p.2 #2 · Anyone using 40mm STM on a cropper for portraits
Pixel Perfect wrote:
Macros and portraits don't mix. Lot's of people won't like seeing their flaws in such hi-definition - there's no hiding them wrinkles and what not.
I've heard some people say that and I'm not sure about it… You can always take out detail, can never put it back in. Lots of people use the ZE 100/2 MP for portraits, same with the EF 100/2.8…
p.2 #3 · Anyone using 40mm STM on a cropper for portraits
umihoshijima wrote:
I've heard some people say that and I'm not sure about it… You can always take out detail, can never put it back in. Lots of people use the ZE 100/2 MP for portraits, same with the EF 100/2.8…
p.2 #4 · Anyone using 40mm STM on a cropper for portraits
Near / far perspective (i.e. big nose / small ears) is a function of shooting distance, not focal length. The rule of thumb for using 85mm - 150mm lenses for portraits on 35mm (FF Digital) is a result of that range creating in-camera crops ranging from loose H&S to tight head only shots from a shooting distance of 8ft. where perspective in the photo matches facial proportions typically seen by eye..
You see the difference in facial rendering in any series of full length, H&S, and tight head shots taken with a single focal length lens. The face in the full length shots taken from further away are usually more flattering than the close-ups from closer than 6ft. I use my 24-70mm for most portraits because I can shoot crops from full length to H&S all from the same 8-9ft shooting distance so the facial proportions.
A 40mm will work OK from a shooting distance of around 7-9ft. (loose crop in camera) but of you move in closer to crop in camera you'll find the nearer nose will be rendered larger than what seems "seen by eye" normal.
p.2 #5 · Anyone using 40mm STM on a cropper for portraits
If I could pick up a 40 for the price of the 50/1.8, I'd do it just for the fun of it. But I missed that sale so I can't see doing it until a similar opportunity rolls around again. But for professional portraiture on a crop, why do anything less than the 50/1.4? $100 more? The 40 is ~$100 more than the 1.8 and, from testimony here, no better. For ~$100 more than the 40, you can have a seriously better lens with the 1.4 (for portraits, at least.) The MUCH shallower DOF available with the 50/1.4 would put your work ahead in many shots. If you can't spend more than the 40 and can't stand the "thrifty fifty" build, track down an older metal bodied 50/1.8 for about the same coin. Absolutely, positively, optically identical to the new plastic one.
If I was cash strapped and gunning for portraiture, I'd get the 50/1.4 (used) and use whatever is left over to get a used body, even if it meant dropping to a 30D (though I'd do my best to get a 40D.) The lens is THAT important.
