Portraits:85mmv50mm+DoublervTamrongreenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon FD : One Thread
I have an AT-1. I want to take photographs of actors: i.e. faces only. Was using Cannon 50m, but it gives slight fish-eye. Read somewhere that 85mm = ideal portrait lens, but can I just use a doubler (already have) on the 50mm lens I already have to make it a 100mm? Is such a doubled 100mm lens good enough for portraits to mean I can get professional results without expensive 85mm upgrade?
Second question, were I to buy an 85mm lens, is the one for £249 in York Cameras (a Cannon lens) which is in Mint condition overpriced? Jessops are sending me one for £150 to inspect (both are F1.8)... and so that saving of 100 would be appreciated... is it likely to be naff? An maybe even buying a Tamron T90 (described as SHARP) or a Cannon 100 would be good ...
Hmm I'd appreciate any thoughts very much as I am not vastly experienced! Thank you in advance for any time spent pondering this.
Gwyn Evans email@example.com London
-- Gwyn Evans (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 02, 2001
I used to shoot actors' headshots with a Tamron SP 90/2.5 Macro and I quite liked the results. The actors sometimes found them a bit too sharp, so you might think about that. 249 UKPounds seems a bit much for an FD 85/1.8, but the lens should be fine for your purposes.
If you already have a doubler, try it out and see if you like the results at the f-stop you would likely use for this purpose and the planned enlargement size.
-- David Goldfarb (email@example.com), March 02, 2001.
I have never used a 2x teleconverter, but from what I've read they take away 3/4 of the light and reduce the quality of the photographs.
I think you will need all the light you can get for photographing actors during a performance at a theatre where flash photography is usually prohibited and the actors are walking around.
I think you should be able to buy a used 100mm/2.8, 135/2.5, or 135/2.8 for around $100 US.
-- Howard Z (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 06, 2001.
Thanks for the responses. In response to Greenspun's comments, the photos are for actors' portfolios and therefore won't be taken during a performance. They will be outdoors in broad daylight.
I fitted the tele-converter and it seemed to cut out a lot of light. The film is currently being processed and I will post what the results look like in order to enlighten any other interested parties.
Thanks all for taking the time to reply, I am very grateful!
-- Gwyn Evans (email@example.com), March 07, 2001.
A 2x converter will cost you 2 stops based on the mathematical properties of the converter, sometimes a bit more due to transmissive loss from having extra glass, reflective surfaces, and such. I've found that the correction factor with the Canon FD 2x-B converter, for instance, is actually about 2.5 stops.
The good news is that if you meter through the lens, the meter compensates automatically. If you use an external meter or a non-dedicated flash system, you need to to compensate for the difference manually by opening up 2 stops. So if your external meter or the calculator on your flash says "5.6," you need to set the lens at "2.8" (or possibly a half-stop wider), which will really be 5.6 with the converter.
A teleconverter magnifies the aberrations of the main lens, so it will result in some loss of sharpness, but maximum sharpness isn't necessarily a virtue in portrait photography. It may be just right, hence the suggestion to try it out before buying anything new.
-- David Goldfarb (firstname.lastname@example.org), March 07, 2001.
One disadvantage of using the teleconvertor versus a longer lens is that you can't go as wide open for depth of field control. Many portraits use a wide aperture for very shallow depth of field to blur the background.
With a convertor on a 50mm f1.8, you end up with a 100mm f4 (approximately), versus buying a 85mm f1.8 or 100mm f2.0 or even f2.8.
-- Terry Carraway (TCarraway@compuserve.com), March 18, 2001.