File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
I want a new lens for Christmas, preferably a good portrait lens.

I was thinking about the 35mm 1.4

But then they have the 24mm 1.4
and the 50mm and 85mm 1.2

I really don't know which one I should treat myself to.
What's your opinion?
Do you have any other suggestions?
>> Anonymous
I wanna STF lens for my christmas.

wooooooo hoooooooooo!!
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
The only protrait lens on that list is the 85. Also, 135mm.
>> Anonymous
Well, not exactly for portraits.
Just ones that would be good for them.
>> Anonymous
50mm f/1.2 on crop, 85mm f/1.2 if full-frame.
>> Anonymous
Yeah, I have a Mark III 1D
So it's a crop
>> Anonymous
>>298396


not enough for portrait though.
>> Anonymous
Crop wise
My Mark is a 1.3
and my 40D is a 1.6
(Correct me if I'm wrong)
>> Anonymous
Of course you could do portraits with any of them. We don't know what perspective you want, what qualities you like in a lens, visually and ergonomically, or what lenses you already own. So how are we supposed to answer this question?
>> Anonymous
>>298403
You have a 1d, and you don't know shit about what you're doing. Stop showing off to the internet, and make decisions for yourself.

You should know what the fuck you want if you have a "pro" body.
>> Anonymous
Well just about all my portraits are done in a studio.
I'm looking for a lens with a very shallow DOF.
I already own a 17-40 4.0, 70-200 IS 2.8, 100-400 IS 4.5-5.6, and a 15 Fisheye
(All L but the fisheye)

Does that help at all?
>> Anonymous
>>298410
Oh, I'm sorry, I can't ask for opinions from other photographers? Guess not.
All I wanted was a simple opinion on what I should get, since my town doesn't have any good camera shops, I can't try the lens out for myself.
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>298413
>>298413
The 85mm 1.2 is amazing, but it's a) pricy and b) relatively slow focusing due to the massive weight of its glass.

The 50mm 1.2 is worth it if you're shooting wide open. If not, the 1.4 is just as good.

The 35 1.4 is quite nice, same with the 24mm 1.4.

Basically, barring the 50/1.2 they're all excellent choices, assuming it's the focal length you want. Bottom line: Choose by focal length.

Shallowest depth of field of the bunch will be the 85mm 1.2.
>> Anonymous
>>298432
Thanks a ton
I'll take all of it into consideration ^_^
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>298433
Oh yeah - simple depth of field thing:

Given a specific magnification (Say, filling the frame with someone's head) and a specific aperture (say, f/1.2) the longer a lens is, the shallower the depth of field will be.

Hm...anyone have a calculator that lets you enter the focal length, subject size etc and get dof out of it? I'm just wondering how to figure out what dof would be like at 200/2.8 relative to 85 1.2, etc.
>> Anonymous
>>298436
Well, I mentioned that it won't be for JUST portraits. But I still will use the shallow DOF for creative shots.
>> fence !!POey2hdozCZ
>>298436

http://dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

but yeah, at the same subject size, the 85 1.2 is going have a much thinner depth of field than the 200 2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>298432
>>The 50mm 1.2 is worth it if you're shooting wide open. If not, the 1.4 is just as good.

Wrong. The f/1.2 is sharp wide open and up while the f/1.4 is soft at, sharp at f/1.8. At that point you may as well recommend the f/1.8. Not to mention you can use the f/1.2 in 50% of the light as the f/1.4.
>> tri/p/fag !!0YcZMyxo3fF
85 1.2. I'm a Nikon fag, but seeing the output from that lens on a 5D makes my ball hair tingle.
>> Anonymous
Threads like these are why I love my basement. I will spend the rest of my life dicking around with my five computers (all running Unix-based OS's), beating off all over myself to futa porn at 2:00 AM and thumbing trough Perl, Assembly and C compsci books, only to leave my house during the week for 7.5 painless daily hours of writing hideous vbscripts and staring off into space. You don't know peace and inner perfection until you've collapsed on the unwashed, mildewed rug in front of your computer with the bowl of cereal you were eating after fapping impulsively for the fifth time today to the same JAV rape/vomit porn avi and knowing that whatever misfortune may visit you in the distant future, you can die happilly knowing nothing need surpass this moment, even though tomorrow will be better but otherwise no different, just like yesterday. I am complete.

I am /g/.
>> Lynx !!KY+lVSl0s2m
>>298453
/g/ is ^that^ way
>> Anonymous
>>298453
/r/ if you have one for every board.
>> Anonymous
/p/: reading second hand reviews online about lenses you've never used makes you an expert on them
>> Anonymous
>>298539

Some of us just ignore these threads and leave them to it.
>> Anonymous
sometimes you just can't ignore the stupid shit that's being spread around here
>> Anonymous
Get a mildly telephoto lens with a red ring, shut up, and be happy.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>298581

lol wut
>> Anonymous
dude....just get the most expensive..THATS a good portrait lens.
>> Anonymous
200mm 1.8L
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>298654

oh wow, at first i thought you were trolling, then i googled and was like OMFGWTF O_O

man, that's some huge piece of glass
>> $19.99 !OSYhGye6hY
That lens gives EXTREM BORKEH!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mrbokeh/2385609850/
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
fucking hell Canon..

the black one on the left is the 200mm f/2.8, the middle is the 200mm f/1.8, right is 300mm f/2.8 IS

1 1/3 stop faster, 5956874 times moar hueg
>> Anonymous
Too bad you can take a 85mm f/1.8 lens, crop it to 200mm and get the exact same effect for 15% of the cost, 7% of the weight and 100% the image quality and focus speed.
>> Anonymous
>>298664
Yeah, less framing ease but when there's nothing else in the frame besides one subject and blobs, it doesn't really matter.
>> Anonymous
>>298664
YOU LOSE VALUABLE BORKEH THOUGH!
>> Anonymous
wait, would cropping the 85mm actually give the same amount of bokeh as 200mm though?

or is it a bad joke
>> Anonymous
the same AMOUNT of bokeh? lol


SURE IS GEARFAG IN HERE
>> sage rage !3I4SJbCh8M
     File :-(, x)
it is well known that Sony cameras give 1.2x the borkeh of any other camera, due to their maple leaf shutter and superior ISO performance
>> Anonymous
>>298723
that is bullshit, sony has fucked iso
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>298450
The first half of what you said just agreed with me...?

The 1.8 isn't sharp at 1.8 though. What was meant was that if you were shooting at f/1.2 to f/2, the 50/1.2 is better. If you're shooting at f/2 on, the 50/1.4 is better. 50/1.4s have better focus/build/IQ than the 1.8s.
>> Anonymous
>>298847
so if i wanted a 1.8 and the 1.8 isnt sharp at its max apature, should i get the 1.2 so that I can shoot 1.8, since the 1.2 prolly isnt good at 1.2?
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>298849
If you're critical, you'll pretty much always want to be at least a stop down from wide open. The 50/1.2 is good if you're using it in the 1.2-2.0 range. If you typically want more dof than this (or just don't need the light), then I'd have a really hard time recommending it due to the size, weight, cost and aberrations (weird as all hell getting such severe purple fringing even just in a camera shop...).

And just for clarification - the 50/1.2 isn't _bad_ at 1.2. It's actually really quite good, particularly in the center of the frame. It's just that it's not so different from the others, whereas the 85/1.2 is quite different than the 85/1.8.

Honestly, this shouldn't have exploded into such a big thing. Really, here's what you should do: Buy a lens in the focal length you want. Any of these are good lenses and will serve you admirably. Just figure out what you're lacking, and choose that way.
>> Anonymous
Keen in mind Einta is a XSi Rebel faggot who posted his first thread on /p/ about getting a sweeeeet deal on his Rebel kit.

Love those Internet bench photographers. MTF TEST CHARTS MOTHERFUCKER, ULTIMATE RULE
>> Einta !!MWv3ICYobCM
>>299079
Oh yeah. That should be kept in mind. I really _am_ a numbers-obsessed obsessive min-maxer. Sure, I know the ideal apertures (separately for sharpness/cromabs/etc) of each lens I own and spend way too much time reading about equipment. I get paid to do so though, so it's not so bad for me.

And hey! It was sweet, dammit. Prices have dropped and it's still only about $17 cheaper than I paid back in May.

Hm...I just reread your post, and I apologize. The missing comma threw me off. Thanks :)
> Keen in mind, Einta is a XSi Rebel faggot
>> SAGE
     File :-(, x)
>>299079
MTF are so exciting to read, oh just load up on Adderall

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeCanonCamera ModelCanon EOS-1D Mark II NCamera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsPhotographerMichael HolveMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.4Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:11:21 04:44:28Exposure Time1/250 secF-Numberf/16.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating100Lens Aperturef/16.0Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternFlashFlash, CompulsoryFocal Length35.00 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width800Image Height511RenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandard
>> Anonymous
>Sure, I know the ideal apertures (separately for sharpness/cromabs/etc) of each lens I own and spend

This is just good technique. Though I did my own tests without MTF charts, purely visual. Different apertures look different, so of course that's something to take into consideration alongside depth of field, although the latter is more important.

One plus side of small sensors like those in point and shoots is that there's 99% of the time enough depth of field for you to pick any aperture between maximum and minimum just for their other visual effects.
>> Anonymous
>>299090I get paid to do so though, so it's not so bad for me.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH, man. Camera salesman, and proud of it. Awesome.

Good on you to not say you get paid to take photos though. Nothing wrong with selling cameras.
>> Anonymous
>>299090Sure, I know the ideal apertures (separately for sharpness/cromabs/etc) of each lens I own

...? 1 to 2 stops down from wide open. man, that's so hard to remember! -______________-

inb4yeah but then i know when i just need 2/3 stop or 1 instead of going 2 full stops!!!!

you know what? fuck your pixel peeping faggotry, any lens is good enough stopped down a bit. only idiots obsess over shit like this and prevents them from getting good photos
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
     File :-(, x)
28-80 f/3.5-5.6, kitlens of the F60. Quite a crappy lens with baaad cromabs. Not sure about distortion. But at least it's sharp ENOUGH.

Just made this a while ago. Light source is a flash to the ceiling. This is at f/3.5 ISO 100 on the left and f/7.1 ISO 400 on the right. Full res crops on top. 50% crop and resize to 500px wide on the bottom (to emulate a 100% resized to 1000px wide, ie web).

I'd rather have 2 stops less noise or 2 stops faster shutter than 2 stops more "sharpness". The only time I ever stop up is when I'm in shutter priority outdoors or specifically want more DOF or want to do a long exposure.

So yeah, fuck pixel peeping and blah blah.

Camera-Specific Properties:Image-Specific Properties:
>> Anonymous
>>299128
You're in broad daylight, Sunny 16 light, and you'd rather go for a faster shutter speed than a better aperture, assuming it's just going to be focused at infinity and etc. so depth of field doesn't go into it?
>> Project !dashI8UpO.
>>299144
Kinda falls into the "shutter priority outdoors" category I guess.
>> Anonymous
>>299147
What I'm getting at is that, yes, of course, everyone who isn't anal is going to agree that pretty much every lens is sharp enough. But why not try to get the knowledge and put it into practice to get results closer to what you want, whether that's picking this lens over that one, this aperture over that aperture? Not necessarily the technically best, but the one that gives you the results you want? For instance, a lens might be sharpest at f/5.6 but its bokeh is nicer at f/4, and the difference in depth of field is okay with you either way. You could pick either based on the shot.

Of course sensitivity versus noise, shutter speed, etc. have to be balanced, but it's not a good idea to just leave one part of the equation at some default, whether that's the sharpest aperture or wide open or whatever.