Hi.

I used to shoot outdoor portraits with Canon F1s and Ftbs using good quality FD lenses.
The pics were very sharp.

Then time came to move to digital, and I decided to get a 400D.

I stuck with the kit lens for a while, until I got the hang of it - the camera I mean - and it was time to move to a good prime.

The idea was getting a 85mm f/1.8 USM, which would be perfect (read: good and affordable) for that kind of outdoor shooting.

But I'm a bit disappointed with the surroundings around here (dull backgrounds) and it's too hot to shoot outside right now anyway, so I'm thinking about turning into indoor shooting.

I have a small home studio (4m x 4m - give or take a couple of cms) so the 85mm is not even an option, considering the studio size and the camera's cropped sensor.

I'm planning to build a studio from scratch, from the ground up, with appropriate dimensions, but that could be a couple of years away...

The thing is, I need something for right now.

I already made my mind about getting a 50mm f/1.4 USM (USD $325.00) for most shots, but I'll still need a wide angle to be able to frame the whole model.

I do have a centered door in the studio I can use to gain some extra distance from the subject, but that's still not practical enough even for the 50mm.

So I need to decide what to buy along with the 50mm to handle the full body shots.

Here are the options I've been toying with:

28mm f/2.8..............$180.00
35mm f/2.0..............$240.00
28mm f/1.8 USM......$420.00

Basically I'll be doing studio portraits with a couple/few flash projectors. Fashion photography.

I need sharp pics and good image quality tone-wise, bokeh, etc. I'll be using flat single color backgrounds mostly, I think, though I'm sure I'll experiment with different materials and textures further down the road.

I wouldn't mind springing for the 28mm f/1.8 USM if it was really worth it, but I hate spending money... So the difference should be noticeable for it to be worth it.

I don't need a fast lens to work probably on f/11 or something, but less light needed for a shot the better, since I won't be using top of the line projectors. Recharge times matter.

I had my mind set on the 35mm f/2.0 but it looks so cheap! Started considering the 28mm f/1.8 USM but I have this feeling I won't be using the wide angle much anyway...

Then I found the 28mm f/2.8 but it's even cheaper...

I really don't know what to do.

Eventually the weather will be suited for outdoor photography again, so I'll buy the 85mm too, later, for the outdoor stuff.

The outcome of the indoor stuff will dictate where I'll be taking most of the pics from then on.

I could really appreciate some feedback from experience users that used some of these lenses.

Thanks,

Publius

You control the perspective of your subject by distance, not focal length. You control framing by focal length.

The "depth" of the subject also matters (the range between the near and far points of the subject). The deeper the subject, the more distance you need to avoid perspective that looks exaggerated.

By my experience, exaggerated perspective is not a problem as long as my distance is at least ten times the depth of the subject.

So for a tight headshot (the head from ears to tip of nose being about 17cm), a distance of at least 1.7m would suffice. But only for a tight headshot showing nothing but the face.

Adding the shoulders turned to 45 degrees to make it a head and shoulder portrait increases the subject depth to around 40cm, which means moving out to 4 meters.

If the model extends a hand toward the lens, that makes the depth a meter and a half--and pushes the distance out to 15 meters to avoid any hint of exaggerated perspective.

So being close means keeping the subject "flat" to the camera. These aren't any kind of precise calculation, and everyone has his own perspective on perspective.

My only point is that it's distance and consideration of the depth of the subject--not focal length--that you have to be concerned with.

Ever think about the Sigma 30mm f1.4? Great lens and a fabulous deal for what you need.

Great advice from RDKirk.
As for a lens for your situation, I'd recommend a used zoom: the discontinued 28-80/2.8L. That gives a good range for portraits on a 1.6 crop body, is a great quality lens, and should cost roughly the same as the 35 and 50 together.

Thanks for the input so far guys.

RDKirk wrote:
You control framing by focal length.

Hence the need for a wide angle and my question about what model to buy.

RDKirk wrote:
My only point is that it's distance and consideration of the depth of the subject--not focal length--that you have to be concerned with.

I see. But like you said, that valid point is a subjective one. And right now my main concern is being able to frame a model standing up. The size of the 'studio' is just something I'll have to deal with. I'm glad I can use the door though, that alone would give me an extra 8m! Too bad doorways are so narrow though...

deeprblue wrote:
Ever think about the Sigma 30mm f1.4? Great lens and a fabulous deal for what you need.

I'll check it out. I do have a bad experience with the 2 sigmas I got from my father though. A wide angle and a 200m. Both primes. Image quality sucked compared to the 3 different 50mm I had (1.8 - 1.4 - 1.2). All Canon. So the plan is sticking with Canon. But I'll check some Sigma 30mm f1.4 reviews after I post this.

Photon wrote:
I'd recommend a used zoom: the discontinued 28-80/2.8L. That gives a good range for portraits on a 1.6 crop body, is a great quality lens, and should cost roughly the same as the 35 and 50 together.

I'm really looking for primes. The only zoom I ever had is the 400D kit lens. I know, I know, I can't judge a zoom lens from using that toy, but still. Image quality is a factor. And I wouldn't buy a second hand lens just like that. It's more like a thing you come across and decide to do, not something you need and just find. A good second hand deal doesn't show up like that. Besides I'd be stuck with eBay (nothing local around here I can use) and buying glass like that, without actually holding it first is too much of a risk.

That and the fact that I have to sort this is out fast, means the second hand market is not an option this time.

And this is coming from a big ebay user.

A short 2.8 zoom would be nice but they do cost a bit. You can get a bit of distortion using wide angle lens's up close though.

that's an extremely unique picture, Gary ! I do notice some barrel distortion in the guy's glasses

Gary Petersen wrote:
A short 2.8 zoom would be nice but they do cost a bit. You can get a bit of distortion using wide angle lens's up close though.

Yep, cost is a big factor here.

kirry007 wrote:
that's an extremely unique picture, Gary !

It truly is a great shot.

deeprblue I checked the Sigma 30mm f1.4. People seem to have mixed feelings about it, but the fact that it can't (apparentely) be used on a full-frame sensor is a big turn off. The only reason I even consider spending a lot of money in lenses (like 3 USM lenses in a row) is the fact that I know they'll be something I can use regardless to what Canon camera comes next...

So I'm still stuck with what wide angle to get. And the factor at play here is the ratio of image quality / cost.

I've owned all the EF lenses you listed and kept the 35/2... very sharp nice lens on crop or FF.

50 mm f/1.8 is inexpensive and on your crop factor camera forms the perfect focal length for classic portrait perspective (equivalent to 80 or 85 mm on a full frame or 35mm film camera).

You will be about 1.5 to 2 m away from the subject, so that can work nicely in a 4 meter studio.

The best answer IMHO *is* a zoom, the 24-70 2.8L.

Unless you have need for a wider max ap, the 24-70 is as good as a prime from a stop or two down and gives huge versatility. Don't be put off by the awful kit zoom the 24-70 is a different animal entirely.

Other than that, go for the 35 f2 or 50 1.8

David

honestly, I would get the 35/2 and the 50/1.8 without a thought...

the 24-70L is a very beautiful, high quality, huge, heavy and expensive zoom... for a studio setting I prefer the small light weight primes... for events, the zoom.

You can get a 50 1.8 for less than $100. Why spend the extra for a 1.4 when you will NEVER come close to wide open in the studio.

I assume that you will be shooting stopped down given a studio enviroment, that already pretty much kills the difference between primes and an L zoom, the primes are better for contrast and technically focusing accuracy but otherwise you won't see much difference. The problem with a lens like the 24-70L is that unless you're very careful you won't be maintaining the necessary distance to avoid distortion, when it's so easy to zoom wider you may find yourself doing that in the heat of the moment rather than taking that extra step back and suddenly you're shooting full length at 24mm and that will be noticeable! Personally I find 50mm (35 on your camera) to be the widest useable for full length frame filling portraits, slipping from 35mm to 28 or 24 is very easy on a zoom, especially when you're under stress...

If you're shooting indoors under studio lights then why are you concerned about bokeh and speed? You don't get "bokeh" from a studio backdrop. And unless you're using tiny, tiny little strobes you're going to be shooting stopped down to control the light anyways. I use the 50 and the 85 for outdoor portraits, but the 24-105 is my studio lens for these reasons.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

ChrisDM wrote:
If you're shooting indoors under studio lights then why are you concerned about bokeh and speed? You don't get "bokeh" from a studio backdrop. And unless you're using tiny, tiny little strobes you're going to be shooting stopped down to control the light anyways. I use the 50 and the 85 for outdoor portraits, but the 24-105 is my studio lens for these reasons.

Chris M
www.imagineimagery.com

This is what I was going to say. Under strobes a nice zoom like the 24-70 or 24-105 will give you fantastic, razor sharp images. And I have found the color rendition and contrast of L zooms to be better than Canon's slower primes. I like the cheap primes for cost/weight but my 17-40 images have a little more wow factor in terms of color.

if you MUST buy new... consider a "cheap" FF zoom like the canon 28-105 3.5-4.5 USM which would be useful than the cheaper primes mentioned here, especially since you are in flux. too short a lens and the "portraits" will have severe perspective & distortion issues. Any shorter full body imho would be detrimental.

the kit lens is terrible and not something to judge any other lens on (except it shows you why you always want USM and FTM) on a lens. Good luck.

The 35 2.0 is a beautiful lens! If you can get past the fisher price constuction, it works wonderfully. I've found it to be amazingly sharp from f/2.0 up to about f/14 or so. Stop down farther than that and you get some remarkable diffraction that looks like the image was sucked diagonally through a taffy pull. For studio work, I'm assuming that you'll be around f/8-f/11 so it's probably a non-issue.

mh2000 wrote:
I've owned all the EF lenses you listed and kept the 35/2... very sharp nice lens on crop or FF.

I'm glad to hear that, as it was my first pick before I started overthinking it.

Monito wrote:
50 mm f/1.8 is inexpensive and on your crop factor camera forms the perfect focal length for classic portrait perspective (equivalent to 80 or 85 mm on a full frame or 35mm film camera).

and

John Power wrote:
You can get a 50 1.8 for less than $100. Why spend the extra for a 1.4 when you will NEVER come close to wide open in the studio.

I'm aiming for the 1.4 because of the USM, the slightly better IQ and I may use the bigger apperture outside, to work around the shadows. Or indoors, elsewhere, under available light. I need some flexibility. Otherwise I'd have no use for these lenses after I manage to put together a proper studio, with more realistic dimensions.

dhphoto wrote:
The best answer IMHO *is* a zoom, the 24-70 2.8L. (...) Other than that, go for the 35 f2 or 50 1.8

Too bad they're not giving those L's away! And keep in mind I'm just going to buy these out of necessity, otherwise I'd get the 85mm 1.8 and just keep shooting outside.

ChrisDM wrote:
If you're shooting indoors under studio lights then why are you concerned about bokeh and speed? You don't get "bokeh" from a studio backdrop.

Because I'll be using the 50mm outside too. I assume I won't have much use for the 35mm outside of the studio enviroment, but I'm sure the 50mm will be always on until I buy the 85mm 1.8. And I do plan to try out more than just flat color backgrounds.

Seth Tower wrote:
The 35 2.0 is a beautiful lens! If you can get past the fisher price constuction, it works wonderfully. I've found it to be amazingly sharp from f/2.0 up to about f/14 or so. Stop down farther than that and you get some remarkable diffraction that looks like the image was sucked diagonally through a taffy pull. For studio work, I'm assuming that you'll be around f/8-f/11 so it's probably a non-issue.

Yes I should be ok. I plan on using the 50mm most of the time. I just need to frame the whole model ever once in a while without having to level a wall. But if my outside shoots are any indication, I'll be shooting closeups and mid-range most of the time. I like faces.

But still, since I deal with female models, I feel the obligation to document the whole thing!

Those are valid reasons for the 50 1.4 but I believe you said in your initial salvo that you wanted a lens for studio use. I d not believe you would notice a bit of IQ difference in the studio at studio apertures.

John Power wrote:
Those are valid reasons for the 50 1.4 but I believe you said in your initial salvo that you wanted a lens for studio use. I d not believe you would notice a bit of IQ difference in the studio at studio apertures.

I need a 50mm prime, period. The fact I'll be shooting in the studio would mean the 1.8 would be enough, I guess, but I need a 50mm I can use outside too. Hence the 50mm f/1.4. with that one I'll be set for all my 50mm needs.

The wide angle I'm just buying out of necessity, because I may have trouble framing the whole model. I won't be using it outdoors, so in this case the apperture is not a factor. Just the cost and image quality. So I guess I'll buy the 35mm f/2.0 instead of the 28mm f/1.8 USM.

Later on, if I figure I'll be shooting outdoors again, I may finally go for the 85mm f/1.8.

But right now I just need a 50mm and a wide angle I can use inside. I just don't want something that won't perform when I need it outside.

The 35 f/2 is a great little lens. I shot it nearly exclusively for a year, and sold it for the 35L. The build of the f/2 isn't that bad. It is the same practically as the 50 1.8 MK1, and better than the 50 mk2 by a long shot. It's a litlle noisy, but I never really had an issue with it.

Go back outside and just open up the 85mm a bit and make that ugly background go away. For indoor stuff though something wider is needed in close quarters.

since you are buying for a 400D, the 35 is not a "wide angle" for you and the 50 is a portrait length lens. The difference between f1.4 and f1.8 is negligible for DOF, better to go longer for outdoors. Frankly, the only reason I see to buy the 50/1.4 over the 50/1.8 is if you think quieter focusing of USM is needed (never mind that the shutter is going to be way louder than the non-USM motor in the 50/1.8) or if you prefer the *look* of the 50/1.4 (after shooting both for years, I realized that more often than not *I* prefer the look from the 50/1.8).

I think that most people who claim that the 1.4 is "much better" than the 1.8 comes from people who started out new to photography with a 1.8 and then as they were getting better "upgraded" to the 1.4... and then don't realize that most of the difference came from them gaining some more experience.

mh2000 wrote : "Frankly, the only reason I see to buy the 50/1.4 over the 50/1.8 is if you think quieter focusing of USM is needed..."

The 50mm f/1.4 also has full time manual focus. Very handy.