Can't decide which lens to buy for glamour and fashion shots...

[InTheDark]

I find myself doing a lot of glamour work, and fashion. I am about to purchase my first lense since I got my camera. Currently I am working with a 50mm 1.8 EF Mark II lense which takes great pictures but is really limiting. I have read that 85mm and 135mm are the best for shooting glamour, so I would like lense that can zoom to both. I have also had problems where I want to get a shot but due to constraints of not being able to back up any farther I can't get the whole models body in to the picture. So far I have come to two choices; Zoom Telephoto EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM Autofocus Lens (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=183198&is=GREY), and the Zoom Wide Angle-Telephoto EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS... (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=WishList.jsp&A=details&Q=&sku=149629&is=USA)

Please hit me with all the suggestions you can. I would like the normal glamour type images to be captures, but the ability to get more artistic wide angled shots also. My peak for the price is 600 USD. Please help me find the perfect lense! :confused:

[Andy_T]

Well,

come out of the dark :wink: and take a look at this thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=75184).

What is written there about portrait lenses should be applicable to glamour, as well.

Best regards,
Andy

[Wavy C]

Well I would say go for the 28-135 without a doubt. The 70-200 won’t go wide enough for what you want, plus more difficult to use because of short dof and physical size. The range you will use most for glamour portraits is probably between 40mm up to 120mm, so that 28-135mm lens should be nearly perfect for ya.

[tim]

I'd go for the 85mm F1.8 myself. It has an excellent reputation for sharpness, and at F1.8 it can double as a general purpose lens for low light photography. I wouldn't get the 28-135 because it's F4-5.6 (or whatever) is too slow to allow for creative DOF effects. I only buy lenses F2.8 or faster now.

[cmM]

well it depends on how much room you have in your studio. 85mm is great for portraits and such, but a lot of glamour shots are more than that, so you need to either back off a lot or get a wider lens.

[condyk]

Well I would say go for the 28-135 without a doubt.

I think you'll find this too soft throughout and it will really show. The 70-200 is too long given your room constraints. I have owned both of these lenses. Sounds like you need a nice wider zoom lens, or move to a longer room :lol: The Tamron 28-75 or the Sigma 24-70 DG MAcro will be Ok, or even wider depending on much space you really have.

[InTheDark]

I'd go for the 85mm F1.8 myself. It has an excellent reputation for sharpness, and at F1.8 it can double as a general purpose lens for low light photography. I wouldn't get the 28-135 because it's F4-5.6 (or whatever) is too slow to allow for creative DOF effects. I only buy lenses F2.8 or faster now.


That's a very good point. I do like the IS though... Altough after reading the forums for a few hours I have come to the conclusion that I am not going to find a lense that gives me both close up and telephoto ability in addition to a small fstop and price! So, after thinking about what annoys me the most with my 50mm(having to step way far back to get my shot) I am going to go with something that can do 28 to 70, the Tamron 28-70 f/2.8 XR Di LD to be specific. :lol:

I'll just have to pick up something for 135mm later(maybe a nice soft focus). I haven't really needed the 135mm yet because there isn't enough room in my studio(1 car garage) to get far enough away for a full body shot with that kind of lense. It would be nice for outdoor shots though!

Thanks for all the advice guys! I'll be sure to post some pics as soon as I get the lense.

[Croasdail]

I'll second the 85 f1.8. For portrait work it's a gem - and reasonably priced.

[Wavy C]

Yeah, the 85mm, and up to 135mm, is great for head and shoulder portraits, but for three-quarter length or full length shots you will find the 35mm-50mm range easier to use. Yes, the f 5.6 is a bit slower, but if you are shooting in a studio you will probably have it stopped down to f 11 or f 16 most of the time anyway. Outdoors you can easily blur the background on most people shots at 135mm and f5.6.

Wide lenses are great but cost a lot more. For fashion/glamour you will mostly be stopped down to f4 or f5.6 anyway as the shallow depth of field can make it difficult to get a person's face, hair etc all in focus.

[KevC]

Get the 85/1.8 to get the quality of a prime in a zoom, is very difficult without spending much more. The 70-200/2.8 is another option, but extremely heavy (on your arms and your wallet). I'd get the 85/1.8, and the 50/1.8 (tiny cost factor... cheaper combined than the 70-200/4) and that should cover your needs for fashion/glamour.

Good luck!

[Wavy C]

Well the 85mm f1.8 is certainly a nice lens (I've got one :) ) but won't solve your problem of getting more of the person in the frame without having to move back as much as you do with your 50mm.

[Wildewinds]

If you're shooting indoors and you want to take a full body shot, the 85mm would be difficult unless you have a lot of space. I'm sure someone here can do the math, but I think you'd need to be approximately 25 feet away to get a person standing up to fit in the frame (on a 1.6x camera).

For head and shoulder shots, however, the 85mm is great.

I use my Tamron 28-75mm when I need a wider FOV.

[lkorell]

I'm using four lenses primarily:
24 1.4L, 35 1.4L, 85 1.8, and 70-200 2.8L

That pretty much covers all types of portrait situations for me. If I added anything else it might be a 50 1.4 but I don't think it is needed just yet. The 35 is an awesome lens with a great creamy background, and you can't go wrong with the 85, it's one of the best around.

Lou

[InTheDark]

If you're shooting indoors and you want to take a full body shot, the 85mm would be difficult unless you have a lot of space. I'm sure someone here can do the math, but I think you'd need to be approximately 25 feet away to get a person standing up to fit in the frame (on a 1.6x camera).

For head and shoulder shots, however, the 85mm is great.

I use my Tamron 28-75mm when I need a wider FOV.

And how do you find the quality of the Tamron shots compared to the 85? I tried the 85 in the store and it was amazing. I don't want to get any lower quality shots. I can't afford any L glass unless it's under 700. I was thinking about either just the Tamron 28-75 or getting a 28 1.8 and the 85 1.8. Ok, third option... The 85 1.8 and the 35 2.0... Is this going to be good quality or should I just get the Tamron? Has anyone had any experience with the 28 or the 35? If it is not any better than the Tamron at 28 I don't want to waste my money buying it.

Damn! Wouldn't this be easier if we could all just have L glass? :mad:

[Wildewinds]

And how do you find the quality of the Tamron shots compared to the 85? I tried the 85 in the store and it was amazing. I don't want to get any lower quality shots. I can't afford any L glass unless it's under 700. I was thinking about either just the Tamron 28-75 or getting a 28 1.8 and the 85 1.8. Ok, third option... The 85 1.8 and the 35 2.0... Is this going to be good quality or should I just get the Tamron? Has anyone had any experience with the 28 or the 35? If it is not any better than the Tamron at 28 I don't want to waste my money buying it.

Damn! Wouldn't this be easier if we could all just have L glass? :mad:

The last studio shoot I did, I was switching between the Tamron 28-75 and the Canon 85mm. I switched back and forth a few times, so I didn't know which shots were from which lens unless I looked at the exif info. Two of the shots were so exceptionally sharp, I said to myself, "now those have to be from the 85." Well, I was wrong. They were from the Tamron.

Not to say that the 85mm isn't super sharp also. I'm extremely pleased with both lenses.

[tim]

These shots (http://www.mrwild.co.nz/Proofs/Kylie/index.html) were done with the Tamron, mostly at F2.8 and some at F4. The full sized images are pretty sharp.

[InTheDark]

Well the 85mm f1.8 is certainly a nice lens (I've got one :) ) but won't solve your problem of getting more of the person in the frame without having to move back as much as you do with your 50mm.


Hmm, the Tamron has been sold out pretty much everywhere since I started this thread so I have had plenty of tim to do more research. I still haven't made up my mind, but my choices are a lot different right now. I have thought, and thought about this for weeks. I still come to the problem of not having a wide enough FOV, so I am gonna go for a wide angle now and pick up a telephoto later when I can afford another lense. I'm trying to decide between the canon 17-40L f4 and the Sigma 28 1.8. I read on OMP that this guy who had a pretty nice portfolio uses the Sigma for full body shots in his studio all the time, and the L also encomposses the range I need. Do you guys think that the L will be too slow? I will either be outside shooting, or using lights in the studio. I shouldn't be using a faster than 4.0 aperture with wide angle right? I mean wouldn't my DoF be to shallow with a full body shot and a wide open arpeture? I haven't used a wide angle so I don't know. Any advice greatly appreciated.

[Longwatcher]

If you are in the studio with controlled lighting, you should be fine with any aperture although for portraits/glamour, I find I use f5.6 a lot and f4 on occasion. For head shots, you might want a shallower Depth of Field, so in that case may need an f2.8 or better lens.

Outside you have sunlight and tend to have a lot more room so your aperture is not nearly as constrained.

So although I recommend for portraits/glamour you get the 24-70/2.8L and later the 70-200/2.8L and 16-35/2.8L (or a 24, 50, 85, 135 set of primes).
The 17-40/4 will do you fairly well. I would think a single prime too limiting, unless you are constrained by lack of light and need the extra aperture that only a prime can offer.

Just my opinion,

[Adam Hicks]

I'm surprised at all the 85 / 135 recommendations... they're both fantastic lenses, but on a 20D you're talking about 136mm / and 216mm! 136mm is just at the far end of recommended portrait lens lengths to maintain proper profile / features, and the latter is just TOO long unless you're working in a warehouse, and even then you risk flattening faces a bit.

The 50 at your crop factor is 80mm crop, which is really perfect for the 'wide' end of portrait photography (at least by the book.) I'd recommend a 50mm 1.4 and/or the Tamron 28-75 in that price range. If you can't move around, then the Tamron is your option, but assuming you can (and surely you can!) the 50mm 1.4 can't be beat IMO. Full body shots with a 135 are going to be a BIT tough indoors :)

Adam

[InTheDark]

I'm surprised at all the 85 / 135 recommendations... they're both fantastic lenses, but on a 20D you're talking about 136mm / and 216mm! 136mm is just at the far end of recommended portrait lens lengths to maintain proper profile / features, and the latter is just TOO long unless you're working in a warehouse, and even then you risk flattening faces a bit.

The 50 at your crop factor is 80mm crop, which is really perfect for the 'wide' end of portrait photography (at least by the book.) I'd recommend a 50mm 1.4 and/or the Tamron 28-75 in that price range. If you can't move around, then the Tamron is your option, but assuming you can (and surely you can!) the 50mm 1.4 can't be beat IMO. Full body shots with a 135 are going to be a BIT tough indoors :)

Adam

I already have the 50mm 1.8 and it does just fine for 3/4 and headshots in my studio. The problem is that I can't get full body shots. That is why I wanted the wide angle. 50mm is actually 80 and is to long for doing a full body shot. I heard that the sigma 28 1.8 would be good for this. I guess nobody has any experience with this lense?

[InTheDark]

If you are in the studio with controlled lighting, you should be fine with any aperture although for portraits/glamour, I find I use f5.6 a lot and f4 on occasion. For head shots, you might want a shallower Depth of Field, so in that case may need an f2.8 or better lens.

Outside you have sunlight and tend to have a lot more room so your aperture is not nearly as constrained.

So although I recommend for portraits/glamour you get the 24-70/2.8L and later the 70-200/2.8L and 16-35/2.8L (or a 24, 50, 85, 135 set of primes).
The 17-40/4 will do you fairly well. I would think a single prime too limiting, unless you are constrained by lack of light and need the extra aperture that only a prime can offer.

Just my opinion,

I have a 50mm for head shots, so I guess the decision is between the 17-40L and the sigma 28mm. I am really curious if the sigma can do L quality shots. I have heard since it is a prime that it can. I can't really afford anything more than 17-40L because I only have 650 dollars for a lense and I am leaving to China and Russia soon(dont want to miss out on all the beautiful women there).

[Adam Hicks]

Ah well then I'm even MORE curious about all the 85/135 talk :) Canon makes a couple excellent 28mm primes as well that some on this board use. Just be careful to not go too wide and distort the subject! At your crop factor you should be fine though.

Try this SITE (http://www.photozone.de/active/survey/surveyform.jsp?filter=%22brand='Canon%20EF'%20OR%2 0brand='Sigma%20AF'%20OR%20brand='Tamron%20AF'%20o r%20brand='Tokina%20AF'%20or%20brand='Vivitar%20AF '%22&title='Canon%20EF%20(EOS)') for lens reviews... it's typically spot on!

Adam

[Longwatcher]

I have a 50mm for head shots, so I guess the decision is between the 17-40L and the sigma 28mm. I am really curious if the sigma can do L quality shots. I have heard since it is a prime that it can. I can't really afford anything more than 17-40L because I only have 650 dollars for a lense and I am leaving to China and Russia soon(dont want to miss out on all the beautiful women there).

I would expect a prime to be better in terms of quality even a Sigma prime versus a Canon zoom. But what the 17-40 will give you is flexability, which I have always thought far more important as you can't always pick the optimum place to stand for the prime's field of view. It has always been a question is the ZOOM lens has the quality to compete with a prime and from every impression I have gotten the 17-40/4 is very good and should be good enough to compete with a prime in terms of final output.

Just my opinion (noting I have 16-35/2.8L, so don't see a need for me to ever get 17-40)

[InTheDark]

I would expect a prime to be better in terms of quality even a Sigma prime versus a Canon zoom. But what the 17-40 will give you is flexability, which I have always thought far more important as you can't always pick the optimum place to stand for the prime's field of view. It has always been a question is the ZOOM lens has the quality to compete with a prime and from every impression I have gotten the 17-40/4 is very good and should be good enough to compete with a prime in terms of final output.

Just my opinion (noting I have 16-35/2.8L, so don't see a need for me to ever get 17-40)

I agree with you fully, but due to the limitations with the max arp value of 4 I'm going with the Canon 28mm f1.8 Prime! Thanks for all the advice everyone, I have finally made up my mind after 3 weeks and lots of reading!

[lkorell]

The 28 seems like a nice choice. I think though if you are doing fashion you won't want to stand in one place nor have your model standing still. In that case a zoom may be an important addition to your arsenal.

If you do have funds to add a zoom at some time, the 17-40L is a great lens. Yes, indoors the 16-35 is better but if you're doing glamour I'm assuming you are using studio lights? Then the 17-40 is cheaper but certainly no less exceptional.
Have fun!

Lou