What’s Your Preference?

Saralonde · #11 (**permalink**) 03-15-2007, 12:55 AM

You got it right, Nicole

.

The Mighty2006 · #12 (**permalink**) 03-15-2007, 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saralonde

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx.

Great site. That's where I did most of my research along with www.dpreview.com

Diana1979 · #13 (**permalink**) 03-15-2007, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saralonde

A really good one to start with is the 50mm f1.8 http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx. The 85mm f/1.8 is another one recommentded for portraits.

I just watched the Depth of Field Video, and Shelton said that a very long (200) lens with a very wide aperture will acheive the blurred background. I was just curious why you picked a small kens (50mm, 85mm).

sdjl · #14 (**permalink**) 03-16-2007, 12:35 AM

A 50mm or 85mm lense at an aperture of f/2.8 or less will most likely do a similar job of blurring the background when compared to the 200mm.

Here's a couple of examples for you.
This is a shot I took at 400mm with f/5.6

Then there's this shot that I took at 40mm on f/4.0

As you can see, they're vaguely similar. The 400mm is obviously more blurred, but this doesn't mean to say that a wider angled lense isn't going to be able to blur. It's all about how you configure your aperture and shutter speed to work

David

inkista · #15 (**permalink**) 03-16-2007, 01:12 AM

..and your subject distance.

Shorter lenses are a lot easier to handhold than telephotos. They're (often) cheaper, and always smaller, lighter, and less conspicuous. Also telephotos have an additional restriction: to avoid camera-shake blur, you have to shoot at a shutter speed of at least 1/focal-length. So, with a 50mm lens, you only have to be at 1/50s. With a 200mm, you have to be at 1/200s or faster--shooting indoors and handheld with telephotos becomes problematic. There's also a matter of working distance. Even with just my 85mm, I've often had to run backwards to get a group or full-body shot.

Here's my 400mm f/5.6's bokeh. Note the bright bright sunshine required to get the shutter speed over 1/400s, (iso400, f/6.3, 1/500s):

OTOH, here's my 85mm f/1.8 doing beautifully indoors with available light (iso400 f/1.8, 1/100s):

And then, there are other ways of getting a razor thin DOF:
(Hartblei 80mm f/2.8 Super-Rotator. iso 100, f/2.8, 1/100s, 8Â° swing to the left, 12mm rise):

Diana1979 · #16 (**permalink**) 03-16-2007, 03:51 AM

You guys have all helped me out a lot. As you can probably tell, I'm just starting out learning photography. I know how to take pictures, I just don't know all the little details that make a picture say "wow". I'll be working mostly from 5-10 feet away from the person. So what lens would be best for that? The bokeh I want to achieve is similar to this picture:

Saralonde · #17 (**permalink**) 03-16-2007, 01:32 PM

I think the 50mm would work for you at that distance. With the 85, you'd have to back away more.

inkista · #18 (**permalink**) 03-16-2007, 11:43 PM

Yeah, I agree that a 50mm will get you head-and-shoulders composition at those distances (an 85 will get you head-shot only), but remember that bokeh is also a function of subject distance from the lens--you may not get identical bokeh, given how far away the grass is behind the subject.

Here are two more examples of the same 400mm lens I used to take the water lily shot:

Notice how there's a lot more out-of-focus blurring on the second image than on the first one? That's because the hawk was a lot closer to the hillside in the first shot than in the second. Same lens, same aperture, same light, but the background's different distance from the lens results in different amounts of blur.

But yeah, any of the Canon 50mm lenses will probably do what you want.