Lens help needed

[Adam Lewis]

Hi everyone,
I'm after a new lens for portraiture, head / head & shoulders is all that's required, and to be used as a generally lighter lens as a walk-around (as my walk around now is the 28-105 , which is a lump and when camera is hanging upside down, it zooms and extends..)
I don't really need a huge maximum aperature, the portraits will be done with enough lighting and the background will be a plain white - my girlfriend is a makeup artist and I've (stupidly) volunteered to do her some not-so-professional shots to be used for her own reference/showing clients variations of makeup styles - along with her professional shots.
I've got the 600d, so the crop needs considering..

So I've been looking at the 50mm 1.4 USM lens - which would mean an 80mm lens - and costs around £260-275 online.
Or the other option is the 40mm 2.8 pancake STM lens - which would be 64mm - and can get for £130-150 online

I'm not too fussed with the speed of focusing, I tend to manual a lot recently, though on the streets may use AF .
Bonus of the 50 for me would be the focus window - just for reference, and the fact that it can open up a lot wider. Disadvantage, the added £120 or so, and the fact that it would become an 80mm.
Advantage of the pancake - the cost, the fact it weighs almost nothing & it'd be 64mm ..

But I need help deciding, is it an obvious answer? I think I just need reassurance on my purchase?

Thank you
Adam

 

[Hamish Gill]

Have you concidered the 50mm 1.8?

 

[Adam Lewis]

I have yeah, but optically the 1.4 is better in comparison shots to the 1.8 .. Hence the preference to the 1.4

 

[Pete Askew]

I would go for the 50mm as it would give perfect focal length for those head and shoulders shots and, although you say the large maximum aperture is not critical, it will offer great opportunities for shooting under more delicate lighting conditions.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

Hi Adam,

The 50mm 1.4 USM will give you some lovely DOF effects and is a nice effective focal length for portraits on a crop sensor.

It's not fast for AF - but as you point out, that's not an issue.

The emotion you can get into each shot with this lens is worth the extra cash IMHO.

Here's the 50mm f1.4 on the 1DMKII and 5DII

The only better prime lenses on Canon for the sort of work you're talking about are the 50mm f/1.2L and the 85mm f/1.2L - and they are better, but the faster glass really pumps up the price!

Hope that helps?

 

[Adam Lewis]

Thanks everyone for your input.

Pete - the lighting really isn't an issue, it'll be in a bright enough room as it is, even without me including the additional lighting. And wouldn't the 40/64 just mean ill have to move the 16mm equivalent closer?

Chris - thanks for including the shots, and I really like the idea of the extra DOF control. Would I find much difference with 1.4 to 2.8? I know in number terms, it's double. But would it literally make twice the level of bokeh? Or am I being thick? And yes, I'm sure the L lenses would be spectacular, but I don't have that budget as a student whom may I add, has no job lol.

I'm torn, £120 isn't a massive amount of difference to the working man (or woman) but for the income-less... It is a good month of allowance lol

Does anyone have the 40mm? Or know anyone that has it?

 

[Pete Askew]

The difference in focal length is not great but it will make a difference to the look of the shots and will have an impact on DoF. The big difference is the maximum aperture though. The F1:1.4 has 4X the light gathering power of the f1:2.8 (2 stops difference) and the impact on DoF will be very marked. As you can see from the intimacy that Chris has achieved in his shots, it can make areal difference beyond just its ability to work in lower light.

 

[Chris Dodkin]

What Pete said

Big difference in the look and feel of the images from 2.8 to 1.4

Here's f/2.8 for comparison

 

[Larry Bolch]

Formal portraits generally are shot with 85mm-135mm equivalent lenses. At the long end, nice perspective and a disconnect between viewer and subject. At the short end a bit more intimacy, though one needs to be careful with extreme close-ups. Informal portraiture generally is done with shorter lenses for intimacy over idealized perspective. Environmental portraiture is the playground of superwides and shift-lenses. The wider the lens, the more dramatic the image but the greater chance of blowing it entirely. Very brave fashion photographers may favour superwides, while corporate head-shooters will go for the long end, assuming no one wants to be intimate with a CEO.

The difference between a 64mm and 85mm may be 20% more intimacy—if such a factor can actually be quantified. The 80mm just barely makes it into the formal and detached category.

The answer is in no way obvious—one step back or one step forward, pretty much equalizes the field of view. Subjectively, the relationship between photographer and subject will overcome the difference between intimacy and detachment. The f/1.4 lens makes isolating the subject easier, but if used indiscriminately can mean the right eye is in focus and everything else is mush. Fine if that is the intention, but a ruined picture if it is not.

 

[Hamish Gill]

I think folks have covered this but faster lenses are not just for low light but also for narrow dof...
but, narrow dof is surely not the main goal here.

My recomendation was based arround cost and suitability for the job.

the 40mm is arguably to short to get the desired effect if you are after flattering slightly more formal shots (which is what would probably be recomended for the end goal)
As Larry points out, the 85-135 focal length is the more traditional choice for such things.
If I were to have this as a job I would use my 70-200 2.8 and probably use as small an aperture as te light would allow ... f4 - f8 would yield the most consistantly sharp results.

The 50mm is the cheapest option to get you as close as possible to the sort of focal length ... And the 1.8 is cheapest cheap! Cheaper than the 40mm
It is also plenty sharp enough - dont belive the shite you read online!

else, despite the mentioned problems you 28-105 is actually probably a more appropriate choice for the job than any of these lenses ... Shot at the 85mm mark it will give results that are very flattering to you girlfriends handy work! And as you don't need fast apertures either for speed or dof ...
To my mind you are looking for something you already have!

on the other hand... If you want another lens that will open a lot of creative possibilities you don't already have and or feel that you would like to be less traditional with the way your gf presents her work then go for the 50mm 1.4 (if you insist that the 1.8 won't do ) ...

I probably wouldn't bother with the 40mm on a cropped sensor camera ...
It's a lovely fov on full frame cameras ... But I don't really see the point in it on cropped cameras ...

- - - Updated - - -

Here ... This might help
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

 

[Adam Lewis]

Thanks everyone, the difference in DOF is noticeable - So thanks for the example.
Yeah perhaps hamish is right, I may well be looking for something I could already achieve, though I think at around 85, the lens is around 4-4.5, so might need to step to 6-8 for sharpness..

If I got the 50mm 1.4, would I just lust for the 1.2L , and then be disappointed that I got the 'second-best' so to speak?

Thanks to everyone for your thoughts and help, ill give it a go with my current lens and see how it turns out, the shots are not needed to look professional, they are just for her own reference or for showing variations of makeup looks. (Which will be on ipad). They just need to look better than as if they are taken on a compact camera set to 'auto' lol.
She's freelance too, doesn't do corporate etc, just a local makeup artist for special events/nights out... Which isn't big money, hence the no printing.
She's also taking the niche of having non-retouched photos too, but she's brilliant so doesn't need touching up anyway... So the pics arent expected to look like a 'professional magazine shot' where everything is retouched to death, so I've got the leverage of not needing to be perfect.

Anyway I'm waffling. Like always.

Thanks everyone , highly appreciated!
Adam

 

[Larry Bolch]

Considering the requirements of the shoot, and the fact that you already have a 28-105mm, you can get the best advice possible just by testing it. While doing so, don't make a big thing of checking out the focal lengths. Instead, find the most comfortable working distance for both you and the subject, shoot for the best looking head-shots and after the shoot, do an in-depth evaluation.

See what focal lengths you actually used—that will tell you a great deal about what lens you should be looking for. It may also tell you that you already have the best choice—the lens covers the whole range of studio portrait focal lengths. You will have tangible samples shot under the exact circumstances for which you are planning. Since it is your girlfriend that will be your collaborator, through testing, you can iron out any potential problems well prior to getting into actual shooting.

While this is totally a professional approach, there is no reason why an enthusiast can not do the same thing. It allows you to explore ideas, solve problems, refine the process and so on in a no-stress situation. If something does not work, that is great! You will have found a problem in advance for which you can find a solution. Once you start doing the actual reference shots, the results will be far better, and the the shoots will be way more fun.