 |
 | 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 / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / July 2005Quick Portrait Lens Question ...
If money is no object, what is THE ultimate Canon EF lens for doing portrait work? A Leica lens with an adaptor! -- Douglas... "You finally make it on the Internet when you get your own personal Troll". Mine's called Chrlz. Don't pat him, he bites! > If money is no object, what is THE ultimate Canon EF lens for doing portrait > work? Depends...on many of the following: 1) Which body...(different FOV multipliers) 2) For studio or available light location use 3) Size of studio (working distance photographer/subject and subject/background) 4) Type of portraits (headshots, 3/4 length, etc) > If money is no object, what is THE ultimate Canon EF lens for doing > portrait work? 20D - Studio - any - Head and shoulders I'm considering the 85mm F1.2 L Canon beast - good choice? > Depends...on many of the following: > 1) Which body...(different FOV multipliers) [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > If money is no object, what is THE ultimate Canon EF lens for doing > > portrait work? How big is your studio? I've found that I like the 24-70 f2.8L. since it gives me quite a bit of flexibility in cropping in a limited space. The 85mm may be too long to get anything BUT head and shoulders, and maybe precious little shoulder! ;-) The 50mm f1.4 gives an FOV equivalent to the 85mm on the 20D  SignatureSkip Middleton http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com > 20D - Studio - any - Head and shoulders > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> > If money is no object, what is THE ultimate Canon EF lens for doing >> > portrait work? > 20D - Studio - any - Head and shoulders > > I'm considering the 85mm F1.2 L Canon beast - good choice? An *AMAZINGLY* good choice, provided you have the room to back up... and up... and up. With the 1.6 FOVC factor of the 20D, then you're looking at the equivalent of a 128mm lens, so you need a decent distance even just for a head/shoulders shot. It is, however, an amazingly fine lens. In fact, if anything, the only fault you could find as far as portraiture is that it is incredibly sharp, and if your subjects have less-than-perfect skin, you might have to do some touch-up. : ) At f/1.2, it isn't at full sharpness, but still very sharp, but can show a LOT of purple fringing At f/1.4, it's even sharper, and the fringing is greatly reduced. By f/1.6, it's sharp as a razor, and the fringing is all but gone. That being said, I would still find f/1.2 to be completely acceptable, if it weren't for the fact that the depth of field is so small - you can have someone's eyes in focus, and have the tips of their ears be soft, of if they aren't looking right at the camera, the front eye will be sharp, and the other soft - you find yourself stopping down a little bit just to keep the subject's entire head in focus! steve > At f/1.2, it isn't at full sharpness, but still very sharp, but can show a >LOT of purple fringing I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again. WHy do you call chromatic abberation "purple fringing"? When did this usage begin? I suspect that "purple fringing" is a digital term, referring to effect of blooming on a sensor with a bayer filter that is least sensitive to red and blue, and that people started incorrectly applying it to chromatic aberration. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> At f/1.2, it isn't at full sharpness, but still very sharp, but can show a >>LOT of purple fringing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > red and blue, and that people started incorrectly applying it to > chromatic aberration. I'm not the original writer, but I've often seen the two terms interchangeably (and possibly incorrectly) used on web-based photography forums. I think that part of the issue is that they can be very hard to tell apart; chromatic aberration can indeed generate a fairly wide purple fringe along one edge of a dark object on a bright background (my 17-85 is really bad about this wide open at 17-24mm, generally correctable with Red/Cyan set to about -40 and Blue/Yellow set to about +20 in raw import)... and in almost exactly the same color as the purple fringes on *both* sides of a very thin (1-2px) dark object on a bright background that will still be there after I've finished correcting the major things. I think the latter is sensor bloom, but if you weren't used to poking at raw images, I don't think you'd be able to tell the difference by color by eye. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. >> At f/1.2, it isn't at full sharpness, but still very sharp, but can show >> a >>LOT of purple fringing > > I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again. WHy do you call > chromatic abberation "purple fringing"? When did this usage begin? I guess I'm just not as educated as you. My apologies, oh great and illustrious newsgroup-komissar. steve >>> At f/1.2, it isn't at full sharpness, but still very sharp, but can show >>> a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I guess I'm just not as educated as you. My apologies, oh great and >illustrious newsgroup-komissar. You should be pleased that the real "newsgroup-komissar", Alan Browne, hasn't been along to give you a severe ticking-off. ;-) >>> At f/1.2, it isn't at full sharpness, but still very sharp, but can show >>> a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I guess I'm just not as educated as you. My apologies, oh great and > illustrious newsgroup-komissar. I think you're being a touch oversensitive here. There wasn't any implied insult in the question; he just wanted to know how the usage came about. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. >>>> At f/1.2, it isn't at full sharpness, but still very sharp, but can show >>>> a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >implied insult in the question; he just wanted to know how the usage >came about. Yes. I really want to know if the term "purple fringing" was applied to CA before it was applied to sensor bloom. I've only heard the term in the digital era, myself. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< >> At f/1.2, it isn't at full sharpness, but still very sharp, but can show a >>LOT of purple fringing > >I've asked this before, and I'll ask it again. WHy do you call >chromatic abberation "purple fringing"? When did this usage begin? People seem to call purple fringing, purple fringing, because they observe a purple fringe on some subject edges in some images. CA can be a cause but it is not the only source of purple fringing in a digital camera image file. Lens flair, subject contrast, and basic camera design are just a few causes. ----------------------- The proof is in the print. >>> At f/1.2, it isn't at full sharpness, but still very sharp, but can show a >>>LOT of purple fringing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >People seem to call purple fringing, purple fringing, because they >observe a purple fringe on some subject edges in some images. I know that. I am asking where the term came into use. CA is rarely the blueish purple that you see in blooming; it is usually on the reddish side. > CA can be a cause but it is not the only source of purple fringing in >a digital camera image file. Lens flair, subject contrast, and basic >camera design are just a few causes. I fully understand the broad use of the term. I am asking about the *history*. Signature<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< > CA is rarely the blueish purple that you see in blooming; it is usually > on the reddish side. Huh. Really? What lenses are you using? I get some red, some cyan, some deep blue, and on my 17-85@17mm, a *lot* of purple. I can recreate it on demand on any given bright day, if you wanted to have a test image to play with. SignatureZed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org> PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed. > If money is no object, what is THE ultimate Canon EF lens for doing portrait > work? There's a soft-focus lens that Canon makes. On the smaller sensor cameras, 135mm is going to be a bit long for general use though. |
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.