50mm lens

[krm]

I've been told the next thing I need for my Canon Rebel xt is a 50mm lens for portrait shots. With my child's prom and graduation approaching I think it's time to be sure I have the right gear. But currently I use a 28-135 IS lens, will the 50mm bring more to the table for these type of events or should I just save my money for a new flash or bag?? Also, what is the best distance for using a 50mm lens?

Thanks

[Edmund]

:)Hi, how you doing. First of all a 50mm lens is not a portrait lens. In the old days before zoom lenses everyone had 50mm lense in their bag as their standard lens. I use Nikon gear but no difference. I had a beautiful NIKKOR 105 mm portrait lense.
Take your 28-135mm place it on 33mm and you now have the same field of view as a 50mm. (OPPS ....take into consiseration your sensor size factor Nikon's is 1.5) I'm not sure what Cannon is but someone will come along and correct my higher math. So any way set you lense around 33-35mm and you are now at 50mm. That would be exactly what you would see if you placed a fixed 50mm on your camera. Take some pictures at this focal length and you will see what distance you have to be to get good head shots etc. Also generally speaking a zoom will not be at it's best when at 28mm (35mm equiv.=44mm using 1.6) so you are almost there now and you would probably want to use a wide aperature to blur background so the pictures may not be that sharp with your existing lense.
Eddie:)

[Chuck S.]

Eddie, a 50 mm lens, when mounted on a Canon DLSR using an APS-C sensor (the 20D, 30D, 40D and all the varieties of Rebel) has a cropping factor of 1.6, leading to an equivalence of 80 mm. That would put it in the range of a portrait lens, at least from a 'fill the frame at a distance' point of view. It also has a wide aperture of f/1.8 (or f/1.4 or f/1.2 if you want to spend some more $$), which allows for considerable adjustment of depth of field to soften the background

A somewhat longer lens, like the 85 mm f/1.8 (digital equivalent: 136 mm), will require a greater camera-to-subject distance but will flatten facial features (especially the nose) more than the 50 mm. That lens may be worth consideration for portraiture.

A good experiment might be to use a medium zoom (17-85, 28-80, 28-135) at several zoom settings to see which portion of the range provides the most pleasing portraits. Then, if that low f-stop 'speed' is needed, select the fixed lens size that works best for you based on that optimum zoom setting.

[Not4wood]

I have the 18-135 Kit Lens for my D80 and its perfect for Portraiture.

The 50mm prime lens is not enough, it does have a very good rating for sharpnesss and clarity but I don't know if you want a Lens that sharp for portraits. LOL

I did go to that fast rehearsal on Thursday Nite and I shot heavy. I am almost ready to start posting but I am going to the full dress rehearsal this afternoon to give me a lot more editing to do.

The one thing I will say is I can't get over how much the Raw opens up the versatility of the sensor. Even in very low light where in the old film process you couldn't get any details. Now with this high quality sensor the details are still there and all you need to do is bring it up in ACR and then its all workable. I will start posting these soon.

[GaryK]

Eddie

Just a quick question.
Would a 50mm lens on her XT not render the same image size as adjusting the Zoom to 50mm on the same XT ???
Maybe I missed something... which is not uncommon.:D

[Chuck S.]

Gary, sure it would. 50 mm is 50 mm, whether it's a fixed or zoom lens. The advantages of fixed lenses vs. equivalent zooms are often (but not always) better optical quality and a wider maximum aperture. Disadvantage is you have to use your feet to 'zoom' in and out...:)

[lowbone]

Just my two cents. I have the 50mm f 1.4 and the 85mm f 1.8. Personally If in a large enough room I prefer the 85mm f 1.8 as the subject doesn't seem to be as self concious when the lens is farther away. You asked what you will gain by using one of these prime lenses. Not much. Because of the wider apertures you will be able to blur the background more then you can with your present lens. If you were planning to do allot of portrait work that would be another story but you mentioned in your thread that you have other equipment you would like to buy. The lens you have now should work well for occasional portraits. You can blur the background by placing your subject farther away from it

[jazzfisher]

This is interesting, Sat night I got to try out my 2 new lenses as well as using my good old stand-by zoom.
My 2 new lenses are (Pentax) 50mm 1.4 & a 77 mm 1.8. My zoom is a 28-75 2.8. So I was just comparing how they do & don't look different. When I get home I will post one of each in my gallery, I'll let you know when they are up.

[jazzfisher]

I put 4 pics up in my gallery here. I put all the settings for each lens--All were taken without flash and are straight from the camera. (I will do some editing on them later) but thought you would want to see what they look like straight from the camera.
2 of them were taken with the zoom at various settings, 1 with the 50mm lens, & one with the 77 mm lens.
See what you think...

[GaryK]

Hey Sherry

Great shots as usual. The 50 looks very sharp or maybe somewhat more contrasty. Very hard to compare as the lighting is slightly different and of course you can't seem to get Peter to hold a pose while you change lenses.
Was he just up this way? I kept hearing his name mentioned on an ad for something on a smooth jazz station. As usual, I wasn't paying attention to the ad until I heard his name and then it was too late.

Oh ya, just got a $200+ estimate to get my zoom repaired.:(

[jazzfisher]

Gary,
I tried to pick similar lighting but each photo is pretty different-I had the zoom on my K10 D (10.1 mp) & changed the *ist D (6.1 mp) between the 50 mm & 77mm. The 50 & 77 seem very sharp to me. Maybe you should bit the bullet & just get a new one?????????????? What a bummer!

Yes Peter is coming your way--Check it out here: http://www.peterwhite.com/news/pwhite1/index.shtml

Also check out whose photo he is using on that page--mine!!!:eek:

[Chuck S.]

Sherry, I can't find the photos with the exposure data....:o Could you provide a direct link? Thanks!

[jazzfisher]

Chuck-I don't know how to do it fancy but here it is.
http://www.elementsvillage.com/gallery/browseimages.php?do=member&imageuser=1678

[GaryK]

Sherry

I know I thought about it too. The prob is that lens is over $500 up here so a fixin I will go.:)

I'm also on the verge of getting a new body (40D).. I'm such a cheapskate... I want one but don't want to pay for it.:D:D

[jazzfisher]

Yep I forgot things cost more up there. I guess $200 isn't so bad--the sooner you get it fixed the sooner you can use it again. :)
Well, you don't have a chance to get ahead, I just read they are coming out with a new version of my K10D--with 14 mps!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:eek: But I just have had this for a year--I'll be keeping it a while longer. I will say there is a big difference in 6-10 mps though.

[GaryK]

I'm still using the original Rebel so I think the 40D would be a major upgrade for me.
In the midst of getting a car for the kids to drive when they are home and for me on weekends. So what's another grand or so.:)

The awards show is not far from me. It will likely be slightly different than the show I saw with my son a couple of weeks ago "Video Games Live".:D

[Chuck S.]

Chuck-I don't know how to do it fancy but here it is.
http://www.elementsvillage.com/gallery/browseimages.php?do=member&imageuser=1678

Sherry, that did it - thanks! Your signature link took me to the old PET gallery. Tough for this old guy to keep track of all these galleries!:eek:

[Chuck S.]

I'm still using the original Rebel so I think the 40D would be a major upgrade for me.
In the midst of getting a car for the kids to drive when they are home and for me on weekends. So what's another grand or so.:)

The awards show is not far from me. It will likely be slightly different than the show I saw with my son a couple of weeks ago "Video Games Live".:D

Gary, go for the 40D! I'm holding out - so far. I had the 10D, skipped the 20D, bought the 30D, trying to skip the 40D. But....the improvements are awfully tempting.....:eek:

[jazzfisher]

Go Gary Go--use that plastic!! Tell those kids that if you could walk 10 miles in the snow to school they can too!:twisted::D

Chuck I forgot about the old link too!:o

[lowbone]

Gary, go for the 40D! I'm holding out - so far. I had the 10D, skipped the 20D, bought the 30D, trying to skip the 40D. But....the improvements are awfully tempting.....:eek:

Chuck, Go for the 40D. It is an amazing camera. It is much more then an upgrade. My 30D is has been relegated to backup status

[GaryK]

Sherry

You bet.. 10 miles in the snow, 5 feet deep and uphill....both ways.:D

[jazzfisher]

Gary,
I just knew it! You're such a man!:D

[epaul6]

If you are going to get a 100mm or smaller prime lens you might want to consider a Macro lens. They will work for portraits as well as extreme close-ups.

[lexcell]

Even though a 50mm will give you the "equivalent" of an 80mm on your digital camera, it is really a "cropped" image rather than an actual 80mm. The 50mm has a wider field of view and there is a different look to it than the 85mm. The compression and lack of distortion of the longer lens makes for a more pleasing "portrait" lens. If you are farther back and photographing PW or other images like those you posted (very nice BTW), you won't be so conscious about the compression. Also, as mentioned, the 85mm gets you a bit farther away from your subject, which will make them more comfortable so you can get more natural looking images.
That said, it really depends on your personal style. I know a photographer (Joe McNAlly) who uses his wider angle lens for alot of portraits and they are great...it's his style. He also uses the traditional focal lengths for portraits and even tele lenses for an even more compressed, make your subject pop, look.
I like teles for portraits too.
As previously mentioned, use a zoom and experiment with which focal length you end up at most often and that would be the ideal focal length portrait lens for your style.

[Chuck S.]

Laurie, I'm glad to see you mention that the 'equivalence' spoken about with lenses mounted on a DSLR is really a crop factor rather than magnification. That's a hard concept to comprehend and misunderstanding it sometime leads to disappointment with 'long' lenses that turn out not to be so long in taking nature photos.

But back to the 50 mm lens for a moment. When I want to take a portrait with a 50 mm, I find that the crop factor shows me less of the subject at normal shooting distance than it would if the 50 mm were mounted on a full-frame SLR. In order to compensate for that, I separate myself from my subject until I get the desired crop (that distance happens to be related to the crop factor, but it's too early for me to do the math...!). Wouldn't that stepping back on my part achieve the flattening of the facial features that make an 80 mm photo on a standard SLR more pleasing? Or does the 80 mm lens have some additional design features that do more than create magnification?

I know I should have had my coffee before writing this; I apologize if it doesn't make sense...:o

[jazzfisher]

Thank you Laurie!:)

[Lesa]

Hey Gary, don't know if you've made a decision yet, but I got the 50mm f1.8 lens for Christmas to use with my Rebel. I love it! It's terrific in low light situations too. It also works really well with the 40D I'm reviewing (and boy, I don't want to send that one back!).

The price on the 50mm f1.8 is so affordable, which makes it a terrific buy. It was $75 when my husband bought it in December, though I think Canon has upped the price slightly since then.

The Great Kelby says it's one of the best lens buys out there, though he has the Nikon version of course :)

[GaryK]

Lesa

Wasn't me looking for the lens.:)

I was looking for the body.. don't tell Chuck I snagged it.;)

[jazzfisher]

Gary,
I take it that kids have to walk to school now?:D

[GaryK]

Sherry

It was just for them to use when they are around .. both live away, but I (for the next bit) have a company car which they can't use. My daughter has her learners but I can't even teach her.:rolleyes:
Also because of tax reasons I have to keep my personal mileage low.. so I would use if on weekends or for vacation.

[jazzfisher]

Gary,
I understand, it's hard to drive a camera. With the price of gas it's hard to drive anywhere.:mad:

I went back & edited those photos I put up from the different lenses, they look a bit better edited. http://www.elementsvillage.com/gallery/browseimages.php?do=member&imageuser=1678

[Lesa]

Lesa

Wasn't me looking for the lens.:)

I was looking for the body.. don't tell Chuck I snagged it.;)

Doh! Okay, somebody mentioned the 50mm lens :)

LOL

[Chuck S.]

Doh! Okay, somebody mentioned the 50mm lens :)

LOL

And whatever you do, don't tell me that Gary snagged a 40D....:mad:

[Bob_Benner]

Can't speak for the canon 50mm f/1.8 but I did have the nikon 50mm f1/8. It was a great lens and worked extremely well as a portrait lens. I now use the Nikon 50mm f/1.4 on my D300 and it is also a great lens to use for portraits. In my opinion, if you want a great lens for portraits and to shoot macro with the Tamron 90mm f/2.8 is a awesome lens and right now you can get a $90.00 mail in rebate with this lens. Many sell this lens for around 450.00 so in the end you are paying 360.00 for it. I think it is a pretty good deal and when used as a macro lens it also produces amazing results.

[lexcell]

Chuck,
Actually, stepping back with a 50mm to get the same image size on a smaller sensor as you would on a larger sensor will make the image the same size but, the compression is going to be more obvious in the longer lenses. It's an inherent feature of long lenses. Even if you are filling the frame with your subject by changing distances, the angle of view will be different and you will find a noticeable effect of the background between even a 50mm and an 85mm.

[Chuck S.]

Thanks for the clarification, Laurie!