraits?
 
A fast prime lens will allow more light in than a zoom, but is less flexible.

If you like your 50mm, but feel it is too long, go for something similar, but wider...
 
THIS would be perfect for you...

I used one for a couple of years and shot a fair few weddings with it when I was starting out! It's sharp, cheap, flexible and produces really good results!

Mine went to my daughter when I gave her my 40D and she still uses it every day! It's a brilliant little lens for the money! :D

Hope that helps,
Si
 
chrisly said:
Hey guys
I'm having problems with getting desirable results when photographing people in their own home.

I have a 17-40 L lens which causes distortion, a 70-300mm lens which is not practical in small faces and never fits full subjects in and a 50 mm 1.8 lens which is great in low light but only good for one person and not groups. What lens would help out in small areas with groups of people please?
Click to expand...

There are a few condradictions in there Chris. You have an almost seamless range from 17-300mm, that will comfortable handle everything from large groups to tight heads shots.

I don't see the problem as outlined. The 17-40 only creates exagerated perspective (distortion is something else) if you shoot very close with it. It's the close distance that's the problem, not the lens, so just move back a bit and it'll be fine. Then you have the 50 for solo portraits and maybe couples, with the option of shallow DoF at lower f/numbers, then the 70-300 for tight solo head shots.
 
Richard is right - a different lens isn't going to solve the issue of perspective. You either need to get further away (if possible in the space) or accept the perspective issues. (They can be fixed in pp but it would be very time consuming)
 
markrichardson said:
Richard is right - a different lens isn't going to solve the issue of perspective. You either need to get further away (if possible in the space) or accept the perspective issues. (They can be fixed in pp but it would be very time consuming)
Click to expand...

Perspective can't be changed in PP.
 
markrichardson said:
Quite right - but you can (with enough time) make adjustments which would resolve some of the issues that perspective causes in portraits.
Click to expand...

Still no ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
There are a few condradictions in there Chris. You have an almost seamless range from 17-300mm, that will comfortable handle everything from large groups to tight heads shots.

I don't see the problem as outlined. The 17-40 only creates exagerated perspective (distortion is something else) if you shoot very close with it. It's the close distance that's the problem, not the lens, so just move back a bit and it'll be fine. Then you have the 50 for solo portraits and maybe couples, with the option of shallow DoF at lower f/numbers, then the 70-300 for tight solo head shots.
Click to expand...

Which is why (sort of) I said get a 35mm prime, cant zoom that so the only thing you can do is move :) cures the perspective problem in one hit if space is tight.
Zooms make people lazy and that includes me :)

Matt
 
MatBin said:
Which is why (sort of) I said get a 35mm prime, cant zoom that so the only thing you can do is move :) cures the perspective problem in one hit if space is tight.
Zooms make people lazy and that includes me :)

Matt
Click to expand...

An alternative view is that zooms make you think more, and get you more.

With a prime, if you want to optimise framing, you have to compromise perspective. But with a zoom, you can choose your viewpoint, get the perspective right, and then zoom to the right framing.

Unless you have whole bag of primes, and time on your side, a zoom will get you better pictures :)
 
HoppyUK said:
Unless you have whole bag of primes, and time on your side, a zoom will get you better pictures :)
Click to expand...

All else being equal that would be true enough - but things are rarely equal. You tend to get much wider apertures in primes - which in some circumstances will make the difference between getting and not getting the shot. Also within a price bracket primes tend to be sharper.

Then there's the issue of added options with the shallower depth of field you tend to have with wide aperture primes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top