Portraits in low light

janbokev

janbokev

Messages
129
Name
Kevan
Edit My Images
Yes
Thats the sort of lens I would go with to start ,it's a prime lens and fast. The fastest lenses in zoom (18-50) are usually 2.8 and very dear,a lot of people swear by primes for portraites some say the 85mm is a good choice to,

You might have to boost the ISO in very low light,but some people do this anyway for grainy effects.
With the prime 50mm you will get good IQ at a low cost.


Have a play,it's the only way to learn.:thumbs:
 
janbokev said:
Sorry if this thread has already been mentioned , as I have looked but could nor find anything.

I am after a lens that can take portrait pictures in low or bad light , I have been looking at the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 MKII on flebay,

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/NEW-CANON-EF-...hoto_CameraAccessories_CameraLensesFilters_JN

could anyone recommend which way to go ?


Kevan
Click to expand...

Obviously the Nifty (50 1.8) is a fast piece of glass. You should be aware that the autofocus is not great and it will hunt in low light, but it's a great piece of kit < £100 !!!

Hope that sort of helps :)
 
What kind of portraits - head shots, head and shoulders, 3/4, full length? How dim are we talking? What sort of exposure settings?

FWIW I usually like to go long for any portraiture. On a 5D2 I'd be at 70mm for full length shots and quite possibly 200mm for head shots. For group shots I might go wider than 70mm, but for a portrait - uh uh.

This was taken with my 5D2 at 145mm focal length from a distance of 2.1m, or just under 7'. If I'd used a 50mm lens I would have had to be 70cm away, or a fraction over 2'. I don't regard that as a very comfortable working distance for the subject and I'm not sure the perspective would look too great either. You'd also include a lot of background, which may or may not be desireable.

20100801_121351_4640_LR.jpg


Can you imagine a head shot taken with a 50mm lens?

Now here's a 50mm headshot, but taken with the nifty fifty on my 40D, which would equate to using an 80mm (85mm the nearest available) lens on full frame. It is front focused and the eye is not sharp, and this was in good light. Of course, the 40D does not have AF microadjustment, and even on a body which does, the nifty's focusing is hit and miss.

20080813_105254_6714_LR.jpg


There's no doubt you can get decent results with the nifty, but it is better suited to a crop body for portrait work, and results may be hit and miss, so be prepared to shoot some safety shots if the results are important and not easy to reshoot.
 
Last edited:
Many thanks for your replies , I have just got a 70-200 F2.8 so this may work as I have a 5D MK1 and with it being FF I would have to get in close with a 50mm ,
Think I will save my money for a while ;) and see how they come out , the pictures we will be shooting are mainly in ice rinks so it is always low crappy light
 
I've shot indoor basketball with my 70-200/2.8 IS. I had to go to 6400 ISO in order to achieve a shutter speed of 1/250, which wasn't really enough, but what can you do?

The thing is, having an even faster lens than f/2.8 is all well and good, if you are struggling for shutter speed, but shooting portraits I imagine that would be less of a problem, and perhaps you could use a little off camera flash if necessary. Also, not eveyone want to shoot with razor thin DOF, and I think f/2.8 is a realistic aperture to create nice subject isolation while still keeping the whole face in focus. On a 5Dx I think the 70-200 is an excellent choice as a portrait lens. That's what I prefer to use. I use the same lens on my 1D3 for portraits as well.

Now this was a candid portrait, across the dining table, but it was at 145mm on a 1D3, equivalent to 188mm on full frame.

20100808_141833_1245_LR.jpg


Personally I'd steer clear of the shorter focal lengths for shooting people on a full frame camera. 70-200, lovely. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top