Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: Goodlistener on July 01, 2007, 01:51:26 pm
-
Too many choices!
I want to shoot head and shoulder shots of people in low light in a large room. The zoom lenses like Canon 24-70 with f/2 are just too heavy and expneesive. Zooms like Canon 24-105 f4.0 images stablizer are expensive and I would pay it but not if I'm limited to f4. Canon 17-55 F2 IS zoom looks very good but my experience is that 55mm is not tight enough. I'm shooting a Canon XTi with 1.6 crop factor. The 25-84 mm IS zoom does not have enough IQ and not enough wide open aperture for my taste.
As near as I can tell, low light, mid range focal length and affordable price adds up to the Cannon 85mm f1.4 prime. Selling price is about $350 to $370 depending on where you look. Sigma has a nice looking 24-80 mm zoom with great specs and a fair price, BUT... image quality is less than Canon and I see no reason to compromise on IQ. Ever. Period. The major reservation I have here is that the lack of zoom makes life harder. Canon 24-70L at 960 grams weight and $1,100 price wold fix a few problems, but the size and weight is just more than I care to deal with. I only wish the Canono 24-105 L IS was at f/2.4 or there-abouts, not f4.0
Any thoughts or reactions to this line of reasoning would be most welcome. The quality of opinion on this forum is very high.
see www.pbase.com/goodlistener for my portfolio
-
I've had good luck with the EF 100mm f/2.0. I like it a lot.
-
Or the 135 f/2, similar price to the 17-55. Or maybe even the 200 2.8.
-
Hi, just some thoughts from me: Shooting people in low light means doing "candid" sort of pictures, no? In that case, particularly indoors, 85mm is simply too long. Look at the 30mm 1.4 from Sigma.
AFAIK there is no such lens as a 24-80 from Sigma, at least not from the last couple of years. If you mean the 24-70EX I agree it is pretty soft.
O.
-
To do what you want, you must either go with prime lens(es) or else one of the heavy expensive zooms. I use the 24-70L (it's f/2.8, BTW, not f/2) most of the time, but occasionally the 100/2 or 135/2L primes. When it comes to shooting in low light, there are no shortcuts. You either must have fast, heavy, and expensive glass, a body that can deliver low noise at high ISO, or both. There are no shortcuts or cheap magic bullets. Primes are lighter and less expensive than zooms, but you need to have the freedom to "foot zoom" in order to use them. In many situations, you don't have that freedom for one reason or another (room size, furniture arrangement, being limited to a certain area, etc.) and a fast zoom is your only choice.
The weight and cost of fast lenses is directly proportional to aperture size; an f/2.8 aperture demands a larger, heavier lens than f/4. It's basic physics. If weight is an issue, start hitting the gym a bit more often. As to cost, if you aren't getting enough of a financial return from the project to financially justify the purchase of the proper tools for the job, don't waste your time with it. You certainly aren't doing yourself any favors if you do, and you're devaluing photography as a profession and making it harder for working pros to make a living.
Ollivr, doing head & shoulder shots with a 30mm lens, even on a 1.6x body, is a really stupid idea unless you want the "big nose" perspective distortion effect, something not generally desirable in portrait-type shots. On a 1.6x body you could get away with it for some full-length shots, and of course group photos, but not portrait-type work.
-
To do what you want, you must either go with prime lens(es) or else one of the heavy expensive zooms. I use the 24-70L (it's f/2.8, BTW, not f/2) most of the time, but occasionally the 100/2 or 135/2L primes. When it comes to shooting in low light, there are no shortcuts. You either must have fast, heavy, and expensive glass, a body that can deliver low noise at high ISO, or both. There are no shortcuts or cheap magic bullets. Primes are lighter and less expensive than zooms, but you need to have the freedom to "foot zoom" in order to use them. In many situations, you don't have that freedom for one reason or another (room size, furniture arrangement, being limited to a certain area, etc.) and a fast zoom is your only choice.
The weight and cost of fast lenses is directly proportional to aperture size; an f/2.8 aperture demands a larger, heavier lens than f/4. It's basic physics. If weight is an issue, start hitting the gym a bit more often. As to cost, if you aren't getting enough of a financial return from the project to financially justify the purchase of the proper tools for the job, don't waste your time with it. You certainly aren't doing yourself any favors if you do, and you're devaluing photography as a profession and making it harder for working pros to make a living.
Ollivr, doing head & shoulder shots with a 30mm lens, even on a 1.6x body, is a really stupid idea unless you want the "big nose" perspective distortion effect, something not generally desirable in portrait-type shots. On a 1.6x body you could get away with it for some full-length shots, and of course group photos, but not portrait-type work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you can get a 24-70L for $1100 you are doing good. Grab it. I am agreeing with Jonathan here. My last 24-70L f2.8 cost me $1275 on sale at Wolf camera.
-
Jonathan, i agree with your analysis, the job requires a body with good high ISO capability PLUS either/or a fast prime or one of the high performance zooms. My hunch is that a good zoom is less expensve in the long run than several prime lenses. I'm not sure who said it, maybe Winston Churchill, but the saying goes: "But in the long run - we are all dead".
-
Have you considered the tamron 28-75 f2.8? Very sharp. The range is a little odd on a crop body.
-
Hi, just some thoughts from me: Shooting people in low light means doing "candid" sort of pictures, no? In that case, particularly indoors, 85mm is simply too long. Look at the 30mm 1.4 from Sigma.
AFAIK there is no such lens as a 24-80 from Sigma, at least not from the last couple of years. If you mean the 24-70EX I agree it is pretty soft.
O.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126029\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
He said in a large room, so 85 mm does not seem too long for head/shoulders, if anything it's too short. But there's nothing longer that's below f/2 that I've seen. GoodListener, is the 85mm f/1.2 too expensive at ~$1500? The 85mm f/1.8 is so close to f/2 that you may as well look at the longer ones if 85mm is too short.
-Lars
-
Ollivr, doing head & shoulder shots with a 30mm lens, even on a 1.6x body, is a really stupid idea unless you want the "big nose" perspective distortion effect, something not generally desirable in portrait-type shots. On a 1.6x body you could get away with it for some full-length shots, and of course group photos, but not portrait-type work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Oh I was thinking the roughly 50mm you would get from the 30x1.6 crop were considered a "normal" length. What is a normal length then?
O.
-
Oh I was thinking the roughly 50mm you would get from the 30x1.6 crop were considered a "normal" length. What is a normal length then?
85mm is the shortest lens you want to use for head/shoulders portraits, but 100-135mm is more common. The 70-200/2.8L IS is my most-used portrait lens, and it's generally toward the long end of the focal range, between 100 and 180mm, for head/shoulders portraits. When you use too short of a lens, you run into perspective distortion problems that can make an otherwise excellent image very unattractive. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:
Portrait @ 40mm:
[attachment=2746:attachment]
At first glance this portrait isn't that bad, until you realize that the feet are nearly as large as the head. I was too close to the subject and the legs and feet appear disproportionately large as a result. The parents were OK with the image in spite of its shortcomings, but do that to a swimsuit model and I guarantee you'll get fired.
Portrait @ 200mm:
[attachment=2747:attachment]
I had my 70-200mm cranked all the way out to 200mm for this shot, and was across the room. Note that the feet and legs (or at least what you can see of them) appear proportionate in size to the rest of the body.
-
The examples are much appreciated. It takes time and study, practice too, but gradually (very gradually) I'm getting smarter about this.
I happen to have the low end Canon 75-300 kit lense. And, last night we had a party at our house. What I found was that 85 mm is not tight enough to get head and shoudlers from 1/2 way across a room. 200mm is good, 300mm is really nice to have. f 4 aperture is good for about 1/15 or 1/30 second shuttter speeds with ISO 400 to 800 in fairish tungsten room light. Adding IS to a 1/30 second exposure would give a clear picture, IF the person sits still for about 1 or 3 seconds (time to compose & focus the shot.) Most people if they are eating, talking and laughing etc. will not sit still that long.
The 135mm prime may be a good option but ideally I wold find a L quality 18-300 mm f2.4 with images stabilizationn for about $650 delivered & with the lens hood included. Since that day is not going to come anytime soon, I need to work out the compromises. Or else win the lotttery.
-
The 135mm prime may be a good option but ideally I wold find a L quality 18-300 mm f2.4 with images stabilizationn for about $650 delivered & with the lens hood included. Since that day is not going to come anytime soon, I need to work out the compromises. Or else win the lotttery.
Sounds like you're in the market for a 70-200/2.8L IS. f/2.8, and IS, excellent image quality, and the perfect focal range. There's a reason it's one of Canon's most popular lenses. And it comes with the hood and tripod foot.
-
Sounds like you're in the market for a 70-200/2.8L IS. f/2.8, and IS, excellent image quality, and the perfect focal range. There's a reason it's one of Canon's most popular lenses. And it comes with the hood and tripod foot.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126641\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The non IS version comes in a lot cheaper for those on a budget and is a lovely lens.
-
But is less suitable for the low light work the OP wants to do.
-
I placed an order for Canon 28-135 IS lens AND 70-200 f/4 IS lense with a good qulity B&H circular polarizer plus step up rings so one good polarizer can work on both lens. The very wide open aperture zoom lenses are more expensive than I care to commit to, and these lenses, at around f/4 will work well enough in combination with image stabilization, steady to start with holding techniques, ISO 800 settings on the camera and the relativly good low noise characteristics of the Canon sensors.
The advice to get f2.8 or thereabouts lens is a good technical solution but not economical. This equipment is a substantial upgrade from my present 18-55 and 75-300 kit lenses at $100 each.
I do have a Canon 35mm prime at f/2 and have had a good experience with that. Street scenes in a city with lots of street lights have come out bright and clear with this lens. The 70-200 is regretably, not 70-300 but I decided to concentrate on basic image quality over extended zoom (and aperture) range. Its possible that I will get a 1.4 X extender at a later date, but it makes more sens to get a great deal more practical experience with the 70-2000 f/4 l IS lens beefore I sppend more $$$$. I still have the 75-300 zoom and am generally happy with it, so if I really need 300mm for some reason, I have it. Just that the image quality is good whereas Canon L series 70-200 f4 IS lens delivers much better than "good".
Everyones advice and comments are appreciated. One thing that is clear: there are a lot of options and a lot of different approaches, all of which "work for" their respective owners.
Thank you everyone again.
-
The 70-200/4L IS is a good choice if the budget won't justify the f/2.8 model. You may not be happy with the 28-135, especially once you start shooting with the 70-200 and see what a really good lens can do. I predict you'll ebay the 28-135 and the 70-300 and get the 24-105/4L.
-
Your predictions are coming true even as we speak. I canceled the order for 28-135 and substitued an order for the Tamron 28-75. It has constant f/2 and will meet my need for low light, but does not meet my need for higher zoom rates. Like 90 to 300 mm range for instance. I did seriously consider the Canon 24-105 IS lens. Did not buy it becaause it does not have f/stop capablity in the 2s, and because its too expensive in combination with the 70-200 f/4 L IS lens.
The Tamron 28-75 sugggested by Dark Penguin has a lot of pros, and some cons. In the end, its a practical step in the right direction and its not the end of the story for ever, just something that should work at a large party with lots and lots of extended family who I want to capture images of.
It turns out that the Canon 24-135 has generally poorish to fair image qality, so once I understood that it was easy to cancel the order.
-
Your predictions are coming true even as we speak. I canceled the order for 28-135 and substitued an order for the Tamron 28-75. It has constant f/2 and will meet my need for low light, but does not meet my need for higher zoom rates. Like 90 to 300 mm range for instance. I did seriously consider the Canon 24-105 IS lens. Did not buy it becaause it does not have f/stop capablity in the 2s, and because its too expensive in combination with the 70-200 f/4 L IS lens.
The Tamron 28-75 sugggested by Dark Penguin has a lot of pros, and some cons. In the end, its a practical step in the right direction and its not the end of the story for ever, just something that should work at a large party with lots and lots of extended family who I want to capture images of.
It turns out that the Canon 24-135 has generally poorish to fair image qality, so once I understood that it was easy to cancel the order.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127214\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
again, the tamron is f2,8 not f2
-
Or the 135 f/2, similar price to the 17-55. Or maybe even the 200 2.8.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=126010\")
I don't own the 135, but have tried it out and am very happy with the results. I think this may be the next choice in my lineup.
_________________________
"Insanity is hereditary - you get it from your children." Sam Levenson
[a href=\"http://www.iriselements.com]Graphic Design Company[/url] – Projects (Real Estate Stock Photos and Illustrations (http://www.imagetrail.net/tags/construction)– Learn how to sell your photos (http://www.microstockforum.com/))
-
85mm is the shortest lens you want to use for head/shoulders portraits, but 100-135mm is more common. The 70-200/2.8L IS is my most-used portrait lens, and it's generally toward the long end of the focal range, between 100 and 180mm, for head/shoulders portraits. When you use too short of a lens, you run into perspective distortion problems that can make an otherwise excellent image very unattractive. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about:
Portrait @ 40mm:
[attachment=2746:attachment]
At first glance this portrait isn't that bad, until you realize that the feet are nearly as large as the head. I was too close to the subject and the legs and feet appear disproportionately large as a result. The parents were OK with the image in spite of its shortcomings, but do that to a swimsuit model and I guarantee you'll get fired.
Portrait @ 200mm:
[attachment=2747:attachment]
I had my 70-200mm cranked all the way out to 200mm for this shot, and was across the room. Note that the feet and legs (or at least what you can see of them) appear proportionate in size to the rest of the body.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=126509\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That is surprising to me. I had thought distortion depended on quality aspects of the lens rather than the focal length. Also, I wondered about the necessary size of studios which use much longer lenses for portraits (lets assume a crop sensor). But I dont have experience with portrait work and generally tend to prefer wide lenses for what I shoot. Anyways, just was stopping by to say thanks for the explanation.
O.
-
That is surprising to me. I had thought distortion depended on quality aspects of the lens rather than the focal length.
There's distortion, and then there's distortion. Lens aberrations and barrel/pincushion distortion are lens-dependent, and for the most part are unrelated to subject distance. Perspective distortion is totally dependent on camera-subject distance. It really isn't a "distortion" in the same sense of the word, as it has nothing to do with the image being altered by a flaw in the camera or lens. It is simply an alteration in perceived size relationships due to a small object appearing larger than a large object because it is closer to the camera than the large object.
-
I just got an adapter to use my 85/2 NIKKOR on my 10D and it's great. You have to manually focus and the aperture is manual as well but it's so bright (both the lens and the VF) that even stopped down a click it's real easy to focus. I've seen the lens go for about $100 on fleabay and 40 for the adapter...that's L quality glass for a pittance. The 135/2.8 Nikkor is another choice...
Here they are on my 10D
http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/9388/cannikkrp8.jpg (http://img372.imageshack.us/img372/9388/cannikkrp8.jpg)
-
It depends on what you want to shoot.
"People in a room/ across a room" doesn't tell me at all what you are aiming at.
If you just want to get the images, you can use any longer range lens to just get their picture.
But if you are aiming for character, intimacy, for more portrait style work, I wouldn't go with too long a lens, as it flattens the face, takes personality out of it.
In lesser movie productions you see the camera man use a lot of long lenses, because it is easier that way to get a symmetry into the image. Great camera men get great shots with shorter lenses.
Regarding that comment about the "stupid idea" to use a "normal lens" for portrait: it depends on who's doing the shooting. As Pierre Assouline mentions in his book "L'Oeil du siecle", Cartier-Bresson used almost exclusively a 50mm lens, also for his portraits. If someone here knows better than Cartier-Bresson, he should scan his images for protruding noses. Be assured, you won't find any.
I would rather shoot a portrait with a 50mm lens (35mm in digital), than with a 300mm lens (200mm on a digital). I guess calling someone stupid, and then shoot portraits with a long range cannon is a double insult, first of the person insulted, then reason insulted.
I am always astonished how easily people throw worthless adjectives at others in internet forums. Do they really think it makes them look superior? (and their words always come back at them like a boomerang).
Intimacy:
In a portrait you need the sense of being close to the person, close in the sense of intimacy. You can't get that feel when you are looking at someone like through a sniper rifle visor.
For 35mm 80 to 85mm is excellent. (Some people liked 90mm, or even 100mm lenses, but that's where it stops. A 135mm lens is not a portrait lens any more).
For a DX sensor 55mm is ideal.
-
Intimacy:
In a portrait you need the sense of being close to the person, close in the sense of intimacy. You can't get that feel when you are looking at someone like through a sniper rifle visor.
For 35mm 80 to 85mm is excellent. (Some people liked 90mm, or even 100mm lenses, but that's where it stops. A 135mm lens is not a portrait lens any more).
For a DX sensor 55mm is ideal.
I think it is important to point out that the above is your personal opinion, and not a general statement of fact.
-
I think it is important to point out that the above is your personal opinion, and not a general statement of fact.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=130811\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The conventional belief is that beyond 110mm perspective results in a flattening view, much as focal lengths less than 60mm begin to introduce exaggerated foreground distortion...the latter is more easily seen in wide angle lenses than the former with teles but the distortion is there nonetheless...these FCs btw are on 35FF, on the 1.6x format we're talking 50-70mm or so being the portrait range that least distorts physical features...but I think OP isn't looking for portrait quality...just wants to get closeups at a distance in low light, so the 85/100/135 would seem the best choices...and manual focus at that...given the "hunting" of AF in low light situations.
-
The conventional belief is that beyond 110mm perspective results in a flattening view, much as focal lengths less than 60mm begin to introduce exaggerated foreground distortion...the latter is more easily seen in wide angle lenses than the former with teles but the distortion is there nonetheless...these FCs btw are on 35FF, on the 1.6x format we're talking 50-70mm or so being the portrait range that least distorts physical features...[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131388\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought depth of field depended only on focal length of the lens and the distance you are from the subject. So saying that you get a different perspective simply because you are using a lens on a cropped-sensor as opposed to 35mm FF is misleading.
-
I thought depth of field depended only on focal length of the lens and the distance you are from the subject. So saying that you get a different perspective simply because you are using a lens on a cropped-sensor as opposed to 35mm FF is misleading.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I thought depth of field depended only on focal length of the lens and the distance you are from the subject. So saying that you get a different perspective simply because you are using a lens on a cropped-sensor as opposed to 35mm FF is misleading.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131468\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I didn't say anything about depth of field (focus)...I said that the perspective, the relative SIZE (not focus) of foreground to background is the same, for the cropped-sensor as for the full frame format (when using say a 50 on the former and an 80 on the latter)...I should have added, GIVEN THE SAME IMAGE SIZE, which means that a 50mm lens on a fff cam will have the same perspective as an 80mm lens on a 1.6x format cam...if you don't understand this all you need to do is take a fff camera with an 80 and a 1.6x cam with a 50 AT THE SAME DISTANCE WHICH WILL GIVE YOU THE SAME IMAGE SIZE, and you will see identical perspective...THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS DoF...I'm sorry if I was misleading...and I hope this clarifies the nature of perspective regarding the 2 formats.
-
I didn't say anything about depth of field (focus)...I said that the perspective, the relative SIZE (not focus) of foreground to background is the same, for the cropped-sensor as for the full frame format (when using say a 50 on the former and an 80 on the latter)...I should have added, GIVEN THE SAME IMAGE SIZE, which means that a 50mm lens on a fff cam will have the same perspective as an 80mm lens on a 1.6x format cam...if you don't understand this all you need to do is take a fff camera with an 80 and a 1.6x cam with a 50 AT THE SAME DISTANCE WHICH WILL GIVE YOU THE SAME IMAGE SIZE, and you will see identical perspective...THAT'S NOT THE SAME AS DoF...I'm sorry if I was misleading...and I hope this clarifies the nature of perspective regarding the 2 formats.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131516\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Even allowing for my misreading of your comment (my apologies for that one), the question remains.
Your comment was:
I should have added, GIVEN THE SAME IMAGE SIZE, which means that a 50mm lens on a fff cam will have the same perspective as an 80mm lens on a 1.6x format cam
How does perspective change depending on sensor size? This also depends on (a) the photographer's position and ( the focal length of the lens.
As far as I can tell, a 50mm lens will produce an image circle at the back of the camera that is the same size in both camera formats. The only difference is that the 1.6x sensor records less of it.
But if by 'same image size' you mean a sensor-filling image then you need to change the position from which you take your photograph, or change your lens. And I would agree either of thesechanges perspective.
-
Even allowing for my misreading of your comment (my apologies for that one), the question remains.
Your comment was:
How does perspective change depending on sensor size? This also depends on (a) the photographer's position and ( the focal length of the lens.
As far as I can tell, a 50mm lens will produce an image circle at the back of the camera that is the same size in both camera formats. The only difference is that the 1.6x sensor records less of it.
But if by 'same image size' you mean a sensor-filling image then you need to change the position from which you take your photograph, or change your lens. And I would agree either of thesechanges perspective.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131574\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
with equivalent lenses if you shoot from the same position you get the same image size and the same perspective...I've done this using my ff nikon F and my 1.6x 10D...only difference seems to be DoF and image size due to different VF magnifications...but for all intents and purposes, the perspective (relative size of foreground to background) is the same...
-
with equivalent lenses if you shoot from the same position you get the same image size and the same perspective...I've done this using my ff nikon F and my 1.6x 10D...only difference seems to be DoF and image size due to different VF magnifications...but for all intents and purposes, the perspective (relative size of foreground to background) is the same...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131601\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't mean to be obtuse, but I'm still lost - you have now added the phrase 'with equivalent lenses' and that adds another interpretation to make. To avoid confusion can we stick with the idea of a 90mm lens on a Canon 5D and the same lens on a 30D used to take the same picture from the same position.
I think of it this way - position the 90mm lens such that it projects a defined image onto a glass plate measuring 60cm x 60cm (the size is atually irrelevant). That is your image. Now, place a 35mmFF sensor (i.e. the 5D) against the glass screen such that the centre of the sensor is coincident with the centre of the image circle. That is the image recorded by the 5D. Do the same thing with cropped (1.6x) sensor and that is the image recorded by the 30D.
The perspective of the image on the glass screen does not magically change just because you have placed a different sensor on it - but the area of the image (i.e. field of view) recorded by the two sensors will differ.
The conclusion from this is that the perspective will not change just because you put the 90mm lens onto a 30D or a 5D and shoot from the same position.
However, if you move the position from which you take the photograph so that the field of view recorded by the two sensors is the same then the perspectives will indeed be different because position is one of the factors that determines perspective.
Or am I missing something about digital photography?
-
Regarding that comment about the "stupid idea" to use a "normal lens" for portrait: it depends on who's doing the shooting. As Pierre Assouline mentions in his book "L'Oeil du siecle", Cartier-Bresson used almost exclusively a 50mm lens, also for his portraits. If someone here knows better than Cartier-Bresson, he should scan his images for protruding noses. Be assured, you won't find any.
I would rather shoot a portrait with a 50mm lens (35mm in digital), than with a 300mm lens (200mm on a digital). I guess calling someone stupid, and then shoot portraits with a long range cannon is a double insult, first of the person insulted, then reason insulted.
I am always astonished how easily people throw worthless adjectives at others in internet forums. Do they really think it makes them look superior? (and their words always come back at them like a boomerang).
Intimacy:
In a portrait you need the sense of being close to the person, close in the sense of intimacy. You can't get that feel when you are looking at someone like through a sniper rifle visor.
For 35mm 80 to 85mm is excellent. (Some people liked 90mm, or even 100mm lenses, but that's where it stops. A 135mm lens is not a portrait lens any more).
First of all, you're doing the same thing you're complaining of others doing, assigning pejorative adjectives to things you disagree with.
Second, you're comparing apples to oranges. Most of HCB's work is not head-and-shoulders portraits, which is what the OP was inquiring about. A 50mm lens will not cause perspective distortion (body parts appearing unnaturally large or small in relation to one another) when the subject is more distant than head-and-shoulder range, such as full-length or group shots, which is why HCB's work does not exibit such distortions. But any photographer, no matter how famous or obscure, will encounter such distortions when shooting at very close range with a wide-angle lens. A 50mm lens at head-and-shoulders range on a full-frame camera will exibit such distortions.
Third, intimacy in a portrait is not dependent on focal length, but rather on the pose and expression of the subject, and the composition of the image. Getting close to some subjects can help create an emotional connection, but others become uncomfortable when their space is invaded. This is particularly true when working with small children, who often become distracted or uncomfortable when you stick a camera in their face, and rarely behave naturally under such circumstances. What you are proposing is true in some cases, but certainly not true in all situations.
Ultimately, you are confusing stylistic preference with universal truth. While perspective distortions can be an effective creative element in some portraits, such distortions are certainly not always desirable, attractive, or conducive to a sense of intimacy, as I demonstrated with the photos I posted earlier in this thread.
-
I don't mean to be obtuse, but I'm still lost - you have now added the phrase 'with equivalent lenses' and that adds another interpretation to make. To avoid confusion can we stick with the idea of a 90mm lens on a Canon 5D and the same lens on a 30D used to take the same picture from the same position.
I think of it this way - position the 90mm lens such that it projects a defined image onto a glass plate measuring 60cm x 60cm (the size is atually irrelevant). That is your image. Now, place a 35mmFF sensor (i.e. the 5D) against the glass screen such that the centre of the sensor is coincident with the centre of the image circle. That is the image recorded by the 5D. Do the same thing with cropped (1.6x) sensor and that is the image recorded by the 30D.
The perspective of the image on the glass screen does not magically change just because you have placed a different sensor on it - but the area of the image (i.e. field of view) recorded by the two sensors will differ.
The conclusion from this is that the perspective will not change just because you put the 90mm lens onto a 30D or a 5D and shoot from the same position.
However, if you move the position from which you take the photograph so that the field of view recorded by the two sensors is the same then the perspectives will indeed be different because position is one of the factors that determines perspective.
Or am I missing something about digital photography?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=131631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I don't think digital photography adds any variable to perspective...the only variable is distance from the subject. The perspective is the same regardless of the lens used if the distance from the subject is the same (though on the same format a wider angle lens makes the subject much smaller)...
On any format camera, to fill the frame to the same degree as you would with an 80mm lens using a 50mm lens you will have to move closer....
If you frame a headshot with the 80mm on the 35mm format, and want to do the same with the 1.6x format camera, FROM THE SAME CAMERA-TO-SUBJECT DISTANCE, and use the 50mm lens (1.6 x 50 = 80), the perspective (relative SIZE of foreground to background) will be the same....it is as simple as that.
Now I'm NOT saying you CAN'T introduce distortion for effect, but it does change the nature of the subject's appearance on the photo...easily sensed when using an ultra wide angle lens, less so when using a tele, but there just the same...a heavy person looks thinner using a wide angle, and teles add weight, which is why actors always complain that TV cameras (teles for the most part) add 10lbs to them, and why models are usually thin, as most fashion shots are taken with teles.