50mm on a 1.6x Digital body

[DionM]

Just a question for those with the 50 f1.8 on their 1.6x digital bodies ... how does the 50 perform as a portrait lens?

I am thinking of ditching my 28-105 when I move to digital, as I was never really happy with its wide end. Until I find a suitable replacement as my medium zoom, I was going to rely on my 50 f1.8 (my other lenses will be 17-40 or 12-24 - pending on which I buy, and Canon 100-300). Thus the 50 will be my only real 'portrait' lens.

[FlipsidE]

I have read that the 50/1.8 works well as a portrait lens. It isn't as perferrable as a zoom lens. But, it does work well from what I've read.

FlipsidE

[Adam Hicks]

I'd rather use the 85mm 1.8 if you can, but the 50 1.8 will work just fine and it's CHEAP. Or you can take out a loan and get the 85 1.2 or the 135 f2, both optimal portrait lenses.

The 1.6x has more to do with your distance from the subject here than whether or not the focal length is ideal for facial features. 80-130 will still be your ideal range for that regardless of crop factor.

Adam

[Quinn Porter]

The 1.6x has more to do with your distance from the subject here than whether or not the focal length is ideal for facial features. 80-130 will still be your ideal range for that regardless of crop factor.

It isn't the focal length of the lens, but the distance from the subject that determines the appearance of facial features. It is the position of the camera relative to the subject that determines perspective. A 50mm lens used with an APS sized sensor will allow you to position yourself in the same location as an 80mm lens with 35mm film to achieve the same perspective.

If using a 1.6x crop camera, a 50mm lens makes a very good portrait lens in the classic sense. An 85mm is also good. I would not consider the 135mm to be an optimal portrait lens when used with a 1.6x crop camera.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Grab that fifty!
It'll do nicely, and it's nifty :)

[CyberDyneSystems]

... and here we go with the "X-factor" debates...

:lol: :lol:

[Woten]

I have been using that lens for portraits. Great lens and I really like it. Can't beat the price either!! But since today I received my Tamron 28-75 f2.8, the 50 mm f1.8 will be playing second fiddle. Here is a photo I took this past friday nite at a shoot. I was shooting in the middle of a campground and the only lighting I had was my studio stobes. I think the little 50mm did a pretty good job.

http://www.mustangmods.com/data/2153/crw_3636a.jpg

P.S. this is my first photo post, so please be gentle. I was using my DRebel.

[EXA1a]

I'd rather use the 85mm 1.8 if you can, but the 50 1.8 will work just fine and it's CHEAP. Or you can take out a loan and get the 85 1.2 or the 135 f2, both optimal portrait lenses.

The 1.6x has more to do with your distance from the subject here than whether or not the focal length is ideal for facial features. 80-130 will still be your ideal range for that regardless of crop factor.

Adam
You are plain wrong and this is not an opinion but a simple fact. I am just asking myself why the same old bu***it comes up over and over again, even from not-so-new forum members who ought to know better in the meanwhile...
--Jens--

[ron chappel]

Quinn is right about distance being the primary factor.
In fact it's a VERY good way to think of it...it applies to any camera you could mention!

And to answer the question-the 50/1.8 makes an excellent portrait lens.
I prefer the 85/1.8 most of the time though-it's identical to the 135mm-on-film look that i've allways loved for head and shoulders shots

[maderito]

Lens focal length, aperture, working distance, and crop factor all influence the final appearance of a portrait subject and background bokeh. The reasons are not obvious. Deductive reasoning often fails to yield correct conclusions.

Moreover, the practical differences can be subtle. See this great example by William Castleman which compares portraits of a mannequin using 85, 100, and 135 mm canon lenses on a canon film body. Challenge yourself to see the differences.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/perspectest.htm

The 85 and 135 mm examples on a film body are roughly similar to 50 and 85 mm on a 1.6 crop DSLR. (I realize that the crop factor changes more than just perspective - but I choose not to get into an argument over the point.)

[rafale]

Just a question for those with the 50 f1.8 on their 1.6x digital bodies ... how does the 50 perform as a portrait lens?

After I got my Rebel Digital last year the 50/f1.8 was the first lens I bought (after the kit lens). I love the lens for portrait and street work. It's bright, sharp, fast, quick to focus and cheap.

[ejwebb]

I have both lenses and prefer my 50 over the zoom for portraits. With the 50 I can get faster shutter speeds at smaller apertures and lower ISO for better sharpness.

[nat869]

I really like the 50mm 1.8 lens for portrait work. It is cheap and very sharp. I do not have a lot of room to work in, so the 50mm is the most I can use. I would love to get the 85mm or 135mm, but could never use them indoors. I did just get the Tamron 28-75 on Wednesday and so far it is very nice, but I will still use the 50mm for my indoor stuff. By the way, I really like my 28-105 lens and plan on keeping it for a while. Check out these links, all the pics were with the 50mm lens.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=42716&highlight=fitness+model

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=45324&highlight=samantha

[Jay Todd]

I find a 50 to be too rounded for tight headshots, and use an 85/1.8 or 200/2.8 instead; although the 50/1.8 wide open is nice for full-length as in the previous post.

[Olegis]

I find a 50 to be too rounded for tight headshots; although the 50/1.8 wide open is nice for full-length as in the previous post.

Exactly. I also find the 50mm a bit "wide" for tight closeups.

[timmyquest]

I find a 50 to be too rounded for tight headshots; although the 50/1.8 wide open is nice for full-length as in the previous post.

Exactly. I also find the 50mm a bit "wide" for tight closeups.

The focus distance of the 50mm is not as close as i'd like it, that i can say for sure.

[Olegis]

That depends on what you're shooting. I believe it's 45cm, isn't it ?

[timmyquest]

That depends on what you're shooting. I believe it's 45cm, isn't it ?

I have no idea, the new plastic version lacks the robust metal mount and scale of the old version.

So, really i dont know. I just know that it would be nice to be able to focus closer with that 1.8 f/stop

[Scottes]

Timmy, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 has a min focus of 1.5 feet, which at f/1.8 yields a DoF of approximately 0.02 inches or 0.5 mm. Do you really have a use for a DoF thinner than an eyelash?

[tofuboy]

That depends on what you're shooting. I believe it's 45cm, isn't it ?

I have no idea, the new plastic version lacks the robust metal mount and scale of the old version.

You can always spend an extra $200 or so for the f/1.4 USM version :wink:

[ron chappel]

Timmy, the Canon 50mm f/1.8 has a min focus of 1.5 feet, which at f/1.8 yields a DoF of approximately 0.02 inches or 0.5 mm. Do you really have a use for a DoF thinner than an eyelash?

I didn't think that looked right! :shock: :D

I eventually got around to finding a DOF plotter online and came up with just under half a centimeter,which sounds about what i see in the pictures

http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

I used the D60 as the base camera



By the way-for those that are interested...the 50/1.8 II has the same minimum focus distance as the 1st version.I just tried them but ( i think) the official specs are identical anyway

[Scottes]

I eventually got around to finding a DOF plotter online and came up with just under half a centimeter,which sounds about what i see in the pictures

I have no idea what I used for numbers last night. I did it again and got 0.4cm.

<scratches head, drinks coffee>

[RichardtheSane]

I'd rather use the 85mm 1.8 if you can, but the 50 1.8 will work just fine and it's CHEAP. Or you can take out a loan and get the 85 1.2 or the 135 f2, both optimal portrait lenses.

The 1.6x has more to do with your distance from the subject here than whether or not the focal length is ideal for facial features. 80-130 will still be your ideal range for that regardless of crop factor.

Adam
You are plain wrong and this is not an opinion but a simple fact. I am just asking myself why the same old bu***it comes up over and over again, even from not-so-new forum members who ought to know better in the meanwhile...
--Jens--

I read this, and I am not entirely sure what you are saying.

If this is plain wrong then what is right? (That would be a good thing to add when stating someone is wrong)

I ask because I see nothing wrong with what Adam posted, it seems pretty accurate to me unless I am mis-reading it.

[Quinn Porter]

I ask because I see nothing wrong with what Adam posted, it seems pretty accurate to me unless I am mis-reading it.

Those that have taken issue with Adam's post disagree with his statement that a lens somewhere between 80mm and 130mm will make a good portrait lens regardless of sensor size.

A lens in this range is considered to be a good portrait lens with a 35mm film camera because it allows you to achieve a subject flattering perspective for traditional head and shoulders shots. When you switch to a different sensor size, you must select a different focal length in order to maintain that same subject flattering perspective. If you switched to a 1.6x crop camera and you stayed with the same focal length lens, it would require you to move farther from your subject, thus changing your perspective.

Perspective is determined by the location of the camera relative to the subject rather than lens focal length.