Jump to content

PrettyCranium

Yami Usagi

Baldylox

otakusan

Poofiemus

iomi

Baldylox

archangeli

Juu Yuki

Uriko

Singer Yuna

Baldylox

battrastard

Migon

Salica

Sign in to follow this  
sdrcow

What Lens do you use for Photography?

Recommended Posts

sdrcow

Hello everyone! I've been messing around with my camera for the last two weeks and got to wondering... what does everyone else use on their DSLRs?
Currently using a 50mm Macro Lens + Canon 70D (or my T5i when my 70D battery dies...)

My issue is I need a decent amount of space to get a good DoF~ So... what do you guys use? 

Examples of my 50MM Macro: 
spacer.pngspacer.pngspacer.png

Thanks for reading~!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cfx

On a full frame DSLR, I like 50mm or better 85mm if I have enough working room to use that. Anything shorter I feel gives too much perspective distortion making the dolls look odd, the same problem you typically get with phone cameras and their wide-angle lenses. Pretty much I'm trying to adapt the same rules for full-sized human photography to doll use. I don't have any macro lenses so just use regular ones.

Since you are using Canon APS-C, in theory your 50mm has about the same angle of view as an 85mm on full-frame.

That's with the idea of doing doll portraiture or fashion photography like what you have. For something more environmental where a doll is a smaller part of a larger scene, or for some special effect, I might use a wide angle lens.

Your pictures are very nice, especially the last one with the blurred background and nice bokeh.

Depth-of-field should mainly be a function of aperture, right?

  • Like 1

Now joining the Ranko army...waiting for her arrival

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tierparkzone
22 hours ago, cfx said:

Depth-of-field should mainly be a function of aperture, right?

Yup, mainly dependent on aperture but also on focal length.

If you want a nice strong bokeh you'll want your aperture wide open (low aperture value) and a somewhat shorter focal length. If you instead want multiple layers of a scene to stay in focus, this is much easier with a tele lens.

I'm usually running my Canon Eos 60D with a general purpose 17-85mm zoom lens, which I think works well enough for doll photography. I also have a set of extension tubes to convert it for macro use (for taking photos of figmas etc. - the 60cm dolls are so big, you don't really need macro).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sdrcow
On 10/16/2019 at 10:39 PM, cfx said:

On a full frame DSLR, I like 50mm or better 85mm if I have enough working room to use that. Anything shorter I feel gives too much perspective distortion making the dolls look odd, the same problem you typically get with phone cameras and their wide-angle lenses. Pretty much I'm trying to adapt the same rules for full-sized human photography to doll use. I don't have any macro lenses so just use regular ones.

Since you are using Canon APS-C, in theory your 50mm has about the same angle of view as an 85mm on full-frame.

That's with the idea of doing doll portraiture or fashion photography like what you have. For something more environmental where a doll is a smaller part of a larger scene, or for some special effect, I might use a wide angle lens.

Your pictures are very nice, especially the last one with the blurred background and nice bokeh.

Depth-of-field should mainly be a function of aperture, right?

Oh thank you for that! I never thought about the distortion you can get from wide-angle etc. That's a very good factor to remember! 
And thank you for the compliment! I appreciate it!~

Annnnnd as far as DoF goes, yes: I usually run with my aperture wide open, but still at times have trouble getting a good blur due to closed spaces.

On 10/17/2019 at 9:41 PM, Tierparkzone said:

Yup, mainly dependent on aperture but also on focal length.

If you want a nice strong bokeh you'll want your aperture wide open (low aperture value) and a somewhat shorter focal length. If you instead want multiple layers of a scene to stay in focus, this is much easier with a tele lens.

I'm usually running my Canon Eos 60D with a general purpose 17-85mm zoom lens, which I think works well enough for doll photography. I also have a set of extension tubes to convert it for macro use (for taking photos of figmas etc. - the 60cm dolls are so big, you don't really need macro).

Thank you! :) I usually do run with my aperture wide open because I personally love a good blur and heavy Depth of field, I guess my main problem is usually focal length (which is why I opt for my 50mm macro vs my 50mm). I've not got a good blur really with any of my other lenses unless I start to sacrifice for extra noise or loss of focus... probably should have been more specific with my original post! (still trying to get the hang of photography lol) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cfx
35 minutes ago, sdrcow said:

Oh thank you for that! I never thought about the distortion you can get from wide-angle etc. That's a very good factor to remember! 
And thank you for the compliment! I appreciate it!~

Annnnnd as far as DoF goes, yes: I usually run with my aperture wide open, but still at times have trouble getting a good blur due to closed spaces.

I misread your intent, thinking you wanted more DOF, not less, and with that was thinking about working distance being camera-to-subject distance, as that's what I have usually read it to mean.

I don't know what specific macro lens you have, but they're typically f2.8 or f3.5 maximum aperture, and even wide-open with that isn't really enough to a very shallow depth-of-field. With that, primarily what you would need, and this I'm sure is where you're running into the space issue, is the background needs to be further away from the doll in order for it to be blurred out. I'm guessing your non-macro 50mm is either f1.8 or f1.4 and you can get a much more shallow DOF with that; however depending on the lens is it may not focus close enough for what you're trying to do.

As far as perspective goes, for full frame, 85mm, 105mm or 135mm are what's typically suggested for portraiture of real humans, but if you look into what pro fashion photographers use, it's typically longer than that, 200mm is common and sometimes 300mm. While it's out of the price range of anything but professionals, I've seen beautiful work with beautiful shallow DOF and bokeh with the 200mm f2 lenses by both Canon and Nikon. Since DDs are much smaller than real people, we don't need lenses that long of course, but I keep those guidelines in mind and try to adapt them for DD photography use.

I just use the full-frame numbers because I'm old and used 35mm film cameras in high school, so those numbers and what they mean are what means anything to me. It's the main reason I stuck to full frame with digital because it was what I was used to. You can certainly create great results with APS-C, but I can't speak with any experience about the slight differences that the format creates. I only know of the different angle of view for the same lens length. I think I've read there is a difference with DOF as well, but there are a lot of misunderstandings out there so I'm not even sure of that.


Now joining the Ranko army...waiting for her arrival

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sdrcow
3 minutes ago, cfx said:

I misread your intent, thinking you wanted more DOF, not less, and with that was thinking about working distance being camera-to-subject distance, as that's what I have usually read it to mean.

I don't know what specific macro lens you have, but they're typically f2.8 or f3.5 maximum aperture, and even wide-open with that isn't really enough to a very shallow depth-of-field. With that, primarily what you would need, and this I'm sure is where you're running into the space issue, is the background needs to be further away from the doll in order for it to be blurred out. I'm guessing your non-macro 50mm is either f1.8 or f1.4 and you can get a much more shallow DOF with that; however depending on the lens is it may not focus close enough for what you're trying to do.

As far as perspective goes, for full frame, 85mm, 105mm or 135mm are what's typically suggested for portraiture of real humans, but if you look into what pro fashion photographers use, it's typically longer than that, 200mm is common and sometimes 300mm. While it's out of the price range of anything but professionals, I've seen beautiful work with beautiful shallow DOF and bokeh with the 200mm f2 lenses by both Canon and Nikon. Since DDs are much smaller than real people, we don't need lenses that long of course, but I keep those guidelines in mind and try to adapt them for DD photography use.

I just use the full-frame numbers because I'm old and used 35mm film cameras in high school, so those numbers and what they mean are what means anything to me. It's the main reason I stuck to full frame with digital because it was what I was used to. You can certainly create great results with APS-C, but I can't speak with any experience about the slight differences that the format creates. I only know of the different angle of view for the same lens length. I think I've read there is a difference with DOF as well, but there are a lot of misunderstandings out there so I'm not even sure of that.

Well... I can totally see that as all this time I've been thinking a larger depth of field = MORE blur... but now that I think that out loud.... that makes no sense. LOL So if anything you've helped me understand that I need to reverse what I've been saying haha

And I'm using (generally) a canon 50mm Macro - But I might try these tele lens out. I remember when i used to photograph people I'd use that to get a blur background so the process should still work the same! Thanks mucho!!! 😄

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cfx

I had looked that up, but in their current line Canon has two different 50mm macros, with different maximum apertures so I wasn't sure still exactly what yours is.

If you have a 50mm f2.8, it behaves about like a 81mm f4.5 lens would perform on full frame, according to this calculator: https://mmcalc.com/

F4 isn't going to give very shallow DOF. That same calculator says a 50mm f1.8 is equivalent to a 81mm f2.9 on full frame, which would be quite a bit shallower DOF.

Edited by cfx

Now joining the Ranko army...waiting for her arrival

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cfx
8 minutes ago, sdrcow said:

Hrm, I guess I'm not sure, when I check my camera it says It's an F2.5? I know it was the cheaper of the two options. Lol

I found it; it's discontnued so isn't listed on the Canon site when you go through the menus; they don't have a 50mm macro now. The page is still on the site though:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/macro/ef-50mm-f-2-5-compact-macro

According to that calculator, f2.5 is equivalent to f4 on full frame, so indeed you won't get really shallow DOF with that.

  • Like 1

Now joining the Ranko army...waiting for her arrival

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sdrcow
1 minute ago, cfx said:

I found it; it's discontnued so isn't listed on the Canon site when you go through the menus; they don't have a 50mm macro now. The page is still on the site though:

https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/macro/ef-50mm-f-2-5-compact-macro

According to that calculator, f2.5 is equivalent to f4 on full frame, so indeed you won't get really shallow DOF with that.

Well Drat. BUT - thank you! Because now I at least know it's not fully ME unable to achieve it without some actual room (background actually a good 5+feet away). I appreciate you for sure!~ :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sinclair

I prefer to use my Canon nFD 50/1.8 on my mFT camera (which makes it a 100mm), but only because of the shallow DOF.  If I could get a 24mm or 28mm Canon nFD with a f stop under 2.0 (For 48 or 56 mm) I'd use that instead, but I don't have the funds for such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cfx

I know this topic has been dead for a while, but I stumbled onto this tweet that shows the very shallow DOF attainable in doll photography with a 135mm lens. Unfortunately no further information is given so I don't know if it's on full frame (I'd guess it is) or what aperture is used, but it would have to be pretty open to achieve this:

 


Now joining the Ranko army...waiting for her arrival

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Koala-Krash

CFX, I feel like most of these amazing pics we see from Japanese photographs are from full frame...

 


It's been a moment thant I'm using a D7200 Nikon, and my fav lens for portraits is a fix 60mm. I love the blurry and bokeh effects it allows (a bit like your pics sdrcow).


 

Spoiler

 

49327977056_ae8723aede_c.jpg

49308749553_0b270bd342_c.jpg

 

 

But recently I bought a new phone, a HuaWei P30, and I must confess I've fallen into the lazy pit of taking doll pics with it. It gots 3 different lenses and the quality is pretty neat for a phone! 😵(I'm also flirting with the idea of buying lenses for smartphone...)

 

Spoiler

49003468702_bd7b0da0a8_c.jpg

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

I have read and agree to the Privacy Policy.