 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / General Photo Topics / Australian Photography / March 200750/2.5 macro or 50/1.4
Got a wedding to do, love the idea of big aperture soft stuff. I don't generally shoot weddings as a rule, but it's a close friend blah blah blah. I love macro work.... so I would get great use out of the lens in future, but the downside is they are generally not as sharp for distance stuff..... opinions, experiences? 2.5 good enough to blur out the background on a 30d/40d? while I have the 2 close enough to test... I can't get a spare minute to do it.... I found this on the popular photography website about the 60mm macro EF-s.... http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/PP0806_Canon60_SQF.pdf looks alright! kosh > Got a wedding to do, love the idea of big aperture soft stuff. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > future, but the downside is they are generally not as sharp for distance > stuff..... Have you tried the cheap and cheerful Canon 50/1.8? Fast and pretty damn sharp. >>Got a wedding to do, love the idea of big aperture soft stuff. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Have you tried the cheap and cheerful Canon 50/1.8? Fast and pretty damn > sharp. yep, considered teh 1.8.... but it is not really that impressive in sharpness and colour contrast.... not bad, just has not grabbed my attention! this is why I was curious about experiences witht he macro lens for portraiture. The SQF chart on the 60macro seems as though it performs quite well! kosh > opinions, experiences? 2.5 good enough to blur out the background on a > 30d/40d? > I found this on the popular photography website about the 60mm macro > EF-s.... > http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/PP0806_Canon60_SQF.pdf Consider also the Sigma 50/2,8 EX Macro which is very good, and offer 1:1. The 50/2,5 not. I love to use my 50/1,4 for portraits, and a 105/2,8 macro lens for close up portraits. If you want to make close-up photography with a 50mm lens, you'll be very close to your subject.  Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com >> opinions, experiences? 2.5 good enough to blur out the background on a >> 30d/40d? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > up > portraits. I thought you only use soft focus lens. > If you want to make close-up photography with a 50mm lens, you'll be > very close to your subject. > I thought you only use soft focus lens. Very funny Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com >>opinions, experiences? 2.5 good enough to blur out the background on a >>30d/40d? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Consider also the Sigma 50/2,8 EX Macro which is very good, and offer > 1:1. The 50/2,5 not. intersting ideas... wortha try, though 1:2 of the Canon 50/2.5 macro was based on full frame.... I thought that alolowing for that would do the trick nicely. > I love to use my 50/1,4 for portraits, and a 105/2,8 macro lens for close up > portraits. > > If you want to make close-up photography with a 50mm lens, you'll be > very close to your subject. exactly! depth of field is more critical witha longer lens, but usefull for things you don't want to get so close to.... ie arachnid photogrpahy! kosh > intersting ideas... wortha try, though 1:2 of the Canon 50/2.5 macro > was based on full frame.... I thought that alolowing for that would do > the trick nicely. I don't know of the results of the 50/2,5 on a digital body, but consider also that the Sigma is less expansive and give you more... > exactly! depth of field is more critical witha longer lens, but > usefull for things you don't want to get so close to.... ie arachnid > photogrpahy! Consider also that a 50mm lens can also distort in portrait photography if you are close to the subject, a 105mm not, even a macro lens. Chossing such a lens depends also in the lenses that you already own. I really love using a 50mm... :) Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com > Consider also that a 50mm lens can also distort in portrait > photography if you are close to the subject, a 105mm not, even > a macro lens. Not such a big problem on APS digitals. Signature-Mike >>Consider also that a 50mm lens can also distort in portrait >>photography if you are close to the subject, a 105mm not, even >>a macro lens. > > Not such a big problem on APS digitals. exacery! 50mm x1.6 gives gives a very nice and flattering 80mm..... kosh >> Consider also that a 50mm lens can also distort in portrait >> photography if you are close to the subject, a 105mm not, even >> a macro lens. > > Not such a big problem on APS digitals. Therefore the 50mm is an excellent portrait lens :) Signature<> Daniel Rocha | Photographie <> http://www.monochromatique.com > I love macro work.... so I would get great use out of the lens in > future, but the downside is they are generally not as sharp for distance > stuff..... Untrue for all the "normal" macro lenses I have used. The only real penalty is cost and maximum aperture. > opinions, experiences? 2.5 good enough to blur out the background on a > 30d/40d? It's all relative, but you can add some background soft focus in Photoshop if you want. > I found this on the popular photography website about the 60mm macro > EF-s.... http://www.popphoto.com/assets/download/PP0806_Canon60_SQF.pdf How about the 100mm f2.8 macro? And remember the EF-S is no use if you ever go to a full frame body. MrT. > Got a wedding to do, love the idea of big aperture soft stuff. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > future, but the downside is they are generally not as sharp for distance > stuff..... There are more corrections placed into a True Macro lens and they are better than the curved field lenses. So they are actually better. > opinions, experiences? 2.5 good enough to blur out the background on a > 30d/40d? Generally its better to have a good original image, not one shot through a coke bottle, then you can play with it later. The bride and groom won't want 250 soft focus shots that you have experimented with to achieve a soft focus background. Wedding work is all on the run. Some examples of wedding work can be found on http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/index.htm if you unsure. > while I have the 2 close enough to test... I can't get a spare minute to > do it.... [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > kosh >> opinions, experiences? 2.5 good enough to blur out the background on a >> 30d/40d? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > won't want 250 soft focus shots that you have experimented with to > achieve a soft focus background. Wedding work is all on the run. just want a few.... anyway... they were just going to ask one of the other guests if I said no... blew all their money on the venue.... I don't wnat some hack doing the shooting... so I said yes, though I generally steer clear of weddings! uh humm..... photos by douglas? kosh > just want a few.... anyway... they were just going to ask one of the > other guests if I said no... blew all their money on the venue.... > > I don't wnat some hack doing the shooting... so I said yes, though I > generally steer clear of weddings! Ah, that explains it better... I was a bit concerned by your attitude of not having time to test it out, and relying on opinions from all us idiots on usenet... (O; It's the *couple* that are the problem... I would suggest you strongly consider the fact that they will quickly forget *they* made that decision, and *if* anything goes wrong, it may be the friendship that suffers... Don't get me wrong, I have great faith in you, Koshy, but I know how these things can go horribly wrong sometimes, and your 'clients' may have surprisingly high expectations. Anyway, imo, the 2.5 will give good images, but not great ones. If you go with it, you'll have to be bloody careful about your backgrounds - choose them carefully and keep the subjects well away from them - because of that, I definitely wouldn't have *that* lens on for the quick grabs. Just bring it out for the posed, controlled times. I'd get the 1.8 at the very least. I strongly believe you'll get significantly better results, but ymmv. > uh humm..... photos by douglas? If you use the 2.5 and aren't careful with your backgrounds, the images will look like those Doug ones, and *we don't want that, do we*?!?. I think that's why Rob posted it - as a warning. > It's the *couple* that are the problem... I would suggest you > strongly consider the fact that they will quickly forget *they* made > that decision, and *if* anything goes wrong, it may be the friendship > that suffers... Don't get me wrong, I have great faith in you, Koshy, > but I know how these things can go horribly wrong sometimes, and your > 'clients' may have surprisingly high expectations. friends only... unpaid job, in fact we have to buy the tickets to go to the UK!.... but it's in a castle:) > Anyway, imo, the 2.5 will give good images, but not great ones. If > you go with it, you'll have to be bloody careful about your > backgrounds - choose them carefully and keep the subjects well away > from them - because of that, I definitely wouldn't have *that* lens on > for the quick grabs. Just bring it out for the posed, controlled > times. this is pretty much what I had in mind, with plenty of future uses for the macro. I actually want to dso some hands on test to see how 2.5 performs on a aps sensor...... aftera ll, it's not just the lens magnification that changes! > I'd get the 1.8 at the very least. I strongly believe you'll get > significantly better results, but ymmv. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > images will look like those Doug ones, and *we don't want that, do > we*?!?. LOL kosh >> It's the *couple* that are the problem... I would suggest you >> strongly consider the fact that they will quickly forget *they* made [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > friends only... unpaid job, in fact we have to buy the tickets to go to > the UK!.... but it's in a castle:) It won't be at my family castle that's in a mess at present. Hugh let it deteriorate. If you are doing a wedding don't get stuck with a prime on the camera. I would be using a 24-120 range. Its not the wedding party that's going to move, its you. Shots become apparent and need a image, you can't be racing in and out from the subject. With this setting you may want the background in the images or they would mean nothing to the couple, that's why they chose the location. Over the last couple of years I have only used two prime lenses, 60mm micro and a 300mm even though i have other primes. Or is this an excuse to get another lens? if so, get the macro more useful in the future. : >> It's the *couple* that are the problem... I would suggest you : >> strongly consider the fact that they will quickly forget *they* made [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] : Or is this an excuse to get another lens? if so, get the macro more : useful in the future. Care to show us some of your photos to demonstrate this, Rob? I don't think Kosh has a clue what he's about to get into or how to handle the issue. So why don't you give us a pictorial tour of your wedding Photography images so others can assess your value as both a critic and a Wedding Photographer? Frankly I find much of what you say to be testing my imagination. Show me, eh? Douglas > Care to show us some of your photos to demonstrate this, Rob? > I don't think Kosh has a clue what he's about to get into or how to handle > the issue. actally Douglas, I have shot several... never as the designated pro... I am too smart to get caught in that! The question was about a lens performance, not technique.... and I am sorry to say I have viewed several of your galleries.... and gone with the "If you can't say something good....." option. I have made a point of not getting involved in the bickering surounding your 'pro' images, but can only say your website should show your best!!!!! If the images on your site are the examples you sell your services from, I can understand why you find shooting weddings a challenge.... people prefer to look their best in their wedding photos and tend to get a bit miffed when they dont! incidentally, how can a person running thiving business with multipe sites manage to spend so much time in newsgroups? Thanks for the input! kosh : > just want a few.... anyway... they were just going to ask one of the : > other guests if I said no... blew all their money on the venue.... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] : images will look like those Doug ones, and *we don't want that, do : we*?!?. I think that's why Rob posted it - as a warning. ----- Doug's ones? You really are trolling arn't you Stevens? If you had a clue about the subject in the first place, you might have some credibility to comment but you are just a w.nker with a camera... Your boss's, I believe. Douglas : > just want a few.... anyway... they were just going to ask one of the : > other guests if I said no... blew all their money on the venue.... [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] : images will look like those Doug ones, and *we don't want that, do : we*?!?. I think that's why Rob posted it - as a warning. Just post one, Mark/Charlie or whatever you call yourself. Just one, of your Professional Wedding photographs taken during your mysteriously dark past as a Professional Wedding Photographer in Adelaide. Or just tell us the name of the studio you worked for without any bullshit like you dished up last time you made the claim... You know, "I can't disclose it for family reasons" bullshit. In fact... Post a photo of a moving person portrait... That'll be good enough! Douglas > : > uh humm..... photos by douglas? > : If you use the 2.5 and aren't careful with your backgrounds, the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you made the claim... You know, "I can't disclose it for family reasons" > bullshit. Hiya Douglas. POINT 1. I'm not the one *claiming* to be a great photographer, yet posting sh.t. (I know *you* think my shots are sh.t, but I'll go with the majority, thanks..) If you can't handle criticism, then leave the kitchen. POINT 2. As usual you post false quotes - I have never said anything like "I can't disclose it for family reasons", and frankly I'm getting FED UP with your false memories and addled brain. Post a LINK to where I said that, or just STFU. Here, let me spell it out for you - As I have ALWAYS said, I shot weddings in the 70's... Think about it - you know, back when everything was film? In other words, Einstein, I don't have a convenient copy of my best work on CD. And as you should know, Mr Copywrite (sic), when you shoot for a studio, the images belong to the clients and the studio. Any samples of my work from back then would not be mine to post. Is this really difficult for you to understand? (And I was shooting medium format at the high end of town, so we were operating in completely different clienteles. There's no way I would demean myself in front of those clients carrying a p&s like the FZ20 around... The fact you use that camera might explain some of your worse images, especially those with poor d-o-f control...) So, sadly, you have to go by my current work if you want to criticise me. BUT the big difference is, *I'm* not the one plugging my abilities or claiming greatness, or saying that my posted images are 'pro' work.. I, like all the others who have a good laugh at your 'pro' stuff, just know good wedding photography when I see it. I *don't* see it at your site, and apparently I ain't exactly alone... > In fact... Post a photo of a moving person portrait... That'll be good > enough! What's your point? Anyway, sure, here's two off the top of my head - these aren't 'pro' shots, just family snaps: http://www.marktphoto.com/portrait/slides/claphands.htm http://www.marktphoto.com/portrait/slides/giggles.htm (Snapshots in a park, overcast day near sunset, flash level and shutter speed pre-chosen to let a little subject movement creep in, and give them a bit of life..) I'll happily accept criticism from anyone I respect. (Sorry Doug.) Now while we are criticising, can you explain a few things to me about your page here: http://www.brisbaneweddingphotographers.com/ Remembering: - this is the front page of your business and is supposedly representing your best - these are ALL posed, NON-moving images. I repeat - NON-moving... (O; 1. Why are *both* the bridal gowns burnt to buggery? The one under your logo at top is bad enough, but that photoshopped 'feature image' is just a disaster. 2. Back to the top one, why did you get the groom to have both legs up so he looks like a twit, and why on earth didn't you take a little care to arrange his coat and trousers to be more.. er.. appropriately 'hung'...?! You should really have a special area for these 'funny' images, like that other one of the guy with one leg... 3. On the (attempted) portrait of the flower girl, why do we need the background so cluttered - using the FZ20 were we? Use a decent DSLR, choose your lens wisely and use a wider aperture, for heaven's sake. It *could* have been a great picture without all the clutter. And try to take a bit more attention to detail - when you do a fade-out, don't leave the edges showing. Sheesh. (And is that another persons arm to the left (looks like it is coming out of her cheek)? Don't you check *anything* when you pose shots???) Carry on, Doug. (O; |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.