Digital lens question

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I recently purchased a Digital rebel. I want to do portraits. with my
35 mm film camera I used a 80-135 lens. What would be equal in
digital?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On 4/23/05 10:13 AM, in article 9NWdnU_LsYWP-_ffRVn-sg@comcast.com, "Bill
Crocker" <wcrocker007@comcast.net> wrote:

> 128~216mm
>
> Bill Crocker
>
I think that he wanted to know what an equivalent lens would be for the
Drebel not what the 80-135 would translate to in 35mm terms. That would be
a 50-84mm lens.
Chuck


> <clothesLord@iquest.net> wrote in message
> news:79pk6157kji5o2ek4vtpdvqppb0rlc8tm1@4ax.com...
>> I recently purchased a Digital rebel. I want to do portraits. with my
>> 35 mm film camera I used a 80-135 lens. What would be equal in
>> digital?
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

If you want a zoom an excellent lens for doing portraits is the Canon
28-135mm IS lens. I know this isn't everyones choice as it's the
equivalent of a 45-216mm. The IS makes it easy to handhold in low light
and still get great shots and the image quality is very good. The lens
also doesn't weight too much has great colot rendition and handles
contrast well. I have several L lens and the image quality of this lens
matches up well.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Art

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"JLord remove \"clothes\" before replying - \"clothesLord@iquest.net\"" <clothesLord@iquest.net> writes:

> I recently purchased a Digital rebel. I want to do portraits. with my
> 35 mm film camera I used a 80-135 lens. What would be equal in
> digital?

Your Digital Rebel has a 1.6x crop factor; it should say that in the
manual somewhere. That means that you need a lens 1.6x shorter than
you used to use to get the same angle of view. A 50mm lens will give
you the angle of view you're used to getting from a 1.6x * 50mm = 80mm
lens.

In addition to angle of view, you'll find differences in depth of
field -- you'll have noticeably more with the smaller sensor compared
to film. You may find you need to shoot at wider apertures to blur
the background the way you're used to. If you were shooting wide open
on film, you may find you have a problem.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailtod-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/> <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/> <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks that is helpful

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:
> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
> > <clothesLord@iquest.net> wrote:

> > >I recently purchased a Digital rebel. I want to do portraits. with my
> > > 35 mm film camera I used a 80-135 lens. What would be equal in
> > > digital?
> >
> > Multiply the lens you are putting on your camera by about 1.5, which
will
> > give you the 35mm equivalent. So, many digital photogs like to use
> > something between 50mm and 85mm for portraits. For one, you can often
> find
> > used 50mm lenses used with very large apertures enabling you to reduce
> your
> > depth of field for blurred background, not to mention the advantage of
> > shooting in lower light. Not sure about Canon, but Nikon 50mm 1.4
lenses
> > can be had used for around $50.
>
> For a rebel multiply by 1.6x...

The price is wrong, too. The Canon 50/1.8 is an OK lens that you should be
able to find for US$50 or so used, but the current Canon 50/1.4, an
excellent portrait lens on the Rebel, costs more like US$300 or so.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

By the way, for tightly cropped portraits, I find the 50mm a tad short. The
Tamron 28-75/2.8 is more flexible.

http://www.photo.net/equipment/tamron/28_75_Di/

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news4fhgo$tnr$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Dirty Harry" <NOJUNK@FU.ca> wrote:
>> "Sheldon" <sheldon@XXXXXXXXsopris.net> wrote:
>> > <clothesLord@iquest.net> wrote:
>
>> > >I recently purchased a Digital rebel. I want to do portraits. with my
>> > > 35 mm film camera I used a 80-135 lens. What would be equal in
>> > > digital?
>> >
>> > Multiply the lens you are putting on your camera by about 1.5, which
> will
>> > give you the 35mm equivalent. So, many digital photogs like to use
>> > something between 50mm and 85mm for portraits. For one, you can often
>> find
>> > used 50mm lenses used with very large apertures enabling you to reduce
>> your
>> > depth of field for blurred background, not to mention the advantage of
>> > shooting in lower light. Not sure about Canon, but Nikon 50mm 1.4
> lenses
>> > can be had used for around $50.
>>
>> For a rebel multiply by 1.6x...
>
> The price is wrong, too. The Canon 50/1.8 is an OK lens that you should be
> able to find for US$50 or so used, but the current Canon 50/1.4, an
> excellent portrait lens on the Rebel, costs more like US$300 or so.
>
> http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/
>
> By the way, for tightly cropped portraits, I find the 50mm a tad short.
> The
> Tamron 28-75/2.8 is more flexible.

I mentioned the 50mm because they are inexpensive and usually easy to find
(until all the digital photogs get hold of them). My favorite is an older
85mm 1.8 (Nikon).