designboy
journeyman
Reged: 14/07/2008
Posts: 59
Loc: belfast, co. antrim UK
|
|
Hi all - I searched the net to find a place that posting 'daft' questions will be welcomed. Hence the web address url!
Here is my question: How do I get better depth of field in my shots from a lens that is 35-80mm with a slow f3.5 - 5.6? I bought a second hand camera (nikon d2x) and it came with the lens, but its not that great, Im wondering should I go and buy a faster 70-200mm f2.8 for shooting full body shots outdoor and indoor. I shoot in aperature priority mode to make sure the lens is wide open and let the camera sort out the metering, its my first camera and first week of trying! So any advice is soooo much loved!!
The type of shot I want is full blurred backdrop and a crisp focal point on the person (doing activity like throwing sticks etc) but indoor as well as out. My current shots are shot at f3.5 with the 35 - 80mm lens, I try to keep the lens at 80 as I think I understand that that gives a better blur? But the camera then shifts to the slower f5.6
that kills my blur.
Can a 50mm lens do good dof? eg a f1.4 50mm? or am I better with zooming in using a f2.8 180mm? Im reading all I can, but no one to talk to is making this tricky...
help me!
Chris
--------------------
Capture it while it lasts...
|
ermintrude
Hinkypuff
Reged: 30/06/2003
Posts: 12330
Loc: London, UK
|
|
I think you may not be close enough to the subject you are trying to shoot. DOF grows dramatically with greater distance form the camera.
If you need to shoot indoors you need to consider upping your ISO and maybe use flash. Can you post an example with the settings you used?
--------------------
   
Further, longer, higher, older...
|
PaulatUKcamera
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 24/05/2005
Posts: 1900
Loc: West Wales
|
|
Consider an f1.8 50mm secondhand.
That will act as an 75mm (portrait lens focal length) and give you the shallow depth of field you require.
(The f1.4 goes for silly money on eBay and its not really much of an advantage in D of F terms)
Paul
--------------------
Paul Winter (CRIPN)
Web Site: UKCamera.com
|
stenchbings
addict
Reged: 16/07/2007
Posts: 412
Loc: uk
|
|
the nikon 50mm F1.8 is a fantastic lens! trying to find one seems to be hard at the moment, on ethe high tsreet anyway. online or ebay will be easier.
DOF is very good with this lens. for the money its great
you will not be dissappointed
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3510
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
f3.5 or f5.6 should give you a reasonably out of focus background if you can get closer to your subject, or get the subject closer to you and ensure that the background is further back.
If your lens is 35-80mm, f3.5 - f5.6 it will be f3.5 at 35mm then moving to f5.6 at 80mm. So, f5.6 is the widest aperture you can get at 80mm, but this should be ok for a nice sharp subject and an out of focus background. You probably wont need to go to f2.8 or wider to get an out of focus background for a portrait type shot.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 5614
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
You probably wont need to go to f2.8 or wider to get an out of focus background for a portrait type shot.
Agreed. Any wider and you may find that not all the face will be in focus. e.g. using my 50mm 1.4 close up wide open would throw the far eye completely out of focus.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
PaulatUKcamera
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 24/05/2005
Posts: 1900
Loc: West Wales
|
|
Again, it depends how close you are!
I still think my f2 85mm was absolutely the best lens I have ever owned for portraiture. Why? For one the discipline a fixed focal length imposes, secondly because you don't have to "crowd in your sitter", thirdly because you have a choice of using f2 if you want to. For example if you are head on rather than in profile, then f2 is very viable! On a DSLR, the 50mm is the nearest modern option.
Used a 105mm a lot too - just not quite, in my opinion, as good a lens to take portraits with, though optically many seem to prefer it.
Go for the f1.8 option - it gives you more flexibility!
Paul
--------------------
Paul Winter (CRIPN)
Web Site: UKCamera.com
|
designboy
journeyman
Reged: 14/07/2008
Posts: 59
Loc: belfast, co. antrim UK
|
|
thanks guys, I noticed a shot of a baby with the ears out on a 1.4 50mm, the camera I use is not full frame so I think the 50mm would be 1. cheap and 2. great for the dof I need, but I seen a youtube video with a guy showing that a 180mm shot is best for totally throwing off the back drops, I am mostly shooting children playing and messing about full body - or head and shoulder shots. I'll grab some of the stuff I've been messing with, my photoshop makes up for any of the bad image I bring in, but I do want to learn and be a jack of all trades here...
Thanks for the replies guys, very helpful!! Im now ebaying and watching 50mm lens, I may buy one of them and a 70-200 as my boss is shelling out for me (he gave me 1k to buy a camera and I got the nikon d2x on ebay with a light gun) so I now have around £750 on a lens or lenses...
Is a 50mm the best option, then look for a zoom?
--------------------
Capture it while it lasts...
|
PaulatUKcamera
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 24/05/2005
Posts: 1900
Loc: West Wales
|
|
I have an AF-S 80-200mm f2.8.
Great lens and I have used it to good effect getting pictures of my Grandson playing without him noticing me.
However, not what a call a good portrait lens in the classical sense. If you want something just for portraits then a 300mm equivalent is not really the best choice.
Again, if I might be "cheapjack" something like A Sigma f2.8 50-150mm is more than adequate for what you say you want (gives 75mm-200mm) at a lower price, and more importantly at a weight & bulk considerably less than the 70-200mm
Seriously, I have had to buy a second D300 to use it frequently, as changing lenses with something that size is not a swift job. First, find somewhere safe to put it - not easy when it overbalances easily or rolls at the first opportunity!
It was much more of a "fag" than I wanted to get the right lens on for a photo opportunity!
Paul
--------------------
Paul Winter (CRIPN)
Web Site: UKCamera.com
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3510
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
For people shots I use a 50mm f2.5, a 30mm f1.4 or a 17-50 f2.8. Having sad that my 20mm f1.8 and f12-24 f4.5-f5.6 get used for people too. You have to be careful not to get distortion of features with the wider lenses but on the whole I personally don't think it really matters what length you pick, you can get good results and different effects with them all. I mostly stay away from the largest apertures for portrait shots and stay somewhere between f4 and f8 depending upon conditions, I only use the widest apertures for people shots if low light requires them.
A decent quality prime somewhere between 30 and 60mm would be my own personal choice, I'd find 70 or 80mm or so a bit long on my camera.
--------------------
Alan's defence lawyer claimed that "Booze played no part in his typo's."
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 5614
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
thanks guys, I noticed a shot of a baby with the ears out on a 1.4 50mm, the camera I use is not full frame so I think the 50mm would be 1. cheap and 2. great for the dof I need, but I seen a youtube video with a guy showing that a 180mm shot is best for totally throwing off the back drops, I am mostly shooting children playing and messing about full body - or head and shoulder shots.
Don't forget that the distance between your subject and the background has a huge influence on whether the background is in or out of focus.
Quote:
Thanks for the replies guys, very helpful!! Im now ebaying and watching 50mm lens, I may buy one of them and a 70-200 as my boss is shelling out for me (he gave me 1k to buy a camera and I got the nikon d2x on ebay with a light gun) so I now have around £750 on a lens or lenses...
Is a 50mm the best option, then look for a zoom?
As recommended, a cheap Nikkor 50mm 1.8 is a great lens to have in your kit bag, especially for portraits. A 70/80-200 2.8 is also a good portrait lens, but I'd say get the 50mm first and play around with it before shelling out for a more expensive and longer focus lens.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
designboy
journeyman
Reged: 14/07/2008
Posts: 59
Loc: belfast, co. antrim UK
|
|
lol the 50mm seems a real good deal - I'm usually into you get what you pay for, so I'll go with it and get one, I just reckoned that I needed a big zoom to blur the backs out like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Josefina_with_Bokeh.jpg
or this is the type of shot Im getting from my 80mm at f5.6 - but I guess its cuase my lens wont go faster (the bloke that took this was using a 150mm)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN
where as with a 60mm I see this wider DOF that Im not as happy with:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN
--------------------
Capture it while it lasts...
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 5614
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
lol the 50mm seems a real good deal - I'm usually into you get what you pay for, so I'll go with it and get one, I just reckoned that I needed a big zoom to blur the backs out like this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Josefina_with_Bokeh.jpg
or this is the type of shot Im getting from my 80mm at f5.6 - but I guess its cuase my lens wont go faster (the bloke that took this was using a 150mm)
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN
where as with a 60mm I see this wider DOF that Im not as happy with:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h...l%3Den%26sa%3DN
Err, but that shot (the link just pointed to the same shot as far as I could see) wasn't taken with a 35mm SLR but with one of these so you can't compare focal lengths. Believe me, a Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 will give you the out of focus background you're looking for.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
alanS
Dr Dust
Reged: 30/09/2005
Posts: 3510
Loc: Up North, England.
|
|
As per previous comments, I think that care will need to be taken otherwise at f1.8 all that may be in focus is the tip of your subjects nose. 
Edited by alanS (15/07/2008 11:51)
|
Norman
Reged: 23/09/2004
Posts: 1573
Loc: West London, UK
|
|
The Wikipedia image was taken with a 1Ds (full frame) with an 85mm lens at f1.2 You will need similar spec lens to achieve similar results.
--------------------
Regards,
Norman
www.photobox.org.uk
A woman has the last word in any argument.
Anything a man says after that is the start of a new argument.
|
NorthernNikon
Bulls Hitter
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 5614
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
As per previous comments, I think that care will need to be taken otherwise at f1.8 all that may be in focus is the tip of your subjects nose.
The f/1.8 referred to the lens (as opposed to the Nikkor 50mm f/1.4) and not necessarily the aperture to shoot at.
--------------------
www.BarneyAllen.com the new home of ComicShots.
|
daft_biker
Action Man!
Reged: 11/10/2006
Posts: 7170
Loc: Doon the glen
|
|
Was going to say....stuff the f/2.8 zooms and get a 85mm f/1.2 but don't know if Nikon do one! (there's an old MF one but don't think it works on modern Nikons....works on new Canons via an adaptor apparenty  )
Seriously tho...I'd forget the lardy zoom and get a 50mm f/1.8 and probably a 85mm f1.8 (or faster?) and take the change from the £750 to the pub
--------------------
Andrew (BSRIPN) ... Pics.
|
designboy
journeyman
Reged: 14/07/2008
Posts: 59
Loc: belfast, co. antrim UK
|
|
like the pub idea, I shelled out for the 50mm today, but just to be sure, really sure I got the f1.4 version lol. I may just want the nose in focus  I think the saying "better looking at it than for it" suits me here.
I now see the tech how on full frame and the camera I have, my d2x will multiply up so my 50mm is not really a 50mm... So I guess I'll find out soon enough, I took my camera out today and tried my wife with the sea in the backdrop, it was ok - blurred dof but the thing just was not enough. I really valued all your imput so I'll know if the 50mm pays off.
The type of shot Im after
--------------------
Capture it while it lasts...
|
designboy
journeyman
Reged: 14/07/2008
Posts: 59
Loc: belfast, co. antrim UK
|
|
ok, I got the lens and all is great, its a f1.4 50mm nikkor. But the thing is when I shoot with a 1.4 its nicely blurred, but seems exactly the same on the 2.8 or smaller? I can not seem to capture everything in foreground and background at once, I do like this, but can it be tweaked?
--------------------
Capture it while it lasts...
|
AlexMonro
old hand
Reged: 05/06/2006
Posts: 702
Loc: Exeter, Devon (and Somerset so...
|
|
You might find the Cambridge in Colour depth of field tutorial helpful, here.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
