portraits of children, including close-ups I am seriously thinking of springing for this lens, but would like to make sure that it is a good choice for portraits of children....both full length and close-up. Does this lens distort facial features on close-up shots?? portraits of children, including close-ups I am seriously thinking of springing for this lens, but would like to make sure that it is a good choice for portraits of children....both full length and... » Read More portraits of children, including close-ups I am seriously thinking of springing for this lens, but would like to make sure that it is a good choice for portraits of children....both full length and close-up. Does this lens distort facial features on close-up shots?? « Show Less
910055
if you are into portraits of children just like me, you might want to consider EF 50mm lenses. i also have EF 24-105 L, but i found myself using 50mm the most. 24-105mm is a versatile player that you can take everywhere w/ decent amount of light. however, for portraits, i would highly recommend 50mm. bokek in the background is just stunning. i personally have 50mm 1.2 L, and experiencing superb result.
910056
i have taken some great close ups of my kids with the ef 50mm f/1.8 lens. although it's inexpensive and this shows in the build quality the lens is SHARP!!! how can you go wrong for under 100 bucks.... buy one just to see if you like the 50mm prime range... you won't regret it...
910057
Go for it. This is an awesome lens. I use this lens along with my EF 70-200 L Series f/2.8 for all my wedding and other event shoots (including portraits, sports etc). But if money is not an object why not get the 50MM lens (along with this) as others have suggested. I am happy with the two lenses (ie EF 24-70 mm and EF 70-200 mm). I've taken thousands of pictures with these two lenses (almost 80% with the 24-70 Lens). Hope this helps.
910058
Photofun123-I am in a similar situation. What did you decide on and what do you think of it? I will be getting a 50d and only one lens. My main subject will be my toddler. I am considering 24-70 and 24-105. Thanks.
1250350
From what I've read it is good for portraits but I haven't done any portraits with this lens yet but plan on trying it out for portrait shots. I took it to Six Flags over Georgia recently and took videos and stills of action shots. Download the one still image and two video clips here: http://davidmassey.us/Sony55-200mm/The still shot was taken while I was riding the train in the opposite direction of the roller coaster you see. The photo is blurry due to the bumpy train ride and fast motion of the roller coaster. There are better (and more expensive) lenses make for fast-action scenes.I have the Sony A65V camera which I used with this lens. From what I've read it is good for portraits but I haven't done any portraits with this lens yet but plan on trying it out for portrait shots. I took it to Six Flags over Georgia recently and took videos and stills of action shots. Download the one still image and two video clips here: http://davidmassey.us/Sony55-200mm/The still shot was taken while I was riding the train in the opposite direction of the roller coaster you see. The photo is blurry due to the bumpy train ride and fast motion of the roller coaster. There are better (and more expensive) lenses make for fast-action... » Read More From what I've read it is good for portraits but I haven't done any portraits with this lens yet but plan on trying it out for portrait shots. I took it to Six Flags over Georgia recently and took videos and stills of action shots. Download the one still image and two video clips here: http://davidmassey.us/Sony55-200mm/The still shot was taken while I was riding the train in the opposite direction of the roller coaster you see. The photo is blurry due to the bumpy train ride and fast motion of the roller coaster. There are better (and more expensive) lenses make for fast-action scenes.I have the Sony A65V camera which I used with this lens. « Show Less
1680734
That is really a great question. I truthfully am only an amateur with very expensive taste. I have taken many photos with the lens and thought that it was a fine lens. However, from what I have read, I would think that your best results would not come from a zoom lens. Please though remember, your best answer would come from someone who does portraiture.
342853
Agree with Jaydeep. This lens distorts quite badly at the margins of the frame at the short (12mm) end of its focal length. So, for group photos, either confine your use to the center and longer (18 to 24mm) end of its zoom range, or make sure that you don't have people too near the edges of the frame. The other thing you can do is frame your shot leaving quite a bit of space around your group of people, then crop the image more tightly. If you don't do one of these two things, you'll end up with some very w-i-d-e looking people with oval-shaped faces near the edges of the frame. This lens is really better suited to landscape photography where it's much harder to see the distortion than it is when taking shots of buildings or people. Because we know so well how a normal human face is proportioned, our brains are very sensitive to distortions of faces. Similarly, we know that most buildings should have more or less right angles and straight lines, so any distortion there is also readily apparent. With landscape photography, the angles and lines are much less regular, so distortion is harder for us to detect.
48834
Why not get used to the camera with the zoom lens and after finding out what work bests for you buy another lens that fits your needs, I can't imasging using a 35 mm lens as my main portrait lens, I rarely get that cozy with my subjects. I'd look at the 85 mm 1.4 lens, the 105 lens as more desirable for portraits.
2120237
It's a macro lens, so it's really good for taking extreme close-ups of even very small things and parts of things. But it's also an excellent standard lens, provided you like the focal length (it's equivalent of a 120mm lens on a full-frame dslr or 35mm film camera, or a 80mm lens on a crop sensor/dx dslr etc.); and because you can focus very closely, it does a great job of providing blurred backgrounds. It makes a very good head-shot portrait lens, for instance. I use mostly use mine to take photos of flowers or anything else where I like to be able to get up close and with a fair degree of magnification, but it's really very versatile (given the limitations of a fixed focal length lens, of course). It's a macro lens, so it's really good for taking extreme close-ups of even very small things and parts of things. But it's also an excellent standard lens, provided you like the focal length (it's equivalent of a 120mm lens on a full-frame dslr or 35mm film camera, or a 80mm lens on a crop sensor/dx dslr etc.); and because you can focus very closely, it does a great job of providing blurred backgrounds. It makes a very good head-shot portrait lens, for instance. I use mostly use mine to take photos of flowers or anything else where I like to be able to get up close and with a fair degree... » Read More It's a macro lens, so it's really good for taking extreme close-ups of even very small things and parts of things. But it's also an excellent standard lens, provided you like the focal length (it's equivalent of a 120mm lens on a full-frame dslr or 35mm film camera, or a 80mm lens on a crop sensor/dx dslr etc.); and because you can focus very closely, it does a great job of providing blurred backgrounds. It makes a very good head-shot portrait lens, for instance. I use mostly use mine to take photos of flowers or anything else where I like to be able to get up close and with a fair degree of magnification, but it's really very versatile (given the limitations of a fixed focal length lens, of course). « Show Less
1429335
This lens is a great portrait photography lens-the compression due the the length of the lens is very flattering. Furthermore, shooting from farther away can help create the blurry/bokeh backgrounds people love in portraits (although not quite as much so as the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens). It also can work well for indoor performances since you can get pictures of varying closeness by zooming (providing you're not super close or super far away). As for landscapes and sunsets, I personally do not shoot that type of photography, but I tend to hear that most landscape photographers like using wide-angle lens rather than telephoto lens like this one. This lens is a great portrait photography lens-the compression due the the length of the lens is very flattering. Furthermore, shooting from farther away can help create the blurry/bokeh backgrounds people love in portraits (although not quite as much so as the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens). It also can work well for indoor performances since you can get pictures of varying closeness by zooming (providing you're not super close or super far away). As for landscapes and sunsets, I personally do not shoot that type of photography, but I tend to hear that most landscape photographers like using... » Read More This lens is a great portrait photography lens-the compression due the the length of the lens is very flattering. Furthermore, shooting from farther away can help create the blurry/bokeh backgrounds people love in portraits (although not quite as much so as the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens). It also can work well for indoor performances since you can get pictures of varying closeness by zooming (providing you're not super close or super far away). As for landscapes and sunsets, I personally do not shoot that type of photography, but I tend to hear that most landscape photographers like using wide-angle lens rather than telephoto lens like this one. « Show Less
1150129
Thanks for your thoughts, Ken; I own the 24-105mm f/4L, but am looking for the best option for the extra focal length that makes portraits and candids really pop! As far as I can tell, even though the 200mm f/2.8 is well-built, people seem to have an almost religious zeal for the 135mm, making it all the more attractive.
1244448
This is one of the better Micro/Macro that I've work with. But for newborns ? Yes, it still darn good. It would be good for tiny hands, sleepy smiles, or good for Mom and babe together. It has a focal length that is a good all around use and I've had one of these macros in my bag since 1965. If your a Nikon shooter and your question leads me to think you are or will be, stick with this 60mm, you won't be disappointed.Your the one that the lens has to please and it's you and not the equipment that takes the picture/image.
130214
Can someone comment on how this is different from a "tilt-shift" lens costing hundreds of dollars more? I want to get into the realm of architectural photography, and have been told a tilt-shift is something good to have, but they also mentioned LensBaby.
1239597
Mindy, so far the pictures I've taken have been good, crisp and clear pictures. I'm sure it would depend a lot on various factors especially light and distance. I have this lens on my Nikon 5000 all the time. It has replaced my 18-55 kit lens. I brought it with me walking around in a recent vacation to Maine and when we went sailing. It is a little heavier than the kit 18-55 lens but not as heavy as the 55-200 lens. It is so much more versatile. It has a wide angle and zoom. I'm no pro. Just an amateur who takes pictures of family and sights when on vacation. I love this lens. I hope this helps. Good luck. Mindy, so far the pictures I've taken have been good, crisp and clear pictures. I'm sure it would depend a lot on various factors especially light and distance. I have this lens on my Nikon 5000 all the time. It has replaced my 18-55 kit lens. I brought it with me walking around in a recent vacation to Maine and when we went sailing. It is a little heavier than the kit 18-55 lens but not as heavy as the 55-200 lens. It is so much more versatile. It has a wide angle and zoom. I'm no pro. Just an amateur who takes pictures of family and sights when on vacation. I love this lens. I hope this... » Read More Mindy, so far the pictures I've taken have been good, crisp and clear pictures. I'm sure it would depend a lot on various factors especially light and distance. I have this lens on my Nikon 5000 all the time. It has replaced my 18-55 kit lens. I brought it with me walking around in a recent vacation to Maine and when we went sailing. It is a little heavier than the kit 18-55 lens but not as heavy as the 55-200 lens. It is so much more versatile. It has a wide angle and zoom. I'm no pro. Just an amateur who takes pictures of family and sights when on vacation. I love this lens. I hope this helps. Good luck. « Show Less
1882763
It is fantastic for newborn photography as you are able to focus on a smaller subject. It also works great for portrait photography it just takes a little bit of getting used to moving back and forth to get the right composition because it does not zoom.
2000792
Sure, that's a nice lens for most portraiture. If you're shooting up close to a particular individual, you may want a slightly longer lens - say the 85mm. If you get super close with a 35mm you'll get a slightly more prominent nose. The 85 will compress the features and flatten the face a bit, giving a nicer shot. For groups this is perfect.
1052796
Hi Elizabeth, Yes! Sorry for the delay in response. But remember this is semi telephoto so no close up portraiture. However if your subject was 25ft plus away and you wanted the "Bokeh" effect, {Blurred out back ground} it's awesome. I love this Len's for Video too which your camera does... Hope this helps
1139201
Here is the thing about that lens. It makes people look GOOFY. It distorts faces. Maybe it makes kids and babies look weird for a purpose. I used it on a documentary, and I love it handheld, but it is whack. It makes cars, buildings, look great if you put it SUPER close to a foreground object. I would not buy it for weddings. It is also cool in Oregon dark nights for time-lapse... I would get a 100MM zeiss for weddings or 100mm canon macro.
1551101
That is exactly why I purchased this lens and I love it! The focus is a bit soft if you try and go below f2.2, but as I'm generally shooting moving children I usually keep it around f2.5 or 2.8 anyway. Hope this helps!
1394636
Like the rest of the comments, you are right, it will become a 48mm lens, pretty close to what you see is what you get through the viewer. I did notice the lens it has a unique sound when it is focusing. it is pretty cool. I been using this lens for a while now, and it took me a little to get use to it. (I normally shoot with a 18- 200 zoom) so moving forward and backward to get the shot took some getting use to.