A couple portraits

[freddycr]

This is my friend Humberto
I took out the nifty-fifty today (first one)
Comments appreciated
Regards


http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/IMG_5649_Medium_.jpg


http://www.dphoto.us/forumphotos/data/500/medium/IMG_5615_crop_Medium_.jpg

[jimchapin468]

Nice pics -- This might sound stupid but what is the nifty - fifty? 50mm lens -- witch one?

[ayotnoms]

Quality photos.
Looks like your lenses are performing as they should.
Kudos to the photographer for using them right. :-)

[freddycr]

Thanks for the comments.
Canon 50mm - 1.8 AKA "nifty-fifty". A very sharp & fast lens, under $ 100 .

Regards

[Learner]

great crisp, sharp shots and the colors are fantastic, really "pops":)

[freddycr]

Thanks a lot learner. Had never used the 50 mil for these kind of "more open" shots, but it's worth it's weight in gold !!

[eljustino]

Great pix, nice light.

Weird bokeh effect in the first though (somehow the blur of the trees looks odd) - over-sharpened or something?

But hey, I think these two are just great!!!!

[freddycr]

You have a sharp eye Justino, the first one was slightly corrected for movement blur. ;)


BTW....Both were taken with fill -flash...AT LAST I GOT THAT RIGHT !!!
I had to increase the flash adjustment in 2 full stops (all the way to the right) to compensate for the diffuser in my Speedlite 420 !!

Thanks for your comments.

[93octane]

Great job pictures look great with the fill flash I need to pratice on that what arperture did you use???

[Andy_T]

The first shot is a nice portrait spoiled by the 50/1.8's peculiar bokeh.
That is, unless you consider it a special effect and like it.
I find it quite distracting, so your eye is drawn away from the main subject.

Best regards,
Andy

[freddycr]

Thanks. Can it be due to the extreme aperture?
I had never used the 50 mil for such a deep BG.

Aperture # 1 .......f/ 1.8 ...Canon 50mm 1.8
Aperture # 2 .......f/ 2.8 ...Canon 24-70 mm 2.8

[Andy_T]

Of course, the wide aperture has something to do with it.

However, the main reason is that the lens is optimized for ultimate sharpness ... and this has a detrimental effect on bokeh. Lenses that allow for a controlled bit of aberration (like your 24-70/2.8 ) allow for a smoother bokeh that looks more pleasant on portraits.
I venture to guess that the fence behind your friend would have looked pretty awful with the 50/1.8.

If you want to look into the details more (and don't have much to do right now :wink: ), take a look at these threads:

Especially pay attention to posts by RDenney, he has undertaken quite a task to educate the forum on the finer subtleties of bokeh :wink:

50/1.8 ugly bokeh (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69785)
Tom W's 50 bokeh test (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70330&highlight=bokeh)
Tom W's 85 bokeh test (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70572&highlight=bokeh)
RDenney's big bokeh test (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70691&highlight=bokeh)
Roanjohn's rave about the 85/1.2 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69022&highlight=bokeh)
Roanjohn's comparison of the 85/1.8 and the 85/1.2 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=70983)
Review of some popular third-party lenses in the 24-70/2.8 range that also includes bokeh (http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/shootout)

5 minutes ago, I have finally ordered my 50/1.4 to upgrade my 50/1.8 MKI :D
As much as I like the lens for its sharpness, the bokeh can be quite weird under some conditions (like backlit trees).
For portraits, this normally made me grab my Tamron 28-75/2.8 instead... no longer :wink:

I had pondered that for quite some time and now am convicted that my wife will not note the different look of the lens.
Hence no major problems are to be expected :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

PS... forgot to add that I really like the second image!

[jfrancho]

5 minutes ago, I have finally ordered my 50/1.4 to upgrade my 50/1.8 MKI :DCongrats! You'll love it.

[Andy_T]

I know :D

was deciding between this and the 85/1.8 (with keeping my 50/1.8 ) but I really like the 50 mm range for portraits.

85 mm is a tad too long to get a shot of my kids when seated together on the breakfast/lunch/dinner table :wink:
(one of my preferred opportunities for taking photos, a bit to the annoyance of my wife, though).

Best regards,
Andy

[InskiP]

[QUOTE=rdenney] Leave a bit (just a bit) of uncorrected SA on top of a sharp image, and the image will still be sharp though it will lose a little MTF performance, but the out-of-focus highlights, instead of having ugly bright edges, will have faded edges.

I must be out of it today, but what does he(RDenney) mean by this? What is SA and MTF?
I have the 50 1.8 and try to shoot w/ smoother backgrounds. I mostly photograpgh babies and toddlers, so fresh cut grass is one example. I know this isn't always possible. And I try to avoid contrasty backgrounds.

[ayotnoms]

... now am convicted that my wife will not note the different look of the lens.

oh oh
... taking photos, a bit to the annoyance of my wife, though

are you admitting to having spouse issues? :D:D

You're going to love the 50 f/1.4
...well worth the money.

Regards

[Andy_T]

are you admitting to having spouse issues? :D:D


Well, not more than anybody else whose other love is photography :wink:

As to the other question - with SA he means Spherical Aberration (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/geoopt/aber.html), an effect that affects the sharpness of a lens. I think it is corrected using aspheric elements.

MTF means Modular transfer function (http://www.sigma-photo.co.jp/english/lens/icon/mtf.htm), basically a measure for the resolution of a lens.

Best regards,
Andy