28-90 f4-5.6 or 75-300 f4 IS for wedding portrait

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Canon EOS FAQ forum : One Thread

I own a 28-90 f4-5.6 cannon lens and am about to purchase a 75-300 f4 IS. My concern is not with the IS but with the optics of both lenses. I know that portraits are traditionally photographed at around 110mm. My 28-90 does not give me enough zoom and I understand that the 90 end is a little soft, but I also know that the 75-300 IS is not a sharp as other zooms like the 75-200 f4L. My question is which would give a sharper/better image, the 28-90 at 90 or the 75-300 at 110?

-- newbie (mshadow818@msn.com), April 06, 2002

Answers

Definitely not the 28-90 at any zoom position. This cheapy lens is not considered a good performer, and not recommended for important wedding portraits. In fact, none of the cheap 28-80/28-90 lenses from any of the manufacturers is very good. I would recommend dumping it for a better lens as soon as your budget permits! As for the 75-300 IS, this lens is moderately better, but its true strength is the effectiveness of IS in delivering sharp handheld pictures. However, IS doesn't make the pictures any sharper than it is optically capable of. Still, it would be better than the 28-90 at 90mm.

As for the focal length for traditional portraits, 85mm to 110mm is the general rule of thumb for tight head and shoulder shots of a single person. This provides a tight shot without having to move in closer, which would cause unflattering distortion of facial proportions. However, this rule does not apply if you are shooting a wedding portrait with two people in the picture. In that case, you are no longer going for a tight head and shoulder picture of a single person. Therefore, you can safely go to a shorter focal length because you aren't cropping in as tight and you are maintaining a non-distorting working distance. Furthermore, with wedding portraits you would be shooting to include much more of the subjects' bodies (gown and tux) and a wider perspective. Therefore, you could easily shoot with a 50mm focal length.

For a quality lens at a very inexpensive price for three-quarter body wedding portraits I would recommend getting a Canon 50/1.8. It is about $90 and the optical quality will blow away both the 28-90 and the 75-300 IS.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), April 06, 2002.


Why not buy an EF 85 1.8 USM, EF 100 2.0 USM or EF135 2.8 SF? The optical quality of all three lenses is outstanding, and they are more sturdy, have larger apertures, focus faster and they are easier to handle than the EF75-300 IS USM. Plus, they are real portrait lenses with pleasing bokeh and perspective. They cost the same or less than the zoom. Unfortunately, once you get used to the quality and feel of a prime, you'll never touch your zooms again! The EF75-300 IS USM is a real bow-wow in terms of build quality, AF speed and handling. The IS feature is wonderful and the optical quality is so-so: very sharp at 75 and rather slow and soft at 300. I've written reviews of three of the above lenses if you're interested:

http:// alaike.lcc.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox5.htm

http:// alaike.lcc.hawaii.edu/frary/toolbox2.htm

Aloha

-- Puppy Face (doggieface@aol.com), April 07, 2002.

I have the 85/1.8 and would highly recommend it for portraiture. This is a lens head and shoulders above the 28-90 and 75-300 lenses. Very sharp, beautiful out-of-focus backgrounds, excellent ring-USM. Yes, you may not want to go back to the 28-90 or 75-300 after seeing the results from this lens. However, for wedding portraits (two people, half-to-three quarter body length), keep in mind the working distance that an 85mm focal length may require to get it all in the frame. Some photographers like to be closer while others don't mind being farther back. Try it out for yourself. But whatever lens you get, I would still highly recommend adding the 50/1.8 at least. I have the more expensive 50/1.4 but if I were on a budget I wouldn't hesitate to get the 50/1.8 because they are comparable in sharpness.

-- Peter Phan (pphan01@hotmail.com), April 07, 2002.

Since the 75-300 IS is not too clever optically beyond 200mm, why not buy the 70-200 F4L instead? Ok, you loose IS, but you gain a LOT in every other area...handling, focus speed, optical quality, build quality, etc.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), April 07, 2002.

If you don't want to buy anything right now, the 75-300, at around 100mm, would be your best solution. I would worry more about getting decent lighting on your subject.

-- kenneth katz (socks@bestweb.net), April 07, 2002.


i would suggest you to go for 28-105 or 28-135IS, the latter having an IS function. the primes suggested by puppy face and peter phan would be a better choice. but if you need a zoom lens so that you can crop as needed then 28-135IS would be a better option. optically its very sharp (much sharper than 28-90, 75-300 and 28-105) and has the IS function. it also covers a wide range of focal length range needed for single portraits to group photos. the main disadvantage would be the weight and large filter size which needs expensive filters.

-- sajeev (chack74@yahoo.co.in), April 08, 2002.

I would ask the question of whether you are shooting this wedding as a favor, or for money, if the answer is the later and you are asking this question, I would stongly suggest that you don't do it. Too many people minimize the importance that these photos have on clients. For many photographers still in the learning mode it is an exciting challenge, but for the couple it is once in a lifetime. I would suggest that anyone starting out study or work as an assistant under a pro wedding photographer before trying this themselves.

-- joe cap (joemocap@yahoo.com), April 08, 2002.

Hhh... This place is so confusing! You guys suggested all the available lenses in those focal length range. Our newbie should be in a total confusion now.

Newbie, take a lotto, pray to get it, buy all of these lenses and try it out. What else can I say?

-- Gloria (gmgloria@yahoo.com), April 09, 2002.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ