Lens for Portriat/Glamour work

[Red]

I always go into a mini-mental battle when I meet someone and they ask me what I do. 9-5 I work as a computer programmer. At weekends or whenever else I'm building up work so that I can become a pro photographer. The quandry comes because as soon as you tell people that you're a programmer there is one of 2 reactions:

1) "Wow. That's interesting" then an awful pause that shows they were lying
2) "Really? You know, my computer at home..." and then some random problem with email/internet/printing/browsing for porn that they expect you to solve in between courses.

Add to this the fact that the IT industry has been totally ruined now that it's popular and the guys who earn the big wages won't just leave us to our own devices in the basement. They want to run the department because IT Director is no longer geeky, but a desirable tag to have at dinner parties.

Telling people you are a photographer gets a much better reaction.

So with the combination of the demise of IT and the desire to have a better answer in order to pick up chics, I am working my way into being a pro fashion/glamour photographer.

I think I'm wise enough to know that to get some work to show and some money to live on I'm going to be doing whatever comes my way at first. Family/pets/school portatits, products, etc, so it needs to be able to do a reasonable jon at that too, if my current kit can't.

At present I have a Digital Rebel with the kit lens, a 24-85mm USM lens that I got with my old IX, a Sigma 70-300mm APO Super Macro II, and a Sigma 70-210mm f2.8 big gun. I'm finding that my pictures aren't as sharp as I'd like, and as I'm seeing posted by others. So either you guys are using the Unsharp Mask more than I realise, or I need to get a lens better suited to portrait work.

I would assume I want a fast prime, and I keep hearing people raving about the 50mm f1.8, but I'll just throw it open to opinions. Be especially interested in what the likes of CharlesU, J.A.F, etc think.

Thanks in advance

Red

[etaf]

on the 300D the 50mm 1.8 lens will act like a 80mm (equivalent lens) 50x1.6 That should be a good portrait lens - and the 50mm lens a top quality and cheap.

I wonder why you are not getting sharp pictures - it could be technique - remember a rough guide to avoid camera shake is to use the nearest 1/focal length as the speed (asumming not an IS lens) so a setting of 200mm you should use a minimum speed of 1/250th - so if you are using your 70-210 at 100mm then a speed of 1/125th is needed - and if you then have to open the aperture you will get a very shallow DoF and need to make sure you focus well.

[FlipsidE]

If you're lookin for a nice, sharp glamour/fashion lens to put on a 1.3 or 1.6 body, the 24-70 L is probably gonna be your best bet. It's not a cheap lens, but it is a NICE lens for that kind of work. As a matter of fact, I think you'll find a good many people on this board that perfer that as their portrait/glamour lens over some of the others people talk about (like the 85 f/1.8 and the 50 f/1.8 ).

FlipsidE

[GyRob]

hang on ! if its set to 100mm with the 1.6 factor its a 160mm so above 160/sec .

[12345Michael54321]

hang on ! if its set to 100mm with the 1.6 factor its a 160mm so above 160/sec .
That's the rule-of-thumb. But please try to keep in mind that many factors can make you less stable than this rule would indicate, so it's not uncommon to need a shutter speed of 1/250 sec. or faster to handhold a zoom set to 100mm, on a camera with a 1.6x pseudo-crop factor, with acceptably sharp results.

Some such factors include environmental conditions such as strong wind or extreme cold, physical conditions including general health, strength, or use of caffeine, technique, weight of camera/lens, size of enlargement of image, etc.

I've occasionally come across people who believe they're incredibly steady. "I can get razor sharp pictures handheld with my 80-200mm zoom at 1/30 sec.," they'll boast.

It generally turns out they're thinking of the 1 shot in 10 that was sharp, and ignoring the 9 that were a little fuzzy. Or they're resting their elbows against a table while taking the shot. Or what they judge "razor sharp" in the 3 1/2 x 5" enlargement turns out to be rather less than razor sharp when viewed as an 8x10" enlargement.

Spend a day taking a variety of photos. For each subject, take one shot handheld, then another (from the same position, just a few seconds later) with the camera mounted on a tripod. Examine the resulting 8x10" prints. You may be surprised just how unsteady anyone this side of death really is.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Red,

Take a look at the -=Top 10=- Lens recomendation sticky thread in the EOS section,. there is a poll of portrait lenses,. where you can see who voted for what lenses... in addition to the obvious numbers of how many votes each lens got.

See what Charles voted for ;)

[KevC]

50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4
85mm f/1.8 :)

[iwatkins]

Of course, if you are shooting glamour/portrait, that usually means studio and strobes. Regardless of what you set you shutter speed to, the actual duration of exposure is the actual duration of the light from the strobes, usually up in thousanths of a second, so camera shake isn't an issue.

Anyway, I'm very happy using the 50mm f1.4 for studio portrait work and I also use the 28-135mm IS to good effect. Both lenses are usually stopped down in the studio to f8 or so, so the 28-135 does give sharp results.

Sure I'm still thinking about the 24-70 f2.8 L, but I don't actually think I need it just now. Even so, remains on my wish list :) Got much less intersting stuff to buy at the moment, like rolls of paper and vinyl for my studio and really, really boring stuff like castors for my product shooting table, insurance for my studio kit, mandatory safety signs, fire extinguishers etc. Yawn !

Cheers

Ian

[Merle]

Red,

In 32 years of Portrait and Wedding photography I have spent hundreds of dollars on filters, lenses and netting in an attempt to soften the sharpness of most lenses. of coarse in the digital age we can use Photoshop.

Use a lens in the ranges of 80 to 120 mm for your best results for portraits (less distortion) and use a tripod. Unless a female is in her teens or early twenties, most women's skin will not stand the test of a sharp lens A sturdy looking tripod will add to your professional look as well. Your professional look is important to your success in attracting and maintaining clients. Get a couple of books with a lot of photographs in the field you wish to go into and study posing. As far as using phtography to attract chicks, I've been married too long and I'm too old to be of any help to you there. ;) :) :D

[mbze430]

I have the 24-70 f2.8L I use it mostly for product shooting. Personally I don't like it that much for people portrait. When I used to have the FD system the 85mm 1.2L and the 135mm were my choice. I am still looking to pick them up for the EF system.

I am old school photographer. So I use filters. Diffusion and SoftFx for women. Last thing you want is to show all the details, unless they are naturally have good nice skin.

Another thing I ALWAYS use is a a reflector for bounce some light from the bottom of the face, this will lighten people with heavy bags from the eyes. With a shadow, the bags looks even more heavy. Makeup helps here.

[Red]

Thanks guys, keep them coming. Even though there's some clashing opinions, the reasons either way are helpful.

Merle, I've actually got myself a new girl, and she supports my photography, so I'm just being a guy and wanting to feel like I've still got my game! :lol:

[chtgrubbs]

I don't want a crisp sharp lens for portraits. That's always a problem when shooting portraits with the Hasselblad. The lenses are so sharp that the images show every blemish and imperfection, so Hassy sells very expensive Softar filters to put on their very expensive lenses so that they aren't TOO sharp. In digital I use the Canon 28-105 USM lens. At the 105mm and almost wide open it is just soft enough wihout losing detail. I imagine your 24-85 would give you similar results.

[HMetal]

I always go into a mini-mental battle when I meet someone and they ask me what I do. 9-5 I work as a computer programmer.
[...]
Telling people you are a photographer gets a much better reaction.
[...]
Red

Hey Red,

As a guy with 3 professions under his hat, I can empathize with you. I am, first and foremost, a Software Developer of almost 20 years. I also graduated (as an adult) from a 3 year Electronics Engineering Technology course and, lastly, I have the SLR/photography bug that you all have. http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif

I get all the standard reactions that you mentioned plus a few more mental ones.

Anyways, I am also getting into glamour photogaphy and have already started to amass a good kit. along with my Alien Bees B800's, I use the Canon 24-70mm F2.8L for portraiture and glamour. I also use other lenses once in a while. When I need to work in a confined space or close quarters, I'll use the Canon 17-40 F4L. I love these two lenses due to their constant aperature; where I can zoom in a out as required without recomposing (assuming the model isn't challenging me by pretending she's at the hop http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)

Check out my gallery (http://www.pbase.com/hmetal/pad/) and be sure to click on February 2005, my most active month yet, where you'll find a lot of recent glamour work with the 24-70 and some others with the 17-40 and even the Canon 50mm F1.8 and the Tamron SP90mm AF F2.8 macro.

[gary_hendricks]

Hi Red

I can totally identify with you on the 'computer programmer' thing. I'm an IT consultant (what a nice title) with a US firm. And I can never describe what is it that I do. Maybe I should follow your footsteps - become a professional photographer.