which lens,

[hurkmez]

hi all,

i have Canon 50D and Canon 50mm f1.8 now. Before than i used canon 40D and canon 100mm f2.8 macro, canon 50mm f1.8 lenses about 2 years. and i pleased a lot to prime lens quality.

These days i want to buy wide angle lens for indoor portraid photography. i didn't decide to buy which lens. i look these

Canon 17-40L f4
Canon 24mm f2.8
Canon 28mm f2.8
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Sigma 24-70 f2.8

Can you give me advise to these lens. And then which lens more sharp anothers.

Thanks,

[Amberglass]

hi all,

i have Canon 50D and Canon 50mm f1.8 now. Before than i used canon 40D and canon 100mm f2.8 macro, canon 50mm f1.8 lenses about 2 years. and i pleased a lot to prime lens quality.

These days i want to buy wide angle lens for indoor portraid photography. i didn't decide to buy which lens. i look these

Canon 17-40L f4
Canon 24mm f2.8
Canon 28mm f2.8
Tamron 17-50 f2.8
Sigma 24-70 f2.8

Can you give me advise to these lens. And then which lens more sharp anothers.

Thanks,

I can tell you right now that when I use Canon, the 17-40 f4L pretty much lives on my camera. But you will need flash for indoor portrait work, unless you have a lot of available light. It's Canon's lowest priced L lens of it's line and be warned; this will clear the way to a condition known as "L envy". The optics, build quality, and performance is to "envy after".

But if you're after primes and more on a budget: recommendations would be for Canon line are 28 mm f1.8, 50 mm f1.4, and 85 mm f1.8.

[rogerb]

I can tell you right now that when I use Canon, the 17-40 f4L pretty much lives on my camera.

Yes, that 17 - 40 f/4L is one sweet lens and it will spoil you. It was my first "L" lens on my 30D and yes, it has led to a few more since

However if you're planning on doing portrait photography, I would think that you would need a longer lens with larger aperture. Many portrait photographers are using 85 f/1.2 ($$$$) and 100 f/2.8 mm lenses on their f-f cameras so maybe the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 (f-f equivalent of 38 - 112 mm) might be a better choice, purely from a focal length point of view. I have no first hand knowledge of the quality of that lens.
And, as Amberglass mentioned, you might also consider the Canon 50mm f/1.4 (80 mm equivalent) for low light and shallow dof performance (although it's very soft at f/1.4!). I have one and it's a great lens at f/2 on up.

However these longer lenses need more room to work in so you'd have to make that determination.

Roger

[hurkmez]

i want to buy ff. but these days i can't.

in my mind to equipment,

Canon 5D mark ii
Canon 70-200 f4 L or is version. when i decide i bought immediately
Canon 50mm f1.4 i bought and it's on the way.
and wide angle lens maybe canon 17-40 f4 L

but i read some user review about 17-40. and than they said it's not sharp lens enough. and i can decide which wide angle,

thanks for your advice,

[Colin Southern]

but i read some user review about 17-40. and than they said it's not sharp lens enough. and i can decide which wide angle

Don't believe everything you read; the 17-40 is just fine in the "sharpness" department. Correct sharpening technique is essential for any photo though, which will make 10 times the difference compared to the difference in sharpness between any two quality lenses.

The bit that's bothering me though is why you're considering using something that wide for portraiture? The compression offered by a telephoto lens in the 200mm region is probably the most flattering - Typical portrait lenses in the 85-135mm range are good, but portraiture in the 17-40mm range (even on a crop-factor camera) is going to give very unflattering results for many types of shots due to perspective distortions and other issues.

I have a EF16-35mm F2.8L USM II lens which I love dearly, but it never makes it out of the camera bag when I'm shooting portraiture (I normally use a 70-200/2.8L, or an 85/1.2L for portraits).

[Amberglass]

The bit that's bothering me though is why you're considering using something that wide for portraiture? The compression offered by a telephoto lens in the 200mm region is probably the most flattering - Typical portrait lenses in the 85-135mm range are good, but portraiture in the 17-40mm range (even on a crop-factor camera) is going to give very unflattering results for many types of shots due to perspective distortions and other issues.

I have a EF16-35mm F2.8L USM II lens which I love dearly, but it never makes it out of the camera bag when I'm shooting portraiture (I normally use a 70-200/2.8L, or an 85/1.2L for portraits).

When many people talk or think about "Portrait" photography, often times studios shots or candid locations with use of shallow depths of field (background out of focus) comes to mind. But there is another side to portraiture work known as "environmental"; where wider lenses (17-35 mm), smaller apertures, and yes, the distortion/angle of wide lenses are used to give a unique perspective on the final image.

By photographing a person in their natural surroundings (like home or work place), it is thought that you will be able to better illuminate their character, and therefore portray the essence of their personality, rather than merely a likeness of their physical features. The individual(s) photographed in their natural surroundings, the subject(s) will be more at ease, and so be more conducive to expressing themselves, as opposed to in a studio, which can be a rather intimidating and artificial experience. Environmental photography genre is often times correlated with travel, corporate, and documentary photography.

[arith]

This looks quite nice for landscape or even portrait on a 50D

http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Prod..._USM/index.asp

[hurkmez]

By photographing a person in their natural surroundings (like home or work place), it is thought that you will be able to better illuminate their character, and therefore portray the essence of their personality, rather than merely a likeness of their physical features. The individual(s) photographed in their natural surroundings, the subject(s) will be more at ease, and so be more conducive to expressing themselves, as opposed to in a studio, which can be a rather intimidating and artificial experience. Environmental photography genre is often times correlated with travel, corporate, and documentary photography.

Yes, i thinks so like that. And then i want to buy a little wide angle lens. İf i want to take head i can use 50mm (with 1.6 crop factor it's 80mm). and i'll buy 70-200 too.

wide angel ? + 50mm + 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f4 is

thanks for your all comment,

[Colin Southern]

When many people talk or think about "Portrait" photography, often times studios shots or candid locations with use of shallow depths of field (background out of focus) comes to mind. But there is another side to portraiture work known as "environmental"; where wider lenses (17-35 mm), smaller apertures, and yes, the distortion/angle of wide lenses are used to give a unique perspective on the final image. [snip]

I agree entirely - my biggest concern was that if someone only has a WA lens, then that's the only types of portraiture they'll be able to do with it. Fine if that's what they're into, I'm just concerned that many think that they can do standard "head and shoulder" type portraiture with it, which just isn't going to work (Hurkmez did say originally "These days i want to buy wide angle lens for indoor portraid photography.").

[Amberglass]

Yes, i thinks so like that. And then i want to buy a little wide angle lens. İf i want to take head i can use 50mm (with 1.6 crop factor it's 80mm). and i'll buy 70-200 too.

wide angel ? + 50mm + 70-200 f4 or 70-200 f4 is

thanks for your all comment,

In regards to "wide angle" primes for environmental portraiture work; primes in the range of 24-35 mm with f stops of 1.8-2.8 are preferred (on full frame bodies). Ultra wides on FF sensors for for portrait (environmental or otherwise) you will loose too much in details because they "over exaggerate what you see". On a crop sensor, I loved having the 17-40 f4L on my Canon 40D for street and environmental portrait photography because it gave me the range of 27-64 mm (wide to standard range, 80-100 is medium telephoto). Yes, that also includes interior or indoor photography as well. You can still take and include 3/4 head and torso to full body shots within the 17-40 mm range on a crop sensor.

The reason why many portrait photographers prefer telephoto lenses is because of the "angle of view" or "narrower angle of view" to be more specific. With telephoto lenses you get less of the background, you're farther away from your subject which allows for a "personal space" for your subjects. Wide angle lenses are just the opposite and includes more of the background. But WA lenses unique angle of view can used successfully in "typical portrait work" and used successfully if properly composed to exaggerate certain features, and I'm not talking about the "classic bubble head look".

Photographer Platon is the perfect example of a photographer who prefers to use wide angle lenses in portraiture work, and have done so successfully including studio work. http://www.platonphoto.com/portraits/arts/index.html

[hurkmez]

Hi Colin,

your advise complately right. but i didn't give enough info. about What i find. (sorry my english not so good.)

hi Amberglass, i'll look link and then write