suggestions: Next lens up from 18-55?

naz1996

naz1996

Messages
358
Name
naz
Edit My Images
Yes
I am into portrait photographing so looking for a better lens than 18-55. Any suggestions plz? to be used with my 600D. Thank you"
 
50mm f/1.8

50mm f/1.4

or most expensive & deffo the best of the 3: 17-55mm f/2.8

HTH
 
35mm
50mm
85mm
70-200mm
just to mention a few.

Really depends on who you ask, your style and your budget.

You can shoot a portrait on any lens you like, but you need to know the limitations, particularly distortion of the lens you are using.
 
Awesome thanks everyone! I can't believe how you guys are so fast here!
 
35mm f/2 or 85mm f/1.8.

I have the 50mm f/1.8 a while a good portrait lens the iq is nowhere near as good as the 35mm or 85mm Canons when wide open.

Also the Sigma 30mm f/1.4 if you can stretch the pennies.
 
As PSIFox says, it really depends what sort of portraits you're planning as it's a broad subject. If you're shooting portraits of people in a studio, that's a whole different ball game to shooting portraits of dogs outside in natural light. Worth clarifying before you part with the pennies.
 
Thank you, it will be for studio and lifestyle types portrait of people. I am looking around and loving the 70-200 and the sigma, The image results are breath taking! my 18-55 kit lens is fine but i find myself having to move in closer to the subjects. I think for most part of it it will be kids and i think not being too close to them hence being able to catch more natural poses would work better.
Thx once again.
Naz
 
naz1996 said:
Thank you, it will be for studio and lifestyle types portrait of people. I am looking around and loving the 70-200 and the sigma, The image results are breath taking! my 18-55 kit lens is fine but i find myself having to move in closer to the subjects. I think for most part of it it will be kids and i think not being too close to them hence being able to catch more natural poses would work better.
Thx once again.
Naz
Click to expand...

A 70-200 would be superb for catching un-posed shots. A lot of wedding photographers use them for exactly that. And for posed shots for that matter. If the budget is there, then it's a great choice but there are a couple of downsides. Firstly they're very big and heavy so not the sort of thing you'd just carry around hoping to catch the odd snap shot. The other downside is that they are quite long for studios (on a crop sensor) if you wanted more than a head shot.
 
I'm a novice so can't give proper advice but sometimes it's good to hear the basics from someone at a similar juncture...

Conventional wisdom seems to be that you want something a bit long as the shorter a lens the more barrel distortion it will produce whilst filling the frame with the same subject (ie, things in the middle of the shot are made to look larger - this effect is more noticeable on familiar subjects so on faces it is at its most apparent) so people seem to recommend 85mm upto 135mm.

A faster lens like a 2.8 will let you blur the fore- and background and separate them from the subject.

At least, that's my understanding.
 
Garnett said:
I'm a novice so can't give proper advice but sometimes it's good to hear the basics from someone at a similar juncture...

Conventional wisdom seems to be that you want something a bit long as the shorter a lens the more barrel distortion it will produce whilst filling the frame with the same subject (ie, things in the middle of the shot are made to look larger - this effect is more noticeable on familiar subjects so on faces it is at its most apparent) so people seem to recommend 85mm upto 135mm.

A faster lens like a 2.8 will let you blur the fore- and background and separate them from the subject.

At least, that's my understanding.
Click to expand...

Above 20mm I wouldn't say barrel distortion is an issue.
 
Sorry, I think I used the wrong term. Perspective distortion is I think what I meant.
 
Garnett said:
Sorry, I think I used the wrong term. Perspective distortion is I think what I meant.
Click to expand...

A good lens, especially a prime, no distortion should really be noticeable for a portrait.

You only really notice it on really wide lenses, but as I say 20mm and above it's pretty null and void.
 
odd jim said:
Above 20mm I wouldn't say barrel distortion is an issue.
Click to expand...

Except of course for the Canon distortion record holder, the 17-85 ;)

http://www.photozone.de/canon-ef-s-17-85mm-f4-56

The lens broke a new record here - at 17mm it shows the most pronounced barrel distortions of all (supposedly) corrected lenses tested to date and that's by quite a margin.

At about 24mm both forces even out technically though there're still some wavy-like distortions left here.
Click to expand...
 
odd jim said:
A good lens, especially a prime, no distortion should really be noticeable for a portrait.

You only really notice it on really wide lenses, but as I say 20mm and above it's pretty null and void.
Click to expand...

perspective plays a part though. Anything below about 50mm is going to be shorter than the human eye sees and can be unflattering on people up close, particularly their noses!

Beyond 50mm, things start to flatten out a little.
 
Thanks everyone, I will follow this thread to the best I can but I got a bit lost when you lot started talking about distortion! I am not in a massive hurry but wanted to know what I need to look for and start saving to.

naz
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
perspective plays a part though. Anything below about 50mm is going to be shorter than the human eye sees and can be unflattering on people up close, particularly their noses!

Beyond 50mm, things start to flatten out a little.
Click to expand...

50mm on FF maybe but not crop! And interestingly, perspective per se doesn't change between FF and crop, just the field of view.
 
Last edited:
gad-westy said:
A 70-200 would be superb for catching un-posed shots. A lot of wedding photographers use them for exactly that. And for posed shots for that matter. If the budget is there, then it's a great choice but there are a couple of downsides. Firstly they're very big and heavy so not the sort of thing you'd just carry around hoping to catch the odd snap shot. The other downside is that they are quite long for studios (on a crop sensor) if you wanted more than a head shot.
Click to expand...

Thank you Graham, you might be right, I'm not sure i'd be carrying this all the time with me. I spotted some photogs today with some heavy equipments and i am quite petite so might not be able to handle it appropriately.
 
Garnett said:
I'm a novice so can't give proper advice but sometimes it's good to hear the basics from someone at a similar juncture...

Conventional wisdom seems to be that you want something a bit long as the shorter a lens the more barrel distortion it will produce whilst filling the frame with the same subject (ie, things in the middle of the shot are made to look larger - this effect is more noticeable on familiar subjects so on faces it is at its most apparent) so people seem to recommend 85mm upto 135mm.

A faster lens like a 2.8 will let you blur the fore- and background and separate them from the subject.

At least, that's my understanding.
Click to expand...

Hmm..a bit lost there but heho i'm on the learning curve too!
 
As I say, I'm new to this as well, and I'm probably wrong, but as I understand it, perspective distortion is different to barrel distortion and I think it all relates essentially to how close you have to be to your subject with a lens to fill your picture...

See a little way down this page:

http://learnphotographywithtomgrill.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/lenses-introduction-to-focal-lengths.html

portrait_sample.jpg


You have to be much closer to your subject with a lens with a low focal length - ie, like the one on the left - 35mm - to fill the frame.

This results in making what's in the middle of the pic - generally someone's nose - look disproportionately large.

Hope that helps, and fully willing to be corrected by the experts!
 
odd jim said:
50mm on FF maybe but not crop! And interestingly, perspective per se doesn't change between FF and crop, just the field of view.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to follow what you're saying but it reads like you are contradicting yourself. Perspective remains the same regardless of sensor so may statement stands. Perspective is more flattering the longer you go over 50mm.
 
gad-westy said:
I'm trying to follow what you're saying but it reads like you are contradicting yourself. Perspective remains the same regardless of sensor so may statement stands. Perspective is more flattering the longer you go over 50mm.
Click to expand...

Yes that's exactly what I said. Perspective remains the same, it's the field of view that changes, yet the 50mm is probably the most used portrait lens of certainly crop body users.

Your previous post states anything below 50mm will bring this perspective distortion in which simply isn't true, which is why, out of my 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, the 35mm is my favourite portrait lens and it's the one I go for for pretty much all of my portraits.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
the 35mm is my favourite portrait lens and it's the one I go for for pretty much all of my portraits.
Click to expand...

How do find it for head and shoulder portraits? I wouldn't have thought it would be as flattering as the 85 (or longer).
 
odd jim said:
Yes that's exactly what I said. Perspective remains the same, it's the field of view that changes, yet the 50mm is probably the most used portrait lens of certainly crop body users.

Your previous post states anything below 50mm will bring this perspective distortion in which simply isn't true, which is why, out of my 35mm, 50mm and 85mm, the 35mm is my favourite portrait lens and it's the one I go for for pretty much all of my portraits.
Click to expand...

Would love to know where I said that. I deliberately didn't use the word distortion at any point as that is not what perspective is. Perspective is merely referring to the the size and distance objects appear in relation to one another. If the end of somebodies nose looks further away from their face than it actually is, that isn't always a good look!

I'll stand by what I actually said which is that focal lengths below approx 50mm exaggerate perspective and above it perspective increases and 'flattens' out the image. Whether you choose to shoot portraits below 50mm doesn't make it wrong, I've done it a lot myself, I just try to avoid closely cropped head shots unless I'm after a particular effect.
 
Dave1 said:
How do find it for head and shoulder portraits? I wouldn't have thought it would be as flattering as the 85 (or longer).
Click to expand...

I find it more or less perfect for h&s shots, and there's not much difference between 35mm and the 85mm tbh.
 
gad-westy said:
Would love to know where I said that. I deliberately didn't use the word distortion at any point as that is not what perspective is. Perspective is merely referring to the the size and distance objects appear in relation to one another. If the end of somebodies nose looks further away from their face than it actually is, that isn't always a good look!

I'll stand by what I actually said which is that focal lengths below approx 50mm exaggerate perspective and above it perspective increases and 'flattens' out the image. Whether you choose to shoot portraits below 50mm doesn't make it wrong, I've done it a lot myself, I just try to avoid closely cropped head shots unless I'm after a particular effect.
Click to expand...

No you didn't use the term distortion, my apologies. I do agree with you though with regards to what are scientific facts (flattening the image with longer focal lengths) I guess my point was that it's not as noticeable as you might think shooting with 'wider' lenses.
 
odd jim said:
I find it more or less perfect for h&s shots, and there's not much difference between 35mm and the 85mm tbh.
Click to expand...

I've always found 35mm unflattering (and not liked by the subject very much).

The sample pic posted further up is 35mm and 85mm, I can see quite a difference (mouth, nose, eyes, forehead).

This one:
portrait_sample.jpg
 
Last edited:
Dave1 said:
I've always found 35mm unflattering (and not liked by the subject very much).

The sample pic posted further up is 35mm and 85mm, I can see quite a difference (mouth, nose, eyes, forehead).

This one:
Click to expand...

Well there can be many variables, state of lighting, and in particular processing. Those sample images contain much more shadow on the 35mm to make the comparison worthwhile.

To me the nose doesn't look any larger in the 35mm shot. The positioning of the nose is different though as its off at an angle, but the 85mm one is straight on.
 
Last edited:
Garnett said:
From here.
Click to expand...

But again the lighings different and more favourable for the longer shot?

The lighting on the 35mm shot is clearly lacking whereas the 100mm shot its spot on. And I still don't think the nose is any less pronounced on the longer lens.

That link is so wrong on so many levels. 35mm terrible? Er, not at all!
 
Last edited:
Jim, looking at the catch lights the lighting is the same, the apparent differences are again down to the fact it's wide angle (so much closer to fill the frame), the poor girl looks like the Mekon with the giant forehead.

Mouth, chin, eyes and nose all appear distorted in the 35mm. I'm really surprised you don't see the difference.
 
Dave1 said:
Jim, looking at the catch lights the lighting is the same, the apparent differences are again down to the fact it's wide angle (so much closer to fill the frame), the poor girl looks like the Mekon with the giant forehead.

Mouth, chin, eyes and nose all appear distorted in the 35mm. I'm really surprised you don't see the difference.
Click to expand...

If I flick my eyes from one to the other quickly I can see what you mean!
 
odd jim said:
No you didn't use the term distortion, my apologies. I do agree with you though with regards to what are scientific facts (flattening the image with longer focal lengths) I guess my point was that it's not as noticeable as you might think shooting with 'wider' lenses.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: I think we're on the same wave length.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top