Lens for full body shots on constraint space!

[jalcocer]

Hi, well the title says it all. I'm mostly shooting indoors in my small studio, at the moment have a 50mm 1.4 on an cropped sensor body with a 1.6x ratio (canon), which is a great lens for portraits, but since I have very limited space in here, about 3 to 4 meters (10 to 12 feet), the 50 is not enough for full shots, even my 18-125 at 18mm puts me on the opposite wall without the full person on frame. I know I should have more space for that, I'm working on that, trust me, but for now I would like to be able to do so, so I was thinking if a wider lens should be ok, I have my eyes on a Sigma 10-20 4-5.6, is this length range a good choice? Or is trying to use this kind of lens in such constraint space a no no for getting a nice full shot??

thanks in advance

[bill t.]

You have to design shots that will work with a wide angle lens.  It can be done and you might even get something more interesting than with a more mundane FL.

Of course if you're photographing people, have them stand on their heels with their feet tilted up towards the lens, and their heads tilted down.   Using a mid body camera height with the ladies may also give nice apparent lift to certain upper body appendages. 

[bclaff]

It depends on the post processing you are willing to do.

In museums I sometimes use a 10.5mm fish-eye to capture an entire piece of artwork in a narrow space.
Later, I "defish" to a normal rectilinear shot.

So I don't see why you can't use a wide angle or fish-eye provided you do correction in post processing.


Bill

[jalcocer]

thanks for your comments, any of you have used this lens?

[bill t.]

I think certain things would strike you about the 10-20 zoom versus the 50 prime.

-It would be a WHOLE LOT less sharp, especially at the corners.

-You would go from needing maybe 3 units of chromatic aberration correction in Lightroom to more like 30 or 40 units.

-The overall contrast would be less.

-The overall image quality would be less.

I'm speaking not from experience with that particular lens, but from several others like it.  But of course 50's are typically the most pristine optics out there, while super-wide zooms are amongst the most technically compromised optics available, so it's a very extreme comparison.

Pssst...wanna see some really pretty full length shots?  I saw these at a gallery recently.  They were about 3 feet high, and you would definitely need a top notch lens like a 50 prime to make these work at that size.  The zoom wouldn't cut it, not no way.

[scooby70]

A few years ago there was an article in one of the photography magazines on wide angle portraits. Sorry but I can't remember when or where... But... I do remember that the example shots were very good indeed and displayed none of the faults that detractors of wide angle lenses often insist will be evident.

I suspect that care, thought and some practice will be necessary but I think that a wide lens could very well give you something a little different and a little more stand out than the rather predictable portraits we so often see at 85-200mm.

[bill t.]

And we have to remember that in most cases when we are interacting with people we are seeing them in almost fisheye perspective.  It's just that the sense our brains make out of that is something that is not exactly literal.  Whenever we look a somebody a lot more is going on in our heads than just perspective analysis.

So whatever wide angle people pictures you take need to somehow invite the viewer to interpret the images in ways that parallel real world perception.  Maybe that means scene context is important, I dunno.

Shoot some tests, that's what I always say.  As I mentioned earlier, I bet interesting possibilities exist.  Just be aware that girlfriends photographed closeup at wide angle can quickly stop being so friendly, when they review the images.

My objections to the wide angle zoom are strictly optical.  But I also know that crummy lenses have many a great picture made.

[mediumcool]

Hi, well the title says it all. I'm mostly shooting indoors in my small studio, at the moment have a 50mm 1.4 on an cropped sensor body with a 1.6x ratio (canon), which is a great lens for portraits, but since I have very limited space in here, about 3 to 4 meters (10 to 12 feet), the 50 is not enough for full shots, even my 18-125 at 18mm puts me on the opposite wall without the full person on frame. I know I should have more space for that, I'm working on that, trust me, but for now I would like to be able to do so, so I was thinking if a wider lens should be ok, I have my eyes on a Sigma 10-20 4-5.6, is this length range a good choice? Or is trying to use this kind of lens in such constraint space a no no for getting a nice full shot??

thanks in advance

It will look like crap unless the viewer sees the screen/print at the correct distance, ie very very close.

[kitalight]

 
I'm a bit confused...

I just looked through my 18-55 and @ 18mm and 8' I get a full 8 foot high shot...vertically framed...

The only concern I'd have when using the 18mm vertically is to get low enough to prevent vertical distortion from shooting downwards...

[mediumcool]

I just looked through my 18-55 and @ 18mm and 8' I get a full 8 foot high shot...vertically framed...
The only concern I'd have when using the 18mm vertically is to get low enough to prevent vertical distortion from shooting downwards...

You have a problem because of the short shooting distance; if your lens is at head height, the feet will appear smaller due to being further away from the lens. If you shoot from a centre-of-body height, both the head and feet will be [less] further away than the subject’s torso, but still smaller. The only way distortion will not be seen is if your resulting images are viewed at a distance equal to the focal length used x the view magnification (print or screen) from the camera format (APS?).

So, I have found the dimensions online for Canon 1.6x crop sensors to be 22.2 x 14.8 mm (please correct me if your numbers are different). A 12" x 18" print, for example, is a 13.74x enlargement from that sensor size. The print would therefore need to be viewed from 18 [focal length] x 13.74 [enlargement factor] = approx. 250mm to maintain a visually reasonable perspective that looks undistorted.

Try looking at a 12 x 18 print from 10" inches and see how enjoyable/practicable it is! Tip: you cannot change geometry!