5Dmk2 Lens choice for FULL body shoot

Depends on the distance, not the focal length. If the distance is such that the full body is just barely framed by a 35mm lens, it will show some exaggerated perspective.

RDKirk wrote in post #11772060
Depends on the distance, not the focal length. If the distance is such that the full body is just barely framed by a 35mm lens, it will show some exaggerated perspective.

Im not asking which lens is better for a FB portrait, im asking due to the cramped area of a small room which lens would be MORE suitible than the 17-40 so that it doesnt create some unnatural/weird looking issues. Thats i suppose, in a nut shell what im asking!

So for those with the 35mm f2 and 17-40 f4L is using the latter @ 35mm comparable to the prime in terms of quality/sharpness/ving​etting etc etc etc, is it worth the investment?

I think IF im going to get a lens, owing to the budget and such its between the following:

- 35mm f2 @ £200
or
- 28mm f2.8 @ £150 ish


Which would be better? is it even worth using either of these on a FF cam for the specified need? (ye si aknow i can achieve the results on the equipment i already have but i feel using these may elimate SOME issues, if you feel differently please state why, fi you dont mind of course)

50mm. period. I agree with all those that think a 35 or wider is stupid. for environmental portraits sure, but not for any kind of glamour. 85 if you space, which I doubt without being in the hallway. there's a reason pro fashion guys use 200 f2 or longer -- foreshortening. take a lesson in illustration.

mcluckie wrote in post #11774863
50mm. period. I agree with all those that think a 35 or wider is stupid. for environmental portraits sure, but not for any kind of glamour. 85 if you space, which I doubt without being in the hallway. there's a reason pro fashion guys use 200 f2 or longer -- foreshortening. take a lesson in illustration.

Of course, my natural instinct is the 50mm (its my primary lens) but i just worry that the tight space may mean shifting the 17-40 which has all sorts of issues (as discussed)

SO no need to bother with going wider, 50 will hopefully cover it?

I recommend an 800mm, you just have to have a big enough room

Mark Kemp wrote in post #11775043
I recommend an 800mm, you just have to have a big enough room

no i know that lol, i just mean with the room size being what it is, which if you think of a hotel room isnt exactly massive

setsuken wrote in post #11775013
Of course, my natural instinct is the 50mm (its my primary lens) but i just worry that the tight space may mean shifting the 17-40 which has all sorts of issues (as discussed)

SO no need to bother with going wider, 50 will hopefully cover it?

If it doesn't, then you have to readjust your intentions as I said earlier and either do partial body or compact poses.

Or get a bigger room. Or shoot from the bathroom into the main room.

RDKirk wrote in post #11775193
If it doesn't, then you have to readjust your intentions as I said earlier and either do partial body or compact poses.

Or get a bigger room. Or shoot from the bathroom into the main room.

excellent, i will adapt as best i can to the conditions available, i just hope the room we get (not being sorted by me sadly) is one that is large enough.

braidkid wrote in post #11771468
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?"

Rent the second floor...

This thread isn't pointless. If someone wants s suggestion they have the right to ask for help. The only problem is that people that obviously have zero experience shooting boudoir in a full frame camera are give the OP crap advice. No one who has seriously done this would suggest using a 17-40 lens. Can it be done? Yes. Will the woman look as good as she can? Absolutely not.

I shoot this stuff for magazines and I can tell the OP from a lot of experience that anything less than 85mm will start to make the model look heavier than she is. Women don't want to look fat. Period. You want to shoot at 40mm or wider...go for it. It will be the last client you get if any woman sees those pics.

setsuken wrote in post #11775070
no i know that lol, i just mean with the room size being what it is, which if you think of a hotel room isnt exactly massive

Rent a room on the same floor in a hotel across the street ?

MD Steelerfan wrote in post #11776746
This thread isn't pointless. If someone wants s suggestion they have the right to ask for help. The only problem is that people that obviously have zero experience shooting boudoir in a full frame camera are give the OP crap advice. No one who has seriously done this would suggest using a 17-40 lens. Can it be done? Yes. Will the woman look as good as she can? Absolutely not.

I shoot this stuff for magazines and I can tell the OP from a lot of experience that anything less than 85mm will start to make the model look heavier than she is. Women don't want to look fat. Period. You want to shoot at 40mm or wider...go for it. It will be the last client you get if any woman sees those pics.

Cheers for the advice, 50mm is the least i will be using, with the 70-200 being next IF there is room.

setsuken wrote in post #11778122
Cheers for the advice, 50mm is the least i will be using, with the 70-200 being next IF there is room.

There is a corridor you might wanna consider

keyframe14 wrote in post #11778233
There is a corridor you might wanna consider

Of course, perhaps if the hotel isnt just some seedy travel lodge and its some awesome sized apartment style room then the 70-200 will be used (@85mm)

but jsut in case i will bring my 50 mm with me

Highly recommend a 24-70.