- Messages
- 2,812
- Name
- Mike
- Edit My Images
- Yes
.. if I already have a Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 (non vc)?
Thanks, Mike
Thanks, Mike
Buy an 85 instead. You already have 50mm covered.
You've made your mind up, but I'll add my name to the '50mm on a crop isn't what you need' camp.
Personally, I think it's a rubbish focal length on a crop sensor, too long for general use, too wide for portraits.
The only reason I've kept mine is that it's worth so little, and it'd come in handy if I went full frame.
For 'portraits', I'd say 85mm minimum, but 135 was always my go to portrait lens on film.A 60mm would be better on DX sure, but a 50 does the job just fine. I'm not a big fan of 50mm personally, well, I use FX now and have a 35 and an 85 and just wouldn't get much use out of a 50.
I had a 60mm macro for a while that I much preferred. Would have suggested that but it wasn't the question. You can pick up a 60mm 2.8D pretty cheap used. I loved mine. Only passed it on after I got the 105.
For 'portraits', I'd say 85mm minimum, but 135 was always my go to portrait lens on film.
Party pooper mode ON...
Wide aperture primes are lovely but INVHO portraits don't always suit wafer thin DoF and once you start stopping down the shot could be taken with almost any lens (like a 17-50mm?) For example with APS-C and 50 - 85mm and at wide apertures you're DoF will be thin, if going for a head and shoulder or even half body shot that you'll be lucky to get a persons head in the DoF at f5.6-8.
Wide aperture primes are lovely but the shallow DoF look can be overdone and personally I mostly like to get a persons head in the DoF.
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.Party pooper mode ON...
Wide aperture primes are lovely but INVHO portraits don't always suit wafer thin DoF and once you start stopping down the shot could be taken with almost any lens (like a 17-50mm?) For example with APS-C and 50 - 85mm and at wide apertures you're DoF will be thin, if going for a head and shoulder or even half body shot that you'll be lucky to get a persons head in the DoF at f5.6-8.
Wide aperture primes are lovely but the shallow DoF look can be overdone and personally I mostly like to get a persons head in the DoF.
That makes sense too.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.