1.4 Prime lens
Discussion
I love my 35mm f/2 and use it for candids and portraiture in environments with limited space. Much prefer it to my 50mm f/1.4 in those scenarios. Remember DoF at 30mm will be greater than at 50mm for any given aperture.
Take it you're considering the Sigma 30mm- or do Canon do a 30mm? Sigma rates highly so I hear.
Take it you're considering the Sigma 30mm- or do Canon do a 30mm? Sigma rates highly so I hear.
Cactussed said:
The other issue is that I use the 50mm for a lot of portrait.
With a 30mm, I'm going to have to shove it right up their nostril, and som epeople find that a bit uncomfortable...
Why would you use a 50mm lens for portraiture?With a 30mm, I'm going to have to shove it right up their nostril, and som epeople find that a bit uncomfortable...
Surprised you're not in their nostrils with that, let alone a 30mm.
It makes people's faces look distorted in any case.
Cactussed said:
The flip side is also the better construction on the 1.4 vs the 1.8...
If I could pay £50 more and get the 1.8 with metal mount, I'd be doing that.
Keep your eyes peeled for a s/h 50mm f1.8 mk1, that was a metal mount jobbie and reckoned to be marginally better image quality than the mk2 I believe.If I could pay £50 more and get the 1.8 with metal mount, I'd be doing that.
It depends on what sort of portrait you are taking really what lens you opt for. A 35mm focal length can produce great portraits if you wish to show somebody within their environment. An example is this portrait of Francis Bacon by Bill Brandt:
A 50mm lens can prove very useful too as it is roughly similar to the human eye's perception of perspective and gives no distortion at all. Having said that, I find an 85mm focal length to be perfect for head and shoulder portraits. A 135mm is very good also.
I find wide apertures very useful. It depends on whether or not you'll be working in low light or with flash. Also, a shallow depth of field is very useful for close-up portraits, throwing the background out of focus. I'd opt for the 1.4 if you could as it will be of a superior construction.
As for people feeling uncomfortable, that is dependent more upon the photographer's manner and method of working. If you can put someone at their ease and work surreptitiously you can be a few feet away and they'll not notice you.
A 50mm lens can prove very useful too as it is roughly similar to the human eye's perception of perspective and gives no distortion at all. Having said that, I find an 85mm focal length to be perfect for head and shoulder portraits. A 135mm is very good also.
I find wide apertures very useful. It depends on whether or not you'll be working in low light or with flash. Also, a shallow depth of field is very useful for close-up portraits, throwing the background out of focus. I'd opt for the 1.4 if you could as it will be of a superior construction.
As for people feeling uncomfortable, that is dependent more upon the photographer's manner and method of working. If you can put someone at their ease and work surreptitiously you can be a few feet away and they'll not notice you.
johnfm said:
Why would you use a 50mm lens for portraiture?
Because it's perfect for it, zero distortion and it's just a question of distance from subject. If space is tight then thats a different problem, one not really solved by something like an 18mm eitherI love my 50mm 1.4, much more than the 1.8 - I'm talking about Nikons, not sure what the OP has, but both of mine are the D versions. The 1.8 felt soft in comparison to the 1.4, both wide open. There was enough of a difference in IQ to warrant the extra price tag
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff