f/1.8 always necessary for 'pro look'?

[jklomo]

I have been messing around with my new 50mm 1.8 II, and I really like the portraits I can take with it in natural light. My question is, when you are using natural light, does a wide open 1.8 lend too much bokeh to a portrait? Here is a self portrait i took wide open in natural light. I cant tell if the blur is too subtle or not subtle enough. Thank you for any input.


Canon Rebel XS+50/1.8
1/15s, f/1.8 @ ISO100

[jdepould]

Was this hand-held? It doesn't look like anything is actually sharp, 1/15s is probably too slow.

[jklomo]

yeah, hand held. It was early, there wasnt much light, i just made due with what i had. Sorry about leaving out the photo details, I'll include them in the future. I guess Im curious about mounting EF lenses on half fram bodies. the 50mm is slightly telephoto, and i was wondering if any of you guys use this setup for portraits, wide open at 1.8 for portraits.

[Benji]

I've been a professional photographer for over 28 years and I have a degree in photography and I have used f/1.8 maybe ten times during that entire time. It seems to me the only people concerned with "bokeh" are amateurs, and internet "pros" who don't know the difference between a hole in the ground and an aperture. I had never even heard the term bokeh before about 2005 or so and in fact I had to look it up to see what it meant.

It seems for some strange reason my clients are more concerned about how they look in their portrait, not how the background looks or whether the bokeh is good. Maybe that is because the main thing in a portrait is the subject. Everything else is secondary (or less) in importance.

Benji

[sk66]

Originally Posted by jklomo

I have been messing around with my new 50mm 1.8 II, and I really like the portraits I can take with it in natural light. My question is, when you are using natural light, does a wide open 1.8 lend too much bokeh to a portrait? Here is a self portrait i took wide open in natural light. I cant tell if the blur is too subtle or not subtle enough. Thank you for any input.

Yes, often you can have "too much" bokeh....or too shallow a DOF for a portrait. For your self portrait I think it works fine, but the long exposure detracts and I think the exposure is still a little dark overall. With a 50mm and a working distance under 5ft the difference between f1.4 and f2.8 is about 2" DOF....

[kirbinster]

I would not consider a 50mm lens to be a portrait lens. Some people (especial here) think it is the be all and end all of lenses. It is a good sharp lens for a cheap price - because they made millions of them during the 35mm film days. You really want a longer lens for most portait work. Typically one thinks of a lens in the 85 to 135mm range as being a portrait lens.

[Vagebond]

Originally Posted by kirbinster

I would not consider a 50mm lens to be a portrait lens... Typically one thinks of a lens in the 85 to 135mm range as being a portrait lens.

Considering the fact that the field of view of a 50mm lens on a Canon crop sensor (factor 1.6) is that of an 80mm lens on a full sensor, wouldn't that make a 50mm a good portrait lens on a crop camera?

[kirbinster]

Its still a little light. 100-135mm in 35mm terms has always been considered a portrait lens.

[candleman]

its not always a function of the aperture.. but more your choice of where to position them from the background.

check this out.
not bad for f/3.5 eh' ?

[LeeR]

Originally Posted by Benji

I've been a professional photographer for over 28 years and I have a degree in photography and I have used f/1.8 maybe ten times during that entire time. It seems to me the only people concerned with "bokeh" are amateurs, and internet "pros" who don't know the difference between a hole in the ground and an aperture. I had never even heard the term bokeh before about 2005 or so and in fact I had to look it up to see what it meant.

It seems for some strange reason my clients are more concerned about how they look in their portrait, not how the background looks or whether the bokeh is good. Maybe that is because the main thing in a portrait is the subject. Everything else is secondary (or less) in importance.

Benji

Thank you, Benji, I couldn't agree with you more. The first time I heard bokeh mentioned I thought it was clever but not that important. Unfortunately, it has taken on a life of its own and entirely out of proportion to its significance to the craft. If it helps people pay more attention to the background, then that's great; but the idea that people are buying lenses simple because they thing it will create better 'bokeh' is ludicrous.