Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best Lenses for Fashion Photography
- Thread starter gdeusthewhizkid
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I dont think anyone has mentioned the 100L 2.8 macro yet.
This lens produces epic portraits. It has a beautiful soft focus that really makes the model look exceptional. The bokeh is lovely as well.
It's relatively cheap and nice and light. The only drawback I find with it is that it has incredibly slow auto focus.
Out of all my lenses, this and my 70-200 2.8 never leave my cameras.
There is over a £1000 price difference between the two. I think the 100mm is a bargain.
Here is an example. No post other than a black and white conversion in Lightroom.
This lens produces epic portraits. It has a beautiful soft focus that really makes the model look exceptional. The bokeh is lovely as well.
It's relatively cheap and nice and light. The only drawback I find with it is that it has incredibly slow auto focus.
Out of all my lenses, this and my 70-200 2.8 never leave my cameras.
There is over a £1000 price difference between the two. I think the 100mm is a bargain.
Here is an example. No post other than a black and white conversion in Lightroom.
ocabj
macrumors 6502a
I agree that the 100 f/2.8L IS Macro is a great lens. I had it, but returned it because at the time, I wasn't shooting much macro at all and didn't need the 100mm in my bag with the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and 85 f/1.2L II taking up space.
I want that lens, now, though because I started to mess around with macro, again. For a long time, it was going for $900 USD which is a great value.
Small White Car
macrumors G4
As photographers we sometimes get wrapped up in the technology itself. Never forget your subject. THAT'S what people will see in the end, not the equipment you used.
So that being said, it's important to remember that 50-80 mm* is the range in which the human face looks most "normal."
Some examples:
http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2010...h-for-portraiture-a-photographers-experiment/
http://www.gizmocrazed.com/2011/11/how-camera-lenses-can-beautify-or-uglify-your-pretty-face-photo/
http://natalispalette.jimdo.com/new...focal-length-choice-for-the-face-portraiture/
Obviously there are exceptions (someone with a big nose may appreciate you slimming it with a 100 mm lens), but 50-80 is where you should be starting your thought-process when dealing with models.
Never limit yourself to a hard rule* (you will get great shots of people outside of that range!) but knowing where to start can be incredibly useful.
* (You'll notice that the last link I posted disagrees with me and says that 170-200 mm looks best. It's subjective. Find your own numbers. My "normal" is 50-80. If you come up with a different answer, great. Doesn't matter if it matches mine, it just matters that you know what you think is the best place to start.)
So that being said, it's important to remember that 50-80 mm* is the range in which the human face looks most "normal."
Some examples:
http://www.mcpactions.com/blog/2010...h-for-portraiture-a-photographers-experiment/
http://www.gizmocrazed.com/2011/11/how-camera-lenses-can-beautify-or-uglify-your-pretty-face-photo/
http://natalispalette.jimdo.com/new...focal-length-choice-for-the-face-portraiture/
Obviously there are exceptions (someone with a big nose may appreciate you slimming it with a 100 mm lens), but 50-80 is where you should be starting your thought-process when dealing with models.
Never limit yourself to a hard rule* (you will get great shots of people outside of that range!) but knowing where to start can be incredibly useful.
* (You'll notice that the last link I posted disagrees with me and says that 170-200 mm looks best. It's subjective. Find your own numbers. My "normal" is 50-80. If you come up with a different answer, great. Doesn't matter if it matches mine, it just matters that you know what you think is the best place to start.)
Last edited:
tcphoto
macrumors 6502a
I think that new photographers get too wrapped up in gear. I was guilty of that and it nearly ruined my career, keep it simple and develop your style with as little gear as possible. The 50/1.4 is a very good lens and a 100L would compliment it greatly. I would sell the others and put it toward a 35/2 IS which I'd turn into a 35L only when you generate revenue. The previous 35/2 is not a great lens and a newer photographer would be tempted to shoot wide open and get soft images. That lens is just not made to do what you're using it for. The 135L is a beautiful lens but the 200/2.8 is about half the price used. My best advice, start thinking like a businessman and invest smartly in gear.