EOS 70D (APS-C) - LENs advice

[rpcrowe]

I agree with Bill... You can easily isolate your subject even at smaller f/stops of f/4 or even f/5.6 if you are shooting with a longish focal length Bill's example is excellent and here are two more examples with crop format cameras...

300mm @ f/5.6


300mm @ f/5.6


I know that I have posted these exmples before but, I consider them good examples of selective DOF to isolate the subject and examples of pleasing (to me) bokeh

[DanK]

Bob,

It occurred to me that I should post an example. The shot below was taken with a Canon 50D--a much older and less capable APS-C camera than yours--with the Tamron 28-75 wide open at f/2.8, at a focal length of 68mm. That's 109 mm in FF equivalent length, which is at the long end of the classic portrait length. I took this a long time ago, so I am guessing, but I think the window is probably 10 feet behind him.

Dan

[ionian]

I shoot Nikon and micro four-thirds, so I've been in two minds whether to post but I will say this: you can't tell sharpness by looking at a chart. The nifty fifty would be my first purchase - and indeed it was - about 80mm equivellant on crop, good bokeh, good sharpness past f2.8 (and for portraiture you don't always want razor sharpness anyway) and cheap as chips. Buy it, sell it if you don't like it, you'll get most of your money back - but I'll bet you don't sell it

Another thought- you want sharp, you want (head and shoulders) portrait length, maybe you should look at a macro lens. The canon 60mm f2.8? Gives you macro to try as well...

[rpcrowe]

Here is a series of YouTube glamour (no nude or semi nude) portraits shot with 50mm and 85mm lenses at an f/1.8 aperture...

This was done with a full frame Canon 6D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJT...TuQFgUfk#t=310

Really nice imagery. Of course, it helps to have drop-dead gorgeous subjects

[William W]

Thank you for your detailed reply.

Considering that you seem toward buying a Prime Lens, here are some more points that you might consider.

. . . I've never owned a fast lens, and I know my budget really doesn't get me in the class of great glass. However, the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8 are two lenses that I've read up on that seem to give outstanding image quality and low-light capabilities for the price.

Apropos “best value for money lenses” - I concur with your analysis of the EF 50 F/1.4 and EF 85 F/1.8. That’s why I own both – both present excellent value and quality for money.

***

One particular use of a (very fast) Prime Lens is the ability to make Portraiture and also arrest Subject Motion in Low Light when Flash is not available or permitted.

Obviously the advancements in high quality, High ISO performance (the latest) modern cameras will afford the F/2.8 Zoom lenses (and the F/1.8 Sigma Zoom) the ability to shoot in low light and still attain a fast enough Shutter Speed necessary to arrest Subject Motion - HOWEVER - there can/will be a point where the ISO is extended at or beyond an acceptable level and in this case a faster lens (faster than F/2.8) will obviously allow incrementally faster Shutter Speeds.

The EOS 70D has acceptable High ISO performance - and in this regard I encourage you to still seriously consider an F/2.8 Zoom Lens.

*

However - it is when one is at the ISO Limit and the Shutter Speed Limit that Lens Speed (Maximum Aperture) will be the defining element as to whether the Shot is possible or impossible.

*

This was made with the EF 85 F/1.8 a while ago. The shot exhibits some SUBJECT MOVEMENT. The camera was at maximum ISO, that being ISO3200. The point is, even if I had made the shot yesterday using an available ISO 128000, (increase ISO by 2 stops) I still would have used F/1.8 or F/2 so I could increase the Shutter Speed (to around 1/320s) to assure I would arrest all the Subject Movement:



Shooting: F/1.8 @ 1/80s @ ISO3200

***

Similarly, this is a Candid Portrait captured backstage under very dim lighting using ISO3200 and the EF85 F/1.8:



***

Do not get caught up in what I term as “L Series Hype” . . . that means assuming that all L Series lenses are somehow ‘more magic’ than all other lenses apropos image quality, bokeh and etc.

Note well that there are many criteria for a Lens to be designated “L Series” and the lack of any one criterion will deem a lens not L Class. Two simple yet profound illustrations are:

> the comparative poor image quality of the EF 50 F/1.0L when compared to the EF 50 F/1.4 when both lenses are used from F/1.4 to F/2.8

> The excellent image quality, robust built, type of glass and quality of glass; IS; flare resistance; non varying maximum aperture of the EF-S 17 to 55 F/2.8 IS USM - yet as that lens has an EF-S Mount it can never be classified as an L Series Lens

***

Concerning Prime only and thinking laterally but spending a bit more money on TWO prime lenses not one, consider:

> the EF 50 F/1.8 MkII plus EF 85 F/1.8 (the 50/1.8MkII being less expensive than the 50/1.4)

> the EF 35 F/2 plus EF 85 F/1.8 (the 35/2 being wider than a 50mm lens and more versatile for candid work, especially indoors; in tight quarters; if you cannot move backwards quickly or easily

*

Here is an example of the Bokeh of the EF35 F/2 used on an APS-C Format Camera and the lens used wide open:



*

One reason why I chose to keep the EF 50 F/1.4 and not the EF50 F/1.8MkII is because of the NUMBER of Aperture Blades.

The EF 50 F/1.4 has an EVEN number of blades and whether ODD or EVEN has an impact on Star Bursts Flare: and I make (comparatively to many Photographers) a lot of shots into small bright light sources and as such I ofetn get several Star Burst Flares in my images - and when I do I want the Flares to look "nice".

This is the EF 50 F/1.4 (probably used around F/11):



***

I expect that when I get the lenses and begin the actual application, the knowledge will be deeply made real.

Sage. Bravo.

***

I've also never had a prime, either, but I've used one. I know I'm going to be tested using a lens without even basic zooming capabilities other than zooming with my feet!

I am not sure if that comment is serious or not: in case it was a serious comment, then please note that one can NOT “zoom with the feet”.

Zooming changed the FIELD OF VIEW of the Shot.

Moving the Camera Viewpoint (i.e. moving one’s feet) changes the PERSPECTIVE of the shot.

There is a BIG difference between those two manoeuvres - especially for all aspects of PORTRAIT Photography.

***

Concerning the expectation of the change in Bokeh as the Aperture starts at wide open and becomes smaller – here is a typical example of that change using an F/2.8 Lens:



***

Concerning Portraiture and Bokeh: using the same lens and a similar (technical) shooting scenario, but a different LIGHTING and BACKGROUND scenario - here are two examples of the EF 50 F/1.4 used on an APS-C Format Camera (F/1.6 and around F/2.2):





Note the difference in Bokeh is mainly due to the Background TEXTURE and the lighting on the BACKGROUND being different - the Subject Distance; the Background Distance and the Aperture are all similar.

***

Closing comments.

I wish to make it clear that no bias arguing for Prime Lenses vs. Zoom Lenses - nor on behalf of L Lenses vs 'Prosumer' Lenses.

Personally, I have Canon DSLR's and I own more (and use more often) Prime Lenses rather than Zoom Lenses - until two years ago and for most of my 'working life' I had only ever: none; one; and it was only in 2004 I had maximum of two Zoom Lenses in any kit that I owned.

So as a product of noting what I use - one would expect me to be pushing for people to buy and use Prime Lenses . . . so why don't I do that?

Three reasons:

> historical fact - Zoom Lenses in 2016 are a thousand times better and a thousand times less expensive than Zoom Lenses in 1976 (1976 was when I finally could afford to buy my first 'full kit') I exaggerate, probably not one thousand times less expensive, but certainly much MUCH better.

> historical habit - I have always worked with MULTIPLE camera bodies; usually three, sometimes five/six; nowadays with digital always two, sometimes three - hence having two, three, four or five Prime lenses mounted ready for use was never an issue; Lens changes were always minimal and easy to plan - and anyway I have made a zillion lens changes and I am really quick at it; thinking about PERSPECTIVE and FoV in a 'Prime Lens' thought processes is a natural; the simple point - for several years I knew nothing other than using Prime lenses - it's like driving a car with three pedals -I always have and that's why I prefer now to buy a car with . . . three pedals . . . so I can use three pedals because I like to. On the other hand most people have one camera body.

> money fact - I already own a 'set of' Prime Lenses - I am not buying stuff now.

*

I trust that the take home for you from those points above is I generally advocate that most Photographers will get the best value for money by buying one or two (or perhaps three) good quality Zoom Lenses.

However this conversation varies a bit from the norm .

What you see as "value for money" occurs to me to be quite a lot about the "doing" at grass roots level and from the aspect of the "learning" and "experiencing".

And in this case I concur: appreciating that one understands and factors the limitation of the single Focal Length of Prime Lens - it is possible to achieve some results and have some experiences using very fast Prime Lenses which are impossible to achieve and have, using even the fastest and the very best Zoom Lenses and if you buy having done your homework the Prime Lenses will almost always be a less expensive purchase than a Zoom Lens.

*

Good Luck with your purchase.

WW

All Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd Aust 1996~2016 WMW 1965~1996

[bubbawny]

Hi folks:

Just got the EF 50mm F1.4 USM. Took it out with me to dinner with the wife.

As I mentioned before, I've never owned a "fast" lens before and didn't know what to expect. I took a few shots about 6:00pm, semi-cloudy outside, and then a few in a restaurant inside.

I know I have a lot more to experiment with and practice with this lens. The only comment I will make at this point is that I've got a bit of learning to do. (also, I'm really stunned to see how much noise the 70D has even at ISO 200 / 400. I have to try ETTR a bit more and see if that helps. I shoot in Raw and try to eliminate noise in LR. I'm surprised to see how noisy some of the shots were. Just awful noise.)

Anyways, I'll post some more practice photos over the weekend. I was trying to NOT go below 1/50 with this lens today. But even doing so, I had some blur. I need to at least eliminate my body motion by using a tripod, remote shutter release for low (er) light. I kept forgetting this lens doesn't have IS. So I need to avoid the hand holding danger zone and remember to keep shutter speed higher than 1/50 and be very careful when hand holding.

So for now, that's it. Picked up the EF 50 F1.4. Tried the 85 1.8. But on an APS-C, for me, you just had to be so far away from the subject to fit it in the frame.

For now, I think the 50mm on APS-C will be fine.

Tomorrow begins the real experimentation with this lens in figuring out what it and my 70D can do together. I figure a lot of the issues will be the guy behind the lens!



nite guys. heading to bed. Long work day. I'm excited for tomorrow and tomorrow night. I'm hoping to put the lens to the test!

[William W]

Fantastic - have fun!

[bubbawny]

Hi William:

I just wanted to say thanks again. I was re-reading your comment and it was awesome and so very much appreciated.

I've only had the 50mm 1.4 for one day so far. It's quite sharp. I'm impressed. Tomorrow night, 4th of July here in America, I'm hoping to put it through some paces in terms of low-light photography. I'll be down town where I live near Buffalo getting some low-light shots down at the waterfront (Lake Erie) and some fireworks, too.

I'm really excited about the lens.

There's a Sigma 18-35mm F1.8 DC HSM Art lens I have my eye on. As you say, there's some great zoom lenses out there. My problem is that my budget is really restricted.

For now, I think with the 50mm 1.4, it'll give me a chance to play more both with low-light photography as well as various subject isolation photos and a bit of candids.

I'm excited and grateful for the purchase. I know $350 U.S. is chump change relative to what good glass goes for.

But as they say, this little prime gives a lot of optical quality for a low price.

I had the lens out on a tripod today, testing various settings, practicing, learning. Got a lot more to do yet to get to know what this lens can do. But once my experiments are done and the learning inculcated, I hope to really hit the field and have some fun.

Blessings! And thanks again. that was nice of you to put such an informative post up.

[bubbawny]

Here's some sample pics using the 50mm f1.4 this morning.

This is the first three. It's a demonstration of two things:

1. The lens is soft at f1.4 but gets sharp around f2.

2. There's an enormous amount of purple fringing wide open that disappears at F2 or so.

Here's the first picture. It was taken EF 50mm F1.4, 1/8000, ISO 100. The focus was on the crane in the back, on it's eye. You can see the purple fringing on the head, and the photo is very soft. Bokeh is ok.

Photo 1

Here's the second picture. F2.2, 1/3200, ISO 3200. The picture sharpened up really nice. The bokeh is OK. The purple fringing is all but gone. The sharpness on the focus point (second heron) is quite good.

Photo 2

And here's the third picture. F2.5 1/2500, ISO 100. The sharpness is excellent (same focus area, second heron). Far less purple fringing.

Photo 3

Sharpness is excellent. Still some fringing (Noticeable in the body of the bird, but quite faint).

All in all, this sequence of test shows that the lens, for the price is quite sharp. I'm very disappointed in the chromatic abberation at low ISO.

Note:

All photos taken on a tripod, about 10:30am in partial shade on a mostly sunny day on my EOS 70D. I tried keeping the exposures identical. The only post processing: Setting Camera / Lens profile, selecting "remove chromatic abberations."

No adjustments for noise or sharpness were done.

[bubbawny]

Here's another sample photo. EF 50mm, f1.4, 1/1000 EOS 70D. Post processing: Camera/lens profile, chromatic aberrations removal in LR. No other adjustments.

Focus was on the FRONT bird's eye. Picture was soft. You can see some purple fringing. But the bokeh is more what I was hoping to see. I was about 5' from the front bird, using a tripod. The background was about 40' away.

[bubbawny]

Here's two more:

both taken with the same exposure: 50mm F1.4 1/4000, ISO 200. LR used to select camera profile adjustments & chromatic abberation removal that's it. no other post processing. First shot, focused on the dragon fly hanging off the glass bird bath. Second shot focusing on the heron.




Purple fringing visible in photo 1 around the dragon fly's body and areas of the bowl. Purple fringing visible in the second photo in the feathers of the herons and around the head and neck. Quite visible actually.

Pleased with the bokeh in photo 1. Photo 2, bokeh circles kind of look like they are hollow/ringed. Very odd looking.

Anyways, that's all for now. Heading out to take some low light photography of some fireworks going off. Will see how it works.

I have a lot to learn yet about subject isolation. I used the DOF calculator on this site when taking the photos today. I think I need to really figure out how far away the background needs to be in order to get the bokeh like I got in photo #1, and how far from the camera to the subject.

I think this lens will give me a bit of what I'm looking for and I'm having fun playing.

I will say it again: I'm deeply disappointed in the NOISE I'm seeing on the 70D, as well as the chromatic abberations with this lens. I know this isn't exactly a 1DX and multi-thousand dollar camera. So I'll just have to continue to study how to get the best out of this lens and body.

I am stunned at the clarity of the lens at F2+. It's really pretty impressive.

I also need to look at the DOF calculator on this site to compare the difference in DOF between FF and APS-C.

As I said before, this is new territory for me. A lot of learning to go yet.

I hope you don't mind me posting my study photos. They are not here because I think they are the world's most stunning photos. But they simply represent my first studies at trying to get to know what this lens / body can do together.

Blessings. C&C (and further advice!) welcome!

[inkista]

... I will say it again: I'm deeply disappointed in the NOISE I'm seeing on the 70D, as well as the chromatic aberrations with this lens....

Noise can also come from underexposure, especially if you push the exposure brighter in post. Check your histogram. Attempt ETTR, if you're really bugged by it, but doing noise reduction in post can also work. I also wouldn't overestimate how much noise performance full frame can buy you--I tend to ballpark it as only a stop's improvement over APS-C in the same sensor generation. And newer generations nearly always beat older ones. Your 70D is pretty much the equal of my 5DMkII when it comes to ISO noise.

Also, dunno if anybody's mentioned this, but Canon bodies tend to use digital push on +1/3EV iso settings, and digital pull on -1/3 EV settings (i.e., you might get a little less noise if you use a multiple of 160). Push means that you shoot underexposed and then push the exposure brighter in post; pull means you shoot slightly overexposed and then adjust the exposure darker in post (in short, ETTR). Personally, I don't think it matters that much, and just use full stop ISO settings. But I'm not picky about noise/grain, having shot film for 20+ years and learned to live with it.

As for the wide-open C/A (and mitigation stopping down), that's actually par for the course with any fast lens. The EF 85/1.8 USM is notorious for this. I have similar LoCA issues with an adapted C/Y Zeiss Planar 100/2. The wider the lens goes, the more compromises you'll make on softness, C/A, and vignetting at the wide end, in my experience. There are reasons f/0.95-f/1.2 lenses aren't necessarily "worth it" for most shooters.

No lens is perfect, it's still gonna be made of glass that has to obey the laws of optics. All you can do is find the best fit for you and what you want to shoot and your wallet. I say this as someone who went from an EF 50mm f/1.8 II to an EF 85mm f/1.8 USM to an EF 135mm f/2L USM, and a dRebel XT to a 50D to a 5DMkII. And now shoots mainly micro four-thirds and an X100T. Gear-chasing has its own rewards and pitfalls, just don't mistake learning about cameras and lenses for learning photography.

[William W]

I reinforce all the messages that Kathy sent.

As one example - if you don't like CA then you'd detest the EF 24/1.4L and you'd never use it between F/1.4 and F/2.5 or maybe never at F/4 either, in some lighting scenarios - but I think it is one of the three "best" (meaning most useful for me) lenses I have and I use it at F/1.4 quite often. CA can usually be managed and I think that you'll find that what you might get fixated upon maybe not very many other people will ever notice.

Also take note of the comments concerning Canon's intermediate ISO settings (though frankly, like Kathy, I usually always use the full stop ISO settings) but I think more important is the comment about the relationship between underexposure relationship and noise - FWIW the tests I have done make me conclude that using a 5D MkII an Half Stop under the limit of possible exposure (i.e. pushing to the exposure to right and still having one half a stop remaining before there are non-recoverable highlights) results in noticeable and "tending to be problematic general noise" (i.e across the broad range of tones) at and above ISO 800 and "quite problematic noise in the shadow area" at and above ISO 400.

***

Referring to your comments: F/2.2~F2.5 is about the aperture where my 50/1.4 becomes quite sharp, though centre sharpness is OK between F/1.4 and F/2.2 - of course I tend to shoot Portraiture and (for me) edge sharpness is not really all that much big deal most of the time.

On the Subjects of Bokeh and Subject Isolation - remember that the Background Texture and the type of and direction of Lighting on the Background will often make a difference to the Bokeh.

I think it just takes a bit of time: if you take the time and have fun doing it and review your results, then there will be a moment when you "GET" how the lens works best for you in different lighting situations.

WW