Do I need a Canon 50mm f1.8 for portraits...

60mm is nice on crop, i find 50 abit bleh

tamron f2 macro
holga f11 or 14, but fun rendering, and really light

i do like my 85mm 1.4 rokeon :D
 
Blank_Canvas said:
Persons head in the Depth of Field ?
Thin Depth of Field ?

That doesn't make any sense to me if the head / face is in focus then a large aperture (shallow depth) is going to blur the background and give separation from the subject.

If your can't get all the features / head in focus at f/5.6 as you suggest then you're too close to the subject and need to move back.

If your saying portraits with shallow DoF are overdone, it's a classic portrait technique that separates the background from the subject. A good portrait is always interesting in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Eh? No sense? I'll bite but only once...

If you're shooting at wide apertures with a 50 or 85mm lens and aiming for a head / head and shoulder or even half body shot you've got zero chance of getting your subject sharp. Repeat, zero chance.

Move further back and you'll get more of your subject sharp but then it isn't a head / head and shoulder shot. Make it a head an shoulder shot and you're fighting for DoF again.

Your subject may look sharp when viewed as a small image but look closely and the picture :) will change.

APS-C camera, 85mm, f5.6...



Looks like Mike is sharp in this small image but look at a larger image...



and you can see that by mid cheek the DoF is drifting away.

Here's my lovely GF, Full frame camera 85mm at f2 and even at this small size you can see that other than her eyes nothing stands a chance of being sharp.



What looks good and what look you're going for is a personal thing and I suppose all choices are valid and maybe I've got my grumpy head on :D but recently there have been a number of threads about 50mm f1.8's and personally I feel that a note of caution is called for.

Yes, you can buy a 50mm f1.8 and shoot wide open, just don't expect your subject to be ultra sharp and if you stop down to an aperture which will get a head and shoulder shot with the subject sharp you could be at? f5.6? f8+? and you could have saved your money and used a 17-50mm. Shooting at f1.8 will give you a dreamy look and I do a lot of that but the original question was "if I already have a 17-50mm" and the answer is therefore, IMVHO, only in you want to shoot with a wider aperture than f2.8 and only want one eye sharp... and that's before the question of how good is the 50mm at f1.8-2 is asked.

I'm just providing an alternative view and the OP can make his own mind up :D
 
Last edited:
Raptor Mike said:
I have to admit I would rather have all the subject in focus. The reason I asked is because I thought as a prime it it might be a better quality, as in sharper.
Click to expand...

In my experience once you stop a lens down a bit and it's into its stride you have to look very closely to see any difference in sharpness between a prime and a zoom. There may be other more subtle differences like the bokeh etc... That shot of Mike was taken with a Canon 17-85mm which I thought was so bad I gave away, but it didn't do too bad a job at f5.6.
 
minnnt said:
All the lens manufacturers must have it wrong then... 1.8 is quite conservative compared to the Canon 85L at f1.2 ;)
Click to expand...

If you want to shoot portraits at f1.2 the option is there. All I'm asking is that people think and make an informed choice :D

When looking at smaller images I too chase very shallow DoF sometimes and as pictures are very often viewed on screen or shared 1000 pixels wide on facefriend you may want as shallow a look as you can get so that it shows up in a small image and you'll want a wide aperture for that. If you want your subject sharp, you'll need a smaller aperture.

You make your choice and you pay your money... and select your settings.
 
Personally it's about DOP ....Depth of Pockets as well LOL

1.8 is fine, FWIW I had looked at a 24-70 but DOP failed at the first hurdle,

Lovely shots.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top