Lens confusion!

[brad]

Originally Posted by xseption

Are 50mm and the 85mm good for portraits on both a digital camera and a film SLR?

Don't forget that the crop factor of DSLRs is not going to change the characteristics of the lens... if a lens is a wide angle (say 24mm), the distortion effects of that wide of glass will still be there whether it has been cropped by the DSLR or not. It may not be as noticable as it is on full frame since the edges are cropped away, but the same issues are still there.

In other words... a 50mm lens on a DSLR will give you *exactly* the same results as it will on a film SLR IF you crop the 35mm negative down to the sensor size and compare "apples to apples" so to speak.

The only real difference is how far you have to stand from your subject to fill the frame of your DSLR or full frame SLR

[xseption]

Originally Posted by brad

Don't forget that the crop factor of DSLRs is not going to change the characteristics of the lens... if a lens is a wide angle (say 24mm), the distortion effects of that wide of glass will still be there whether it has been cropped by the DSLR or not. It may not be as noticable as it is on full frame since the edges are cropped away, but the same issues are still there.

In other words... a 50mm lens on a DSLR will give you *exactly* the same results as it will on a film SLR IF you crop the 35mm negative down to the sensor size and compare "apples to apples" so to speak.

The only real difference is how far you have to stand from your subject to fill the frame of your DSLR or full frame SLR

I guess it is the end of a long week, but I do not understand what you are saying ... you suggested that the 50 mm and 85 mm are good for portraits and I am asking is it good for film as well as digital? Most people are referencing crop factors and using film, I do not think I have a crop factor.

thanks!

edd

[johnastovall]

Originally Posted by xseption

I guess it is the end of a long week, but I do not understand what you are saying ... you suggested that the 50 mm and 85 mm are good for portraits and I am asking is it good for film as well as digital? Most people are referencing crop factors and on a film camera, I do not think I have a crop factor.

thanks!

edd

If you shoot with the 20D you'll have a 1.6 crop factor. If you shot film (35mm) then you won't.

[brad]

Originally Posted by xseption

I guess it is the end of a long week, but I do not understand what you are saying ... you suggested that the 50 mm and 85 mm are good for portraits and I am asking is it good for film as well as digital? Most people are referencing crop factors and using film, I do not think I have a crop factor.

My comment should have been finished up with the statement:

If a 50mm is a good portrait lens on digital, then it will be on film as well.. assuming that you are using the same amount of space on your film as you are on digital.

If the 50mm has aberrations toward the edges, a DSLR with a crop factor won't show that, but if you fill the film frame, it will.

That's the technical explanation.

The practical one is that if you put that 50mm on a camera with a full frame sensor (or film), you are probably going to fill the frame with your portrait... and you may encounter undesired results in that case. If you are planning on using the same lens on both film and digital (with a crop factor), stick with the 85mm.

Know also, though, that with a 1.6 crop factor, even the 50mm is too long to do anything bigger than a 1/2 body shot in a normal sized room... to do 3/4 body or full body, you will need to be standing back 10-12 feet with a 50mm and 1.6x... so if the space in which you'll be using the lens is important, keep that in mind.

[lscottpht]

Originally Posted by xseption

Now I thought the same thing, yet when I talked to the camera people they said that a 50mm lens can widen the face/ body such that the space between the eyes widen. They also say that the acceptable range for portraits are primes between 85 mm to 135 mm with the 105 mm to best the idea.

They also said that larger primes are used to make models slimmer ... any of this ring true?

edd

For portraits, an 85 and a 105 are definitely the best. I wouldn't get a 50 for portraits, unless that's your only option.

[lscottpht]

Ok, I forgot about the crop factor for digital. Maybe now days the 50 is best if you are using digital.

[mattchow]

Originally Posted by Gordon

The 100mm f2.8 macro is pretty good for portraits, on a 1.3x crop factor camera (and a 1.6x crop factor too. Might be a little tight for what you want. Here's a sample on a 1DMkII. I guess you could get sharper with L lenses, but you might not want to! Awesome for wildflower shooting too.
http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/image/52222919

i have found this lens to be extremely slow in locking focus. while a great lens for macro work, it tends to be slow and hunt at times.

The 50mm 1.8 is a great option for 3/4 length portraits. Very sharp as well. Again, you could
spend the money and get L glass, but for the quality of these primes it is arguable if it makes
sense. Here's a couple of samples with the 50mm 1.8 ( on a D60)
http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/image/35551003
http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/image/26508376

great budget lens, everyone should have one just because its cheap. lol.

I am tempted to move to an 85 for portraits, but that's mainly due to shifting from a 1.6x crop to a 1.3x crop camera.

if i had to pick a "cheap" prime for portraits, this one would probably have to be it.

The 70-200 F4L also makes a great portrait lens. Doubles up as a fine option for day time sports.
http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/image/36129776
http://www.pbase.com/gordonmcgregor/image/13014091
Hopefully Pbase will behave

another great choice if you are budget oriented, again if you have the money, go for the 2.8 version.

[Jim Victory]

Both the 50 and 85 make good portrait lenses and are good for indoor sports, like basketball, on your 20D.