Outline ·
[ Standard ] ·
Linear+
Budget potrait lens: 50mm vs 35mm
|
DaddyO
|
 Dec 21 2016, 06:23 PM
|
|
QUOTE(AyamBannedTwice @ Dec 21 2016, 03:09 PM) thnks for the brief expaination.. easy for noob like me to understand hehehe Yes, i'm using crop sensor camera Depends. If you take full body, 35mm (~50mm FF equivalent) is better cause you don't have stand too far. But for upper body to head shot, 50mm (75mm FF equivalent) is better. Take note the wider the lens, the closer you get to the subject, the more distorted their face look. Longer focal lens has less distortion.  |
|
|
|
|
|
DaddyO
|
Dec 22 2016, 09:49 AM
|
|
|
QUOTE(AyamBannedTwice @ Dec 21 2016, 10:35 PM) Honestly i'm more on 50mm rather than 35mm But i'm tear apart between both because most of the review i found on internet saying 35mm as it giving u more detail background compared to 50mm But in term of bokeh, 50mm win it.. Personally how do u view both lenses in term of background coverage? Well you cant have both creamy bokeh and detailed background. Might as well get zoom lens like 18-105mm f4 for overall effect. Detail background you can control via aperture. |
|
|
|
|
|
DaddyO
|
Dec 22 2016, 10:23 AM
|
|
|
QUOTE(goldfries @ Dec 22 2016, 10:11 AM) It is the focal length. Portrait with 30mm vs 200mm lens, the difference is how the light is captured. The distance between the camera and subject is relevant to the focal length. There is a lot of argument on this but mostly boils down to distance rather than focal length. Longer focal length just makes you stand further to fill in the same frame as the wider lens. There has been experiment done on this before. If you use wide and long focal at exact same spot and distance shooting same subject, you will notice that background "compression" are the same on both. Difference is you have to crop in on the wider shot to get the same field of view as the longer focal, thus result in less sharp image and also less bokeh. |
|
|
|
|
|
DaddyO
|
Dec 22 2016, 12:09 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(goldfries @ Dec 22 2016, 11:46 AM) I understand where you are coming from but it's actually not appropriate to compare at "same spot". The difference between 24mm and 90mm for example is the field of view. When you compare it at the same FOV - it will be the same. The thing is you can't compare base on spot, you have to go with the whole frame - that's why 24mm and 90mm will be different because the light falls in differently. Same face occupying same area on the frame, 24mm you won't see the ears while 90mm you can. In order for 24mm to get the same effect you have to stand far back until the face falls within the 90mm field of view. Not sure but i think u got the 24 and 90 backward at last sentence. FOV is not exactly the same between focal length and hard to explain. Yes you can get same FOV on "subject" if you move closer with wider lens. But the "background" will still be wider than the longer focal despite having same subject at same size. Also the face be little bit more distorted for wider lens cause you have to get closer. There are a lot relations at work here but one thing that is consistent is the distance from the camera to the subject in relation to background. |
|
|
|
|
|
DaddyO
|
Dec 22 2016, 04:01 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(goldfries @ Dec 22 2016, 02:00 PM) No, I didn't mix up. I shoot portrait at 22mm before.  That's why people use longer focal length to shoot portrait. Longer focal length so you have to stand further too but you get the face and even the ears. When on wider focal length, the way light falls to the lens you get less ears. Thats why i ask why u said have to stand further back with 24mm to get same fov as 90mm? Suppose to be other way around. Unless u talking about the distortion but 24mm on apsc wont be distorted enough to wrap out the ears. This post has been edited by DaddyO: Dec 22 2016, 04:04 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
DaddyO
|
Dec 22 2016, 04:33 PM
|
|
|
QUOTE(goldfries @ Dec 22 2016, 04:26 PM) Confirm sure what I am trying to convey is as what I wrote. You're just not understanding what I'm trying to say. IF you are using 90mm and you want to achieve same subject size - you move backwards. That's what you're saying. I'm on the other hand saying that if you are on 24mm and you want the subject to reach the 90mm's FOV, you have to go backwards. By then the face will occupy a much smaller area of the frame. Errrr.....still dont understand. Lets just agree to disagree. |
|
|
|
|
Quote
0.0579sec
0.99
8 queries
GZIP Disabled