I'm shooting with the D300. I have a 50mm lens that does well close to the subject...as you should be. I would like to back up and get full body, but if
I back up too much I lose it. Can you suggest a lens for me to try? I just
rented the 85 and it had wonderful bokeh when I was close to the subject, as with the
50. I see so many images of several people in the scene that are shot full body, and have great bokeh too. Is there a lens that pops into mind...
Thank you!
Lens to use for Bokeh when shooting full length?
(41 posts) (16 voices)-
Posted 7 months ago #
-
85 1.4
70-200 2.8
200-400 4.0
200 2.0
300 2.8
400 2.8
500 4.0
600 4.0
Sigma makes some
120-300 2.8
300 ect ect
300-800mmPosted 7 months ago # -
Oh and probably the DC lenses as well would be worth looking into 105 2.0DC and 135 F2 DC
Posted 7 months ago # -
Here are examples of a 135mm f/2.0 wide open
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7990530656/sizes/o/in/set-72157631519930021/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7990527820/sizes/o/in/set-72157631519930021/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7990519541/sizes/o/in/set-72157631519930021/
The problem is, when you get back far enough to get a full length shot, the DOF becomes too great to get really fantastic bokeh. But, a 135mm f/2 or 200mm f/2.8, maybe the 85mm f/1.4 or a 100mm f/2, all are going to help get some bokeh if shot wide open.
And, here is a 50mm shot at f/1.4..
http://www.flickr.com/photos/fantinesfotos/7997107939/sizes/o/in/photostream/
Some others will have some good ideas as well... Oh, I changed the thread title so it will attract some direct answers..
Posted 7 months ago # -
The perfect lens would be the, gobsmacking expensive, 200mm f 2
or the, grounds for divorce, 400mm f 2.8
but you can get very good results with a 50mm using the Brenizer method
Posted 7 months ago # -
Pamela, if I'm understanding you correctly then you want to be able to shoot full body portraits while still retaining the bokeh around your subject, correct?
Well, if money is no object then the first lens I'd go with is the 24 f/1.4 followed closely by the 24-70 f/2.8 but then again those lenses will set you back almsot 2 grands each.
If you are on a budget then you can probably try one of the older 24mm or 20mm lenses like the 24 f/2.8D although I haven't had any first hand experience with them so can't tell you how good they really are. There is also the new 28 f/1.8 which I've heard good things about but haven't tried it myself either. Another lens also worth mentioning is the 35 f/1.8 DX. Not a very impressive lens optically but good value for the money.
Posted 7 months ago # -
I believe she wants to just get really nice bokeh around a full body subject?
If so, a 200 f/2 is good or a 70-200 2.8 at the 200mm focal length would work.Posted 7 months ago # -
While the lens is an important part of the equation, a budget solution would be to change the position of the subject relative to the background.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Yes........I'm wanting to geta nice bokeh while shooting a full body subject.
Many different suggestions here. Thank you for the feedback.Posted 7 months ago # -
hello pamela,
1st, it will be easier to get the look you want using a full frame camera.
2nd, don't listen to iris chrome, you want a telephoto not a wide angle.
3rd, make sure there is a good 10m (god knows what that is in the old language) of space behind the subject. If I want really good bokeh I use my d700 and 300 2.8 wide open, but I still only take half length shots and need a good 10m or more of clear space behing the subject.
4th, seriously consider the Brenizer method, as this is most likely what you have seen that you are trying to emulate.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Gareth said:
hello pamela,1st, it will be easier to get the look you want using a full frame camera.
2nd, don't listen to iris chrome, you want a telephoto not a wide angle.
3rd, make sure there is a good 10m (god knows what that is in the old language) of space behind the subject. If I want really good bokeh I use my d700 and 300 2.8 wide open, but I still only take half length shots and need a good 10m or more of clear space behing the subject.
4th, seriously consider the Brenizer method, as this is most likely what you have seen that you are trying to emulate.
My understanding of the OP's question, is that she was finding the 75mm effective focal length of her 50mm lens on her DX camera, too great to achieve a full body shot (head to feet)? If that's the case, why is iris chrome's suggestion of a fast wide angle lens incorrect? Obviously space permitting a telephoto would normally be the best option, but it sounds to me that the OP doesn't have this luxury?
Posted 7 months ago # -
Good points here...if no room, use a 24mm, 28mm, 35mm f/1.4 or 1.8 wide open, but there is no way to get the effect of the Brenizer method as these are shot with a short telephoto and 30-40 images are stitched together. Even wide open, the 35mm will not get much bokeh. Getting back far enough and shooting a 50mm on crop sensor or an 85mm on full frame is most likely the only way to do this. I think the best bang for the buck would be the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor G for $500.
Posted 7 months ago # -
I was also under the impression that a prime lens would give better results than a telephoto. Is that wrong?
Posted 7 months ago # -
pamelaj said:
I was also under the impression that a prime lens would give better results than a telephoto. Is that wrong?I think you are confused with terminology and how it works. A prime can be any focal length...including a telephoto lens. The benefits of primes are usually fast lenses...F1.4 or 1.8. This allows a more narrow depth of field and therefor more easily produces nice background blur (bokeh). Now any lens can produce it. The easiest way if it is a zoom is to zoom to the longest focal length and shoot the lens wide open. For focal length the longer the focal length the easier subject isolation becomes. There is still factors like distance to subject and then distance to background, but in general a longer focal length is easier to get nice bokeh. The nikon 105 F2.8 makes it pretty easy...shoot wide open for a full body shot and pretty much they all turn out great. My newly found love the Nikon 300 F4 has amazing, nice smooth bokeh wide open.
So several factors. Focal length, aperture, distance to subject, distance to background are all factors in bokeh.
This shot at F5 with my 105 F2.8.
300 F4 at F4
35 F1.8 at F2.2
The key with like the 35 is getting close to the subject and distance to the background. When you want a full body picture though this can be difficult because the distance you will have to be away from the subject to get the full body shot. As you can see in the leaf picture with the 35 as the things get further into the background they start to blur more, but some of the background items weren't far enough back and are still out of focus but visible to tell what it is..another leaf in this case.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Stunning stuff, tcole.
More broadly, +1 for the 135mm DC lens, my personal favourite lens. The DC is an absolute bokeh monster.
Posted 7 months ago # -
SkintBrit said:
My understanding of the OP's question, is that she was finding the 75mm effective focal length of her 50mm lens on her DX camera, too great to achieve a full body shot (head to feet)? If that's the case, why is iris chrome's suggestion of a fast wide angle lens incorrect? Obviously space permitting a telephoto would normally be the best option, but it sounds to me that the OP doesn't have this luxury?my understanding is that when she moves back she loses any bokeh she had up close. wide lenses, even fast ones wont help with this.
she needs a tele.
like this
Posted 7 months ago # -
Oh boy! I hope I haven't stepped on somebody's tail without knowing it -_-
Anywany, like what tcole said, lenses can be either prime or zoom. A prime is a lens that has only one focal length while a zoom is a lens that has a range of focal lengths where you can zoom in between those lengths. Now, focal lengths themselves range between wide, normal and telephoto. There is also ulltra-wide and super-telephoto but those can be considered subsets of the previous ranges. For example, a 50mm focal length is considered a normal lens and a 24mm focal length is considered wide while a 135mm focal length is considered telephoto regardless if the lens is a prime or a zoom.
The effect you're trying to achieve is called small depth of field. There are a couple of ways to achieve that effect. Using a telephoto lens and a low f number is probably the easiest way however the tradeoff to this is that most of your shots will be tight (tighter than your 50mm or 85mm obviously). The Brenizer method is one way to work around this problem but it will require additional work like taking multiple shots of the scene and the person you're photographing and then combining all the shots together in post processing to create one image.
Another workaround for the telephoto problem is to back away until you can see the whole body of the person you're trying to photograph. The downfall to this workaround though is that as you back further away from your subject, your depth of field becomes larger and you begin to lose the bokeh you were trying to create in the first place. So then again, what you'll have to do is position your subject with enough space between them and their surroundings so that their surroundings would still be outside of your depth of field and therefore still blurred or "bokeh'd out" : D
Now, if we go to the wide end of lenses coupled with a low f number as well then it becomes a bit easier to achieve the separation you want in one shot while still being close to your subject. You'll still face some difficulties as wider lenses tend NOT to create much separation to begin with. So for this reason you have to offset by using a lower f number and being closer to your subject.
Here is a really good and clear crash course on depth of field btw:
Posted 7 months ago # -
I love this place! 6 hours and look at the great responses.
If you have a lot of time on your hands, you could try this, pamelaj. It takes some serious post processing to stitch them all, but it's like shooting large format, so you could probably get by shooting the 85 you mentioned or even maybe the 50, but the closer you get the more you'll have to be careful to avoid parallax. (Do you have a good video for parallax, iris?) The shorter the lens, the less stitching you'd have to do later.
http://blog.buiphotos.com/2009/07/the-brenizer-method-explained-with-directions/
Discussed on the forum here:
http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4778Welcome to the forum. Let us know what you do and how it goes.
EDIT: just noticed you mentioned the method I offered, iris.Posted 7 months ago # -
Are you allowed to mention a photographers name on this forum? It would be easy for you to see what I'm wanting to do, if you would see her work. I'm needing to back up from the subject, to get full body, and then I'm losing the bokeh. Just wondered what lens might be good for this.. Thanks so much for all the responses and suggestions.
Posted 7 months ago # -
@jonny
I don't have video but here is a fairly good written tutorial on the subject with some helpful links at the bottom:
http://johnhpanos.com/epcalib.htm
@pamela
If it's not a commercial link then mods would generally allow it. At any rate, most of us here follow the rule of "when in doubt post it anyway and a poor mod will clean up after us" :p
Posted 7 months ago # -
pamelaj: I don't think the effect is due to a "magic lens" as much as it is due to a certain technique. E-mail the photographer and ask them how they do it. It may require a certain location which gives a great distance between the foreground where the subject is standing and the background which is out of focus. For example, subject on a slight hill or rock outcropping which isolates them against a wooded area some distance away. You may have to find a good location (or two) and take your subjects there for the best effect. It looks like SquamishPhoto shoots many of his portraits in the same place which he found gives good subject to background distance for his 100mm lens.
Posted 7 months ago # -
proudgeek said:
While the lens is an important part of the equation, a budget solution would be to change the position of the subject relative to the background.Gareth said:
4th, seriously consider the Brenizer method, as this is most likely what you have seen that you are trying to emulate.These are the two main things to look at.
If you use a wider angle lens, you will not be able to get bokeh as the physics of the lense will add too much DOF.
Telephoto lens (200-600mm) will get you there as well. Many fashion photographers use that focal length to achieve the bokeh.
You can get good bokeh with almost any lens, you just need to set the subject relative to the background at enough distance.
In reality you need your subject probaby 30-60 feet away from the background with a full body with a 50mm at 1.4. Stand them up on a soap box and shoot the lens at about their waist high so you can knock the ground out as well. The issue is not the lens or camera it is the working distance you need in relation to the distance of the background. My general rule is to try to get 3x the working distance from the subject behind them to the background.
Brenizer method is a good way as well, but you need Photoshop or another stitching program. Youtube has many videos on how to do this.
Posted 7 months ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
These are the two main things to look at.If you use a wider angle lens, you will not be able to get bokeh as the physics of the lense will add too much DOF.
Telephoto lens (200-600mm) will get you there as well. Many fashion photographers use that focal length to achieve the bokeh.
You can get good bokeh with almost any lens, you just need to set the subject relative to the background at enough distance.
In reality you need your subject probaby 30-60 feet away from the background with a full body with a 50mm at 1.4. Stand them up on a soap box and shoot the lens at about their waist high so you can knock the ground out as well. The issue is not the lens or camera it is the working distance you need in relation to the distance of the background. My general rule is to try to get 3x the working distance from the subject behind them to the background.
Brenizer method is a good way as well, but you need Photoshop or another stitching program. Youtube has many videos on how to do this.
I was going to write something along these lines last night, but didn't want to on my phone. So as TTJ is saying...once you move back to say 10 feet...now you need like 30 feet behind the subject. So if your subject is standing near something and you back up then everything behind them is going to come into focus.
Posted 7 months ago # -
Audrey Woulard Photography...
Posted 7 months ago # -
She posts some of her photos with exif data, pamelaj. I went through the first five or so full body shots and here are her settings:
D700 (full frame sensor—discussed above)
85mm f/1.4 set at f/1.6The D700 is a bargain these days, but still not really inexpensive. You might also want to look into the D600 if you're serious about this. The full frame sensor gives you 2.25 times more area, so you can be closer to the subject and still have a full body shot without affecting the bokeh. (Sorry I missed your post about the Brenizer method, too, Gareth!)
Posted 7 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
