The lens is a sigma Close Up, Macro, Teleconverter, Zoom. Maximum aperture f/4. I need a lens for detailed shots for portraits. would this be a good one?
If you have a big enough studio and/or only want head and shoulder shots, then yes. Usually 50 to 85 mm is considered good for portraits. Personally I'd want something a bit faster than f/4 but it is certainly do-able. The quality of that lens, however, may not be your liking.
umm, not in my mind.
I use a 105mm for my film camera and as it also fits my digital there as well. I like sharp crisp images. I can always soften them up later OR with a soft filter but can never get the contrast and detail back that my 100-300 zoom lacks.
i would normally use a 50-85mm..
A 70-300 lens is great for portriature. I just recently acquired the Nikon 70-300 F4-5.6 It’s one of the cheapest lens nikon makes, but it’s an amazing lens. When shot on a digital half frame Nikon it yields quite a narrow view. It’s great for portraiture, and many other uses. Believe me, once you have this lens you’ll find a use.
Some things to bear in mind. It’s a $150 lens. It’s not very sharp. It will misfocus about 1/5 of the time. It’s best used in bright outdoor situations. The bokeh is pretty bad and unpleasing, but better than a sharp stick in the eye especially if you’re not used to the out of focus background look. See the attached picture.
The attached picture was made with a Nikon D50 and the 70-300. I have the USA made black one rather than the gross silver one. It speaks more than I can about the lens.
I also included a portrait I took with it.
I would not use this lens for portraits whatsoever. I understand that budget comes into play when buying lenses so I will not recommend anything like an 85mm f/.2 but I will recommend three that are far better than that 70-300mm and could possibly fit your budget.
(I just realised I am assuming you have a Canon, if I am wrong then look at the equivalent in your system. Nikon have virtually identical lenses in this range)
In order of greatness..
1) 50mm f/1.8
2) 50mm f/1.4
3) 85mm f/1.8
I would take any of these over a Sigma 70-300mm f/4 for portrait photography any day.
I agree with everyone else. It’s a good lense, but it’s the wrong tool for the job.
1. You want a shorter one. Like everyone said, around 50mm is more realistic for portraits
2. You want a bigger aperture. Not only will you get the shot faster (less exposure time) but most people like the shallow depth of focus that a large aperture gives.
Try a 100mm still, 85mm still or a zoom with a range of roughly 28-135mm.
No comments: