D60 lens

[debd]

i am considering a new lens. I am thinking of the EF 50mm 1.4 for portrait photography. I would appreciate any suggestions. I currently am having focusing problems in low light situations.

[Dans_D60]

Photographers like a comfortable distance between them and the subject. Although the 50mm will perform like an 80mm due the 1.6x crop, that’s still a little shy of the most desirable focal length. Getting to close also causes some rather undesirable effects on perspective. As far as lenses go, I have found an effective focal length from 110mm to 200mm ideal for both head and body shots. My favorite two lenses for portrait photography are the 28-70 2.8 L and 70-200 2.8L (remember to multiply by 1.6). If you are having problems with enough light for focusing, I suggest using modeling lights. I own the 50mm 1.4 and it is an excellent lens for the price, just not well suited for general portrait work…in my opinion…
Dan
http://www.pettusphoto.com

THE FOLLOWING ARE ALL TAKEN WITH EFFECTIVE FOCAL LENGTH OF 100-130mm
http://www.pettusphoto.com/focal/1.jpg
http://www.pettusphoto.com/focal/2.jpg
http://www.pettusphoto.com/focal/3.jpg

[brunz]

Debd, If $ is a factor, start with a 50 mm 1.8 which is less than $100(US). It will do just as well as the 1.4 and is almost as fast (and a third of the cost). I have an 85 mm f1.8 that takes gorgeous portraits and does well in low light. The 28-105 is a nice focal length for under $200 but you may have trouble focusing in low light. Usually portraits are taken with reasonably good light.What lens are you using? My D60 struggles with the 28-135 IS lens in low light...Good luck Brian

[D60DIETER]

If you look for a perfect portrait lens, then try the 2,0/135mm L USM. This lens gives you a very small DOF and it smoothes the background in an extraordinary way (nearly circles). I never had such a lens before.

[Roger_Cavanagh]

D60Dieter wrote:
If you look for a perfect portrait lens, then try the 2,0/135mm L USM. This lens gives you a very small DOF and it smoothes the background in an extraordinary way (nearly circles). I never had such a lens before.

The 135/2 is a great lens, but might be too long for portraits and I've also seen complaints that the images are TOO good for portraits. :)

Brunz' suggestion of the 85/1.8 is good.

Regards,

[debd]

I bought the 50mm 1.4 and it is an exellant lens as far as sharpness, but I work with children and babies and I have to move away too far to interact with them. Any new suggestions. Thanks

[rdenney]

D60Dieter wrote:
If you look for a perfect portrait lens, then try the 2,0/135mm L USM. This lens gives you a very small DOF and it smoothes the background in an extraordinary way (nearly circles). I never had such a lens before.

It would seem to me that you'd have to be 30 feet from the subject to get a the sorts of portraits Dan included in his post (i.e., not just head shots). That's a mighty long way, and longer than most people have, even in professional studio settings.

I have used the short end of the 70-200L for portraits on my 10D, but I'm always racked all the way in with that lens, and more often than not it makes me back up more than I want to.

In medium format which is where I have most of my portrait experience (especially with studio lights), I use a 120mm and a 180mm lens. The 180 behaves similarly to a 70 on a 10D or D60. But my working distance even with that lens is still a good 25 feet if I want more than just a head shot.

100mm works pretty well for me for tight portraits on a full-frame 35mm camera, and if I did lots of portrait work with 35mm I'd use the 85 pretty routinely, I expect. Reports indicate it performs very well. For group shots, I prefer 70 in the 35mm format. But with the format of a 10D or a D60, that's a range of 45 to 65. If you like that range, then the 24-70L ought to be looking pretty good.

I have a 28-70 f/2.8 zoom at Sigma getting rechipped, and that will be my favorite lens for general portrait work with the 10D. The Canon 24-70 is sharper and contrastier, but that is no advantage in portrait work, it seems to me.

Dan above likes a longer focal range and he must have a bigger studio than I can muster up, but you can't argue with his results.

Rick "who keeps running into walls" Denney

[rdenney]

debd wrote:
I bought the 50mm 1.4 and it is an exellant lens as far as sharpness, but I work with children and babies and I have to move away too far to interact with them. Any new suggestions. Thanks

If the 50 forces you to move too far away from your subject, then you might consider the 35/2. It's fast, not too expensive, and it's still a little longer than normal which will keep the perspective pleasing. It may not be as sharp as a 35/1.4L (which is another alternative if you want more speed and have a fat checkbook), but who needs critical sharpness for a portrait lens?

Rick "who is (apparently) a bit scary looking and is more likely to succeed by sneaking up on children with a long lens rather than by interacting with them" Denney