Lens confusion!

[xseption]

I am looking to buy a new lens or two and I am a bit confused as to what is appropriate lens for an appropriate subject.

I currently own:
70-210 mm 4.0 macro lens
28-200 mm 3.5-5.6 lens
35-80 mm 3.5-5.6 lens

I currently shoot wildflowers up close and landscapes ... I have been contracted to do portraiture and some fashion ... and occasionally I do basketball games for my niece.

What lenses do you recommend that is compatible for a Canon SLR and a 20D? (I own an SLR now and hope to own the 20D soon)

I understand for portraits 100 mm (Canon) or 105 mm (Sigma) prime is a good choice. Does this gel with what you know?

Please help ... and thanks! (Or direct me to a helpful forum thread.)

edd

PS I also want to get in IR as well

[84NETgal]

I've also heard that 50mm is a standard type portrait lens, and that the 50mm 1.8 is an economical choice, whereas if you have the extra $$ go for the 1.4. Hope that helps! You can't go wrong with a nice 70mm-100mm, but they do recommend primes for the sharpest results!

[xseption]

Originally Posted by 84NETgal

I've also heard that 50mm is a standard type portrait lens, and that the 50mm 1.8 is an economical choice, whereas if you have the extra $$ go for the 1.4. Hope that helps! You can't go wrong with a nice 70mm-100mm, but they do recommend primes for the sharpest results!

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

[AjP]

they????????????????????????

[84NETgal]

well some of that is news to me--but it's always great to learn! It depends on if you are using a full frame or not--if you've got a crop factor of say 1.3x or 1.6x, then 50mm should be just fine for you. Full frame I agree 50mm might be too wide, you'd want to go with something 70-105. Good luck!! Let us know how the purchase goes, whatever you decide.

[srwatters]

Edd, I shoot with 4 different lenses for different effects.

28-70mm - My workhorse. Good for full length to 3/4 length shots. Mostly between 35mm & 60mm. A must have.
105mm - 1/2 to 3/4 length shots where I have room to backup. Compression can make the subject look thinner
180mm - Headshots when I have room to backup great sharpness even wide open
70-200mm - The other workhorse. Good for just about anything. Indoor headshots, 1/2 length, body parts. A must have

[xseption]

Originally Posted by AjP

they????????????????????????

got the same info from the help at two different camera stores while comparing prices

did you know that on about 95% of the products I was looking to buy (about 20 products)Arlington Camera (AC) was consistently cheaper than Competitive Camera especially on the lenses? I physically went each store and compared prices and to look at the equipment. On several items, AC was same or cheaper than B & H ...

edd

[xseption]

Originally Posted by srwatters

Edd, I shoot with 4 different lenses for different effects.

28-70mm - My workhorse. Good for full length to 3/4 length shots. Mostly between 35mm & 60mm. A must have.
105mm - 1/2 to 3/4 length shots where I have room to backup. Compression can make the subject look thinner
180mm - Headshots when I have room to backup great sharpness even wide open
70-200mm - The other workhorse. Good for just about anything. Indoor headshots, 1/2 length, body parts. A must have

Scott,

on the 105 mm, is that 2.8 or ... ? or does it really matter in what you do?

I really appreciate the info ... thanks!

[AjP]

ah, ok... no I never been in AC before, kinda to far to drive for me :) I'm too lazy...rather order online at B&H or OneCall .. but it is nice to know they area cheaper in some way...

as far as lenses... I found myself using 24-70 and 70-200 alot (for wedding or landscape, etc)

for sports of cause 70-200, 300, 400 most of the time
inside sports 70-200, 24-70

so I guess 24-70 and 70-200 is the MUST for me.. all 2.8

[brad]

Originally Posted by xseption

got the same info from the help at two different camera stores while comparing prices

Don't get me wrong, I love the guys at Arlington Camera.. but you have to remember they get paid on commission... and as such, they seem (to me) to be more interested in selling the expensive lenses and they will confuse you with disinformation (not false, just incomplete) in order to get you to buy those more expensive lenses.

The 50mm f/1.8 is great for portraits.. the 85mm f/1.8 is even better.

[srwatters]

Originally Posted by xseption

Scott,

on the 105 mm, is that 2.8 or ... ? or does it really matter in what you do?

I really appreciate the info ... thanks!

The 105mm Nikon is a f/2.0. Remember to think about the crop factor when dealing with a sub 35mm film sized sensor. The magnification does not change, but the DOF and size of the image captured will not directly compare with the 'classic' 35mm film focal length portrait suggestions.

85mm on film is considered an excellent general use portrait lens. On a 1.5 crop factor sensor like my D200, the field of view is reduced to that of a 127mm on film making it much more like the 135mm headshot lens for that medium. Just remember that.

[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

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

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.

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

[xseption]

Originally Posted by srwatters

The 105mm Nikon is a f/2.0. Remember to think about the crop factor when dealing with a sub 35mm film sized sensor. The magnification does not change, but the DOF and size of the image captured will not directly compare with the 'classic' 35mm film focal length portrait suggestions.

85mm on film is considered an excellent general use portrait lens. On a 1.5 crop factor sensor like my D200, the field of view is reduced to that of a 127mm on film making it much more like the 135mm headshot lens for that medium. Just remember that.

Right now I am using film and it will be two or three months before I get the DSLR or D20 ... thanks for the heads up

edd

[xseption]

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

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

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.

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

is your advice advisable given that I need to shoot film for a little while longer? or is your advice restricted to digital cameras?

thanks!

edd

[xseption]

Originally Posted by brad

Don't get me wrong, I love the guys at Arlington Camera.. but you have to remember they get paid on commission... and as such, they seem (to me) to be more interested in selling the expensive lenses and they will confuse you with disinformation (not false, just incomplete) in order to get you to buy those more expensive lenses.

The 50mm f/1.8 is great for portraits.. the 85mm f/1.8 is even better.

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

thanks!

edd