Tag Archives: Nifty Fifty

Not too shallow

Posted on by
1

I hear people say sometimes that “you cannot shoot portraits at wide open apertures”.

So then how this available light portrait, shot on a full frame camera with a 50mm lens at f/1.2 (yes, f/1.2!)?

Well yes, it is shallow, but not too shallow.  Because I have enough distance.

Remember: depth of field (“DOF”) is a function of three things: aperture, distance, and lens focal length. The closer I get, the lower my f-number, and the more I zoom in, the more I get shallow depth of field.

So  portrait like this, with the person small enough like this, gives me plenty of DOF. Of course I would not want to do a full headshot at these large apertures, but in this type of portrait the shallow DOF is not too shallow, and the super blurry background makes things better.

So  -get yourself an affordable 24- 35- or 50mm lens!

 

Nifty.

Posted on by
Reply

The 50mm lens continues to be a favourite, but not always for the same reason.

There are in fact four reasons people often say they like a 50mm lens:

  1. On a full frame camera, it has the width of view that our eyes see sharply. This gives it a natural look: no compressed perspective (telephoto lens), and no expanded perspective (wide angle lens).
  2. Or – on a crop camera, it is a 75/80mm lens, which makes it a great portrait lens.
  3. And most 50mm lenses are fast. Meaning a low “f-number”, meaning a wide aperture, meaning selective depth of field.
  4. And finally, that also gives you a nice fast shutter speed in low light without having to go to very high ISO values.

Those last two points are illustrated by this picture, 50mm at f/1.2:

Reem, by Michael Willems

Pay here!

 

 

Yesterday

Posted on by
2

A student took this snap of me yesterday:

Photographer Michael Willems

He did this as follows:

  • He used his Canon 60D with my 50mm f/1.2 lens.
  • He used his new 580 EX II speedlight, bounced off the ceiling behind him.
  • The camera was set to manual exposure, f/5.6, 1/30th second
  • He selected 400 ISO.

Typical “indoors flash” settings.

The 50mm lens was set to f/5.6, so that means you could have done the same with any lens in the range of 50mm. This kind of lens length (meaning 80mm on a full frame body) is great for portraits. Which is why the 50mm (crop body) or 85mm (full-frame body) are such popular lenses.

If you do not yet own a 50mm prime lens, go get one. 50mm f/1.8, or if you can afford it, f/1.4 – or go all the way as I did, and get the 50mm f/1.2, but you will not using it at f/1.2 much.

 

Nifty Fifty

Posted on by
Reply

Everyone should own a fast 50mm lens, I keep saying. “Fast” meaning a prime, large aperture lens (like a 50mm f/1.8, or even a 50mm f/1.4, like this one:)

50mm fast lens, product photo by Michael Willems

50mm fast lens, by Michael Willems

One student asks a good question about this:

“I recently attended your travel photography and Nikon Pt. 2 classes. You spoke about the value of a 50 mm lens. I have a Nikon D90, which is not full frame therefore I am wondering if you still recommend the 50 mm over a 35 mm.”

Good question.

As you know, a small sensor camera (like most of today’s DSLRs) appears to “lengthen” the lens (search this blog for “crop factor” to see why). So a 50mm lens will work like a “real” 80mm lens.

In “real” terms,

  • 50mm is a “standard” lens;
  • 80mm is a great portrait lens for half-length portraits and headshots.

So presumably we should all start with a “real” 50mm lens? On a regular (non-“full frame”) DSLR, that means you need to buy a 35mm lens.

So is my advice really “buy a lens marked 35mm” or “buy a lens marked 50mm”?

Ideally, both. But if you have to choose, start with the 50, because:

  • You’ll want to do headshots sooner or later;
  • Sometimes you’ll use it for product or detail-shots, too;
  • Above all: it is very affordable.

Most manufacturers make a 50mm f/1.8 that costs around $150 or less.  A bargain, and something you just need to put in your camera bag.

A rose by any other name

Posted on by
5

I took this “grab-shot” at the Kodiak Gallery the other day with a Canon 7D and 50mm f/1.4 lens:

Canon 7D, 50mm f/1.4 at f/1.4, 1/250th sec, 800 ISO

This shows that with the right lens, you do not need flash. You also do not need a macro lens every time. You can use what you have, if you keep your eyes open.

Also note:

  • The secondary subject blurred in the background
  • I used exposure compensation (+) to ensure the white background showed as white, not gray
  • I am not afraid to go to 800 ISO or beyond to get the right fast shutter speed.
  • I am using off-centre composition, rather than Uncle Fred’s “subject in the middle”

Simple. Just keep your eyes open.

Again, why "fast" lenses?

Posted on by
Reply

A tip for newcomers to SLR photography.

I often hear: “Why do I need so-called “fast” lenses – like the 50mm f/1.8 lens Michael keeps talking about? Surely my 18-55 lens also covers 50mm?”

Well yes it does. But:

  1. Less sharply. A “prime” (i.e. non-zoom) lens is sharper.
  2. A prime lens is also smaller and lighter.
  3. And especially: the prime lens has a lower minimum “F-number” – i.e. a larger aperture. The lower the “F”-number, the better. Your kit lens is f/3.5-5.6 (meaning zoomed out it can go as low as 3.5; zoomed in it can go only as low as 5.6. The 50mm f/1.8 can go as low as 1.8).

Why is this important?

So in today’s class I took two shots of a student in available room light. One at f/5.6, and that is what you would get with your standard “kit”-lens. It looks like this:

Two things happen:

  1. Because of the small aperture (high “F-number”), the camera has to keep the lens open for a long time. This means that unless I use a tripod and tell the subject not to move, in indoors light I will get camera shake (the shot needed 1/10th of a second). And sure , do.
  2. The lower the “F” number, the shallower the depth of field, i.e. the blurrier the background. The higher the F-number, the sharper the background.F/5.6 gives a background that is somewhat blury.

Now look what happens when I use an aperture of f/1.8 (for which you need a lens that can do that, like the 50mm f/1.8 lens):

Much better – a pretty dramatic difference on both counts!

So the best way to immediately get great portrait shots is to:

  1. Get yourself a 50mm lens. On most cameras this is simple; do note that on a Nikon D40/D60/D3000/D5000 you need to manually focus this lens (that is why I recommend Canon cameras at the entry level).
  2. Learn Aperture Priority mode (A/Av) and use a low “F-number”.
  3. Turn the camera sideways and get close!

Have fun.

(Wow, three numbered lists in one blog post!)

Snap

Posted on by
Reply

Photography is about composition/subject + moment + light. I reckon I got several of these right here:

From earlier this year. Using a 35mm lens on a 1.3 crop camera (meaning it’s 50mm), set to f/2.8 at 1/160th second.

Moral of the story: a “standard” lens is great. This is equivalent to a 50mm lens. Do take lots of pictures and do not forget the “moment” aspect.

That dreamy look

Posted on by
Reply

If you want portraits to have that dreamy look, use a lens with a wide aperture (a small F-number, like 2.8).

I took this picture yesterday, using a prime 35mm lens (the Canon 35mm f/1.4L) on a Canon 7D, at an aperture of f/2.5 and a shutter speed of 1/50th second.

That 35mm on a 1.6 crop factor camera is like 50mm on a traditional full frame camera. So it’s a “Nifty Fifty”.

A that focal length, I was able to go quite close to Mr Pumpkin without much distortion, as you can see.

IMG_2199

That gives you a very nice look. The close proximity combined with the f/2.5 aperture gives me nice soft bokeh (the creamy quality of the background blur). Even the back of the head is soft.

Beautiful: reason for a smile.

"What lens should I get?"

Posted on by
Reply

“What lens should I get?”

I hear that question a lot from students, and I am always delighted to help answer it.

Of course “help” is all I can do. And I will, over time, in this blog. I can explain the difference between:

  • Zoom and prime.
  • EF and EF-S (or non-DX and DX).
  • Wide and telephoto.
  • Normal and specialised, like Macro and Tilt-Shift.

And I can explain what to use them for (long for sports and safaris, short for environmental, parties, and photojournalism).

And with that knowledge, you can, for instance, buy the lenses I use – or at least understand why I bought them:

lenses

So this is a typical photojournalist collection, consisting of fast (f/2.8 or better) lenses:

  • Zooms: 24-70 2.8L, 70-200 2.8L and 16-35 2.8L
  • 100mm macro
  • Fast primes, 35 mm f/1.4L and 50mm f/1.4

But “fast” does not have to mean “expensive”. The first lens you should buy is the lens I shot my lenses with – the cheapest Canon lens (and Nikon has one too): the 50mm f/1.8. The “nifty fifty”. And while the lenses above range from $500 (50mm) to $1,000-$2,000 (all the rest), the 50mm f/1.8 is just over $100. And boy, is it fast and sharp. Zoom in to see!

And that nifty fifty on a crop camera turns into an 80mm portrait lens.

One thing to feel good about: when buying a lens, you are investing. Unlike a camera, which loses value as quickly as a PC, a lens keeps its value for many years.

Do I need a fast lens?

Posted on by
Reply

When students ask me “should I really buy a fast lens?” (For beginners, that’s a lens with a low “F-number”, like f/2.8), my answer is “it depends.”

What are you shooting? Landscapes (no need for a fast lens, since you will shoot at f/16 or above) or nightclubs (which need a fast lens for low-light abilities), portraits (which need a fast lens for blurry backgrounds) or sports (which need a fast lens for fast exposures)?

And if you like blurry backgrounds, does it make sense to get a pro lens like an f/2.8, or is my kit f/5.6 lens enough? That’s an easy one to answer. It depends. On whether you like this, taken yesterday during a course at f/5.6:

5p6

..or whether you prefer the same shot at f/2.8:

2p8

You decide. View them full size to really see the difference.

Know that every stop faster (from 5.6 to 4, or from 4 to 2.8) doubles the lens price. But if you like the blur (“Bokeh”) in the bottom shot, there’s no substitute for fast.

And I did not say expensive – at least not necessarily so: while some lenses like my f/1.4 35mm cost $2,000, an excellent 50mm fixed (“prime”) f/1.8 lens (a “nifty fifty”, which on a crop camera is  great portrait lens) can be had for as little as $150 or less.

So yes, low f-numbers make a difference and that’s why photographers are willing to pay lots of money for them. But don’t worry: good lenses keep their value.