5Dmk2 Lens choice for FULL body shoot

Yes flash lights etc will be used, i only worry about distortion in comparison to the prime 35, ive read there is still some with the prime hmmmm!

setsuken wrote in post #11768256
Yes flash lights etc will be used, i only worry about distortion in comparison to the prime 35, ive read there is still some with the prime hmmmm!

Exaggerated perspective (not actually "distortion"--it's how things really look) is a matter of distance, not focal length. It's not a lens' fault, it's a photographer fault.

You need more distance--you need a bigger room.

Maybe I'm confused about what the OP wants to shoot but I was under the impression that he wants to do a Valentines shoot with a woman in a hotel room. Not sure what the people in this forum are smoking but you DO NOT want to shoot portraits with a wide angle lens! Not sure I can make this any clearer. 35mm lens on a full frame camera? Are you joking? This is not a wedding where you want to get the whole room in the shot. It sounds like she wants nice (maybe sexyish) pictures of herself for her boyfriend or husband. You don't shoot that stuff with wide angle lenses. In order to make a person the center of the image you are not looking to have them small in the room. If you you get close to a person with a 35mm lens in order to fill the frame with them they will look terrible. If you don't want them to look bad then you will have to back off. That's fine but if you back off with a wide lens the person will be small in the shot and you will see tons of environment and little of the person filling the frame.

Trust me...women are more picky about how they look than you will ever be. If you can not shoot 85mm or longer on a ff camera she will look heavier than she actually is. Go get a used Canon 85 1.8 and you are all set. That is the best portrait lens for around $300 that you will find for a FF body. Anyone telling you to go buy a 24mm lens has no clue about shooting portraits. I seriously doubt she is looking for artsy shots where one part of her body looks massively elongated or large. That kind of thing lends itself to wider focal lengths. Not what she wants...I'm pretty sure.

MD Steelerfan wrote in post #11768627
Maybe I'm confused about what the OP wants to shoot but I was under the impression that he wants to do a Valentines shoot with a woman in a hotel room. Not sure what the people in this forum are smoking but you DO NOT want to shoot portraits with a wide angle lens! Not sure I can make this any clearer. 35mm lens on a full frame camera? Are you joking? This is not a wedding where you want to get the whole room in the shot. It sounds like she wants nice (maybe sexyish) pictures of herself for her boyfriend or husband. You don't shoot that stuff with wide angle lenses. In order to make a person the center of the image you are not looking to have them small in the room. If you you get close to a person with a 35mm lens in order to fill the frame with them they will look terrible. If you don't want them to look bad then you will have to back off. That's fine but if you back off with a wide lens the person will be small in the shot and you will see tons of environment and little of the person filling the frame.

Trust me...women are more picky about how they look than you will ever be. If you can not shoot 85mm or longer on a ff camera she will look heavier than she actually is. Go get a used Canon 85 1.8 and you are all set. That is the best portrait lens for around $300 that you will find for a FF body. Anyone telling you to go buy a 24mm lens has no clue about shooting portraits. I seriously doubt she is looking for artsy shots where one part of her body looks massively elongated or large. That kind of thing lends itself to wider focal lengths. Not what she wants...I'm pretty sure.

Yes thats what im shooting, i already have the 70-200 L which is quite good for the 85mm. failing that the 50 should suffice wouldnt you agree? i may do a few wide shots just as a 'fun' one but the majority needs to be with the 85/50 yes? 50 on a ff should suffice then? ive done entire weddings on that lens and its always been grand

50 is a good lens for shots where you want to get a bit of the environment in. For the shots where you want the woman to fill the frame I'd go with the longer lens. It's just more flatting especially for women who are always conscious of how they look. I have used a 50mm a few times for a whole shoot and if the woman is at the wrong angle she will look heavy.

http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …sdistortion/str​ippage.htm

See that link...Can't get any clearer than that!

setsuken wrote in post #11768686
Yes thats what im shooting, i already have the 70-200 L which is quite good for the 85mm. failing that the 50 should suffice wouldnt you agree? i may do a few wide shots just as a 'fun' one but the majority needs to be with the 85/50 yes? 50 on a ff should suffice then? ive done entire weddings on that lens and its always been grand

As I said before, exaggerated perspective is a function of distance. A 50mm lens is long enough that it will force you far enough away from the subject (to frame her full length) that the distance will give you normal perspective in most cases.

It's still pretty close, however, if you don't keep the subject in one plane perpendicular to the sensor. That is, even with a 50mm at a distance that just barely frames the entire body, if you have one part of the body extending toward the lens (like an outstretched arm or foot) that portion will still show exaggerated perspective. If you pose the subject so that her body is at an angle to the camera, you'll still see exaggerated perspective.

The only "cure" for that is more distance from the subject.

From my experience, no part of the body should be closer than about 90 percent of the total distance to the camera in order to avoid exaggerated perspective. Thus, for instance, let's say her arm is two feet long. If she stretches her hand toward the camera, putting her hand two feet closer to the camera than the rest of her body, my total distance needs to be no less than about 20 feet to avoid her hand looking noticeably too large.

Or looking at it another way, judge the "depth" of the subject (nearest point of her body to the camera to the farthest point of her body from the camera) and make your distance no less than about ten times the subject's depth.

So in tight quarters, you have to be very careful about keeping the subject "flat" to the camera. If you can't do that, resign yourself to less than full body shots, or put your subject into "curled" poses.

MD Steelerfan wrote in post #11768733
50 is a good lens for shots where you want to get a bit of the environment in. For the shots where you want the woman to fill the frame I'd go with the longer lens. It's just more flatting especially for women who are always conscious of how they look. I have used a 50mm a few times for a whole shoot and if the woman is at the wrong angle she will look heavy.

http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …sdistortion/str​ippage.htm

See that link...Can't get any clearer than that!

Very interesting link. To my eye, the 135mm image is most natural, and that should put the subject with that framing at about six or seven feet.

Agreed. 135 is a great length and looks fantastic for portraits. The only problem will be that getting full length at 135 will require a very large room. Shots taken with 135mm do tend to look great though. The 135 f2L is my favorite lens and I use it if I am able to back off enough. It just makes great pictures.

We have to remember a hotel room, though...maybe a used or rented 24-105? Assuming good lighting, not ambient lighting?

tonylong wrote in post #11768989
We have to remember a hotel room, though...maybe a used or rented 24-105? Assuming good lighting, not ambient lighting?

As I said earlier:

So in tight quarters, you have to be very careful about keeping the subject "flat" to the camera. If you can't do that, resign yourself to less than full body shots, or put your subject into "curled" poses.

So the OP said he's going to use flash and he owns a 17-40. Why on earth are people suggesting 24-105 or primes? Distortion can be easily fixed PP.

You have the lens you need and are wasting money buying another lens at the same focal length. The only thing a prime will do for you is give you more control over depth of field.

these threads are pointless


you could do a full body shot with a 200mm if your far back enough... then you have the other 500 choices in between.

I second getting a bigger room. Maybe 2 rooms with a doorway in between. I wouldn't shoot with less than 50mm inside in a full-frame camera for a serious portrait.

mdgrwl wrote in post #11770344
these threads are pointless

Totally agree, but sometimes entertaining.

This question is the same as asking..."I have a two story home with stairs but can't get to the second floor, what should I do?"

MD Steelerfan wrote in post #11768627
Not sure what the people in this forum are smoking but you DO NOT want to shoot portraits with a wide angle lens! Not sure I can make this any clearer. 35mm lens on a full frame camera? Are you joking?

Did you miss the part of the thread title where the poster is talking about FULL BODY shots? Everything you said makes sense for head and shoulders and maybe upper torso "portraits", but are you seriously worried about perspective distortion at 35mm for a full length body shot?