macro lens

Jamie

I have been struggling with my close-up face shots coming out a little soft during studio sessions. I have a 10D and have been using my 28-135mm. I am not happy with the results! I am wondering how the Canon 50mm 2.5 macro lens would work for this. Would I be able to use this lens for an entire portrait session since it is dedicated for macro usage?

I have the 70-200L which I use for my beach portraiture and close-ups are great. Should I just wait until I can afford the 24-70L and not pursue the 50mm macro? Also ~ I take photos of baby hands and feet so they need to come up super sharp!

Thanks for any help.

zero-zero

Don't use the 50 - you'll get a lot of distortion in the face because of the short distance to subject it forces. Instead, get a hold of a good prime in the 85 to 135 range and make sure you stay about 10 feet (approx 3 m) away from the subject or more. You'll be golden with that, although I personally have a penchant for portraiture with long teles (in the 200 to 300 range).

pathfinder

Jamie wrote:

I have been struggling with my close-up face shots coming out a little soft during studio sessions. I have a 10D and have been using my 28-135mm. I am not happy with the results! I am wondering how the Canon 50mm 2.5 macro lens would work for this. Would I be able to use this lens for an entire portrait session since it is dedicated for macro usage?

I have the 70-200L which I use for my beach portraiture and close-ups are great. Should I just wait until I can afford the 24-70L and not pursue the 50mm macro? Also ~ I take photos of baby hands and feet so they need to come up super sharp!

Thanks for any help.

28-135 IS? What aperatures are you using?

I suspect the 50 macro will not give you the distance from your subject that you and the subject prefer - why not try the 85 f1.8 or the 100f2.8 macro.
The macro is very sharp, but the 85f1.8 has a nice mild soft look wide open but is very sharp at f3.5 or f5.6 and for $329 is quite reasonable. Cheaper than the 100 macro..... The 85 is also faster to focus and lighter. I use both and like them both.

This was shot with the 85 f1.8

Jamie

Thanks zero zero! I always use my 28-135 with studio sessions and am usually around 50 and have no distortion. Isn't that because of the magnification factor with the 10D? Thanks for your reply!

Pathfinder ~ that is SHARP! Awesome. I have to go do some more investigating. I have been shooting at 5.6 or 6.7. I have just been so frustrated. Maybe it's my 10D....thank you so much!

dakar92

Jamie,
Are you doing any sharpening in Photoshop or some other program? This would be essential for achieving optimal sharpness. Can you show any examples of the unsharp photos you have taken with the 28-135 IS? Of course you will get sharper images from primes, but you should be able to get some pretty good results from the 28-135.

Here's a shot taken with the 28-135 IS of a dog running towards me at full speed. The picture was taken at 109mm focal length and wide open (f5.6 at this focal length.


And here's a 100% crop of the tag on her collar. You can even tell whether the dog has been, um, altered or not.



I know this isn't a perfect test by any means and there definitely are sharper lenses out there, but I've been able to get many, many shots that I've found to be extremely sharp with the 28-135 and a 10D. Now, if you want a fast lens or good bokeh (are we allowed to say that here), a prime would be your best bet.

Jamie

dakar92 ~ this was shot at 5.6. The mouth looks sharper than the eyes. I have several that didn't turn out at all. I had plenty of light in the room so that shouldn't have been a problem. This happens quite often with this lens and the 10d.

Jamie

Okay...looking at this image again...the mouth IS sharper. I have messed around with the different focal points and I am still not getting sharp images. I need to figure this out. I am sure it's user error!

pathfinder

Jamie wrote:

Okay...looking at this image again...the mouth IS sharper. I have messed around with the different focal points and I am still not getting sharp images. I need to figure this out. I am sure it's user error!

Have you done any selective USM around just the eyes on your portrait? That might solve the problem with this particular picture.

I think that the 10D "sometimes" gets confused when focusing at portrait distances - especially if you are using flash and the existing light is not real bright - Your 28-135 is a max f3.5 is it not? A larger viewing aperture may help the 10D focus better in lower light levels - like the 85f1.8 -

I know there are threads complaining about the autofocus of the 10D - I have never had any real difficulty with autofocus in sunlight - but taking family pics in dim room light with a 550EX bounce flash - sometimes the 10D will end to pick out strong lines or contrasts and not focus precisely on the softer facial features. And my lens for this kind of snapshooting is an f2.8. Slower apertures would be even worse....

Of course you can review the focus on the LCD viewer as you work along if you choose to do so to verify focus presence or lack - Lets us know how you resolve this problem, please.

Jamie

pathfinder wrote:

Have you done any selective USM around just the eyes on your portrait? That might solve the problem with this particular picture.

I think that the 10D "sometimes" gets confused when focusing at portrait distances - especially if you are using flash and the existing light is not real bright - Your 28-135 is a max f3.5 is it not? A larger viewing aperture may help the 10D focus better in lower light levels - like the 85f1.8 -

I know there are threads complaining about the autofocus of the 10D - I have never had any real difficulty with autofocus in sunlight - but taking family pics in dim room light with a 550EX bounce flash - sometimes the 10D will end to pick out strong lines or contrasts and not focus precisely on the softer facial features. And my lens for this kind of snapshooting is an f2.8. Slower apertures would be even worse....

Of course you can review the focus on the LCD viewer as you work along if you choose to do so to verify focus presence or lack - Lets us know how you resolve this problem, please.

Thanks Pathfinder! I am going to do some more tests. I should have just gone into major debt and got the 1Ds. It's so frustrating! Yes ~ I did try USM on the eyes and it helped. Thanks again. I'll let you know if I figure anything else out.

pathfinder

Jamie wrote:

Thanks Pathfinder! I am going to do some more tests. I should have just gone into major debt and got the 1Ds. It's so frustrating! Yes ~ I did try USM on the eyes and it helped. Thanks again. I'll let you know if I figure anything else out.

I tried sharpening the eyes in your image - is this any better?

As to the 1Ds - fantastic machine - but I'll bet the 1DMarkII might be better for portrature of children - I am certain it will be faster focusing and shooting multiple frames - B&H is already taking names for delivery in APril I believe

Jamie

pathfinder wrote:

I tried sharpening the eyes in your image - is this any better?

As to the 1Ds - fantastic machine - but I'll bet the 1DMarkII might be better for portrature of children - I am certain it will be faster focusing and shooting multiple frames - B&H is already taking names for delivery in APril I believe

YES! It does look better! You are awesome! I may look into the 1DMarkII if I can get the 10D paid off. I am going to start doing weddings so that may be sooner than I think.

Thank you soooooo much for your help! I tried to pm you but it said you didn't want to hear from me. :cry Just wanted to say thanks. I am craving SUPER SHARP images! My beach sessions ROCK but my studio shots are just so-so. I guess the 70-200L makes a huge difference?

pathfinder

Jamie wrote:

YES! It does look better! You are awesome! I may look into the 1DMarkII if I can get the 10D paid off. I am going to start doing weddings so that may be sooner than I think.

Thank you soooooo much for your help! I tried to pm you but it said you didn't want to hear from me. :cry Just wanted to say thanks. I am craving SUPER SHARP images! My beach sessions ROCK but my studio shots are just so-so. I guess the 70-200L makes a huge difference?

You never did say whether your studio shots were done with flash or natural light altho the infant looks to me like natural light. (Could be real nice softbox light tho)

I just used the lasso tool around both eyes and feathered the edges a few pixels - I used the 38kb image here on dgrin - and used USM at about amount 150% radius 2-4 and threshold 0-1 but the values would be slightly different for the full sized file of course.

I think the reason that you have less trouble with autofocus at the beach is the brighter light level, probably a little further from the camera to the subject, and I assume the 70-200 is f2.8 I never use autofocus for macro work with the 10D - Just like the old cameras - move the whole camera lens back and forth until sharp.

SLR manufacturers now assume everyone uses autofocus and omits nice clear splitimage rangefinders in the pentaprism. What a shame - I really miss the split image reticles and I shoot with a 10D too. (Look through an Olympus OM-4 sometime )

That is one place where Canon shaved a few bucks on the 10D - the viewfinder is not really bright to allow easy manual focus - It really is a shame too, because otherwise I love the camera.

I am sorry the PM was turned off - my bad - I'll have to turn it on - it was an oversight on my part

Jamie

pathfinder wrote:

You never did say whether your studio shots were done with flash or natural light altho the infant looks to me like natural light. (Could be real nice softbox light tho)

I just used the lasso tool around both eyes and feathered the edges a few pixels - I used the 38kb image here on dgrin - and used USM at about amount 150% radius 2-4 and threshold 0-1 but the values would be slightly different for the full sized file of course.

I think the reason that you have less trouble with autofocus at the beach is the brighter light level, probably a little further from the camera to the subject, and I assume the 70-200 is f2.8 I never use autofocus for macro work with the 10D - Just like the old cameras - move the whole camera lens back and forth until sharp.

SLR manufacturers now assume everyone uses autofocus and omits nice clear splitimage rangefinders in the pentaprism. What a shame - I really miss the split image reticles and I shoot with a 10D too. (Look through an Olympus OM-4 sometime )

That is one place where Canon shaved a few bucks on the 10D - the viewfinder is not really bright to allow easy manual focus - It really is a shame too, because otherwise I love the camera.

I am sorry the PM was turned off - my bad - I'll have to turn it on - it was an oversight on my part

WOW! You are being so helpful. Thank you! I use a HUGE softbox (six foot) and there was a nice bright window opposite the softbox (to my right). It all just SUCKS and I am frustrated. But I really, really appreciate your help.

Jamie