View Full Version : Best Bodyscapes Lenses?
30th of September 2008 (Tue), 12:58
New to bodyscapes.
I have 3 lenses and want to take some more.
Which one of these should I use? I have a 10-22, a 70-300 and a 50mm.
Which would give the best results? I will be doing a lot of low light photos with rim lighting as wll.
I was thinking the 50mm would be best...
Aside from these lenses, what lenses would be a great addition if I were to purchse one?
30th of September 2008 (Tue), 14:47
with those as your choices, the 50 would be the best. the 10-22 would give a lot of perspective distortion, and you probably wouldn't have enough working distance for the 70-300, although it might be good for closer shots.
I am no G&N expert at all, but those are my quick thoughts.
30th of September 2008 (Tue), 20:33
You can do bodyscape shots with any of those lenses, or with any lens for that matter. It depends on what you want to achieve with the image, however, of the lenses you mentioned, as James noted, the 50mm is the best focal length to achieve the "standard" look for a bodyscape.
30th of September 2008 (Tue), 20:58
Cool, yeah I was thinking the 50 as well.
If you were to pick up a new lens for under $500 what would be your top choices?
30th of September 2008 (Tue), 22:19
Once again, I think you're going about it the wrong way. Define what you need in a lens (focal length, max aperture, build quality, bokeh) and then see what's out there that matches your budget. There are a number of lenses out there that are very good for under $500, but you shouldn't buy them just to buy them. Define your need first.
1st of October 2008 (Wed), 07:17
Well I asked because sometimes I find I dont always get the sharpest images in low light. The 50 works best for me in those conditions but I thought maybe IS would help on a lens. So if there was something similar. Im realy just trying to produce clean sharp images from low light conditions.
1st of October 2008 (Wed), 14:35
well, clean, sharp and low light don't get along very well together. In low light, even with a fast lens, you are typically at high iso, wide open aperture and slower shutter speeds. This means that you will have a more shallow depth of field (less in focus), more noise, and possible motion blur or camera shake to contend with. IS helps with everything but motion blur, so it is nice to have. A fast lens helps with everything except obviously getting more depth of field. Both are nice.
However, a good, fast, IS lens is going to be quite expensive - starting around $1,000.
Mark above is right, you need to be thinking about what focal length and other characteristics you are looking for first and then look at the options that fit your criteria.
vBulletin® v3.6.12, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.