# Canon APS-C Portrait lens and Bokeh ?



## kc4sox (Jul 27, 2015)

I've been shooting a 5Dmk3 for over a year now. And while I love the body it isn't well suited as a sports and wildlife camera. So, I'm going to sell it because I find myself wanting the extra "Reach" and speed of an APS-C body for sports and wildlife. I'm looking at  the 7Dmk2. I would like to be able to use the body for portraits as well . I'm a HUGE fan of Bokeh / separation in portraits. And, I  understand the relationship of F stop / focal length and distance to subject in relation to bokeh on a FF body. I need advise on lens that will give that nice OOF background and reasonable working distance when using an Crop sensor body such as the 7Dmk2. Am I correct in assuming that a lens  such as a 50mm f 1.4  ( APS-C factor of 1.6 = 80mm f 2.24 ) would give me results similar to what I get with my 5Dmk3 and say an 85mm f 1.8 as far as the OOF area in a portrait ? And if my thinking is on track would that also mean that the same 85mm 1.8 I mentioned would work as well and give similar results as a 135 f 2.0 ? ( 85mm f 1.8 x 1.6 crop factor = 136mm f 2.88 ) The math alone says I'd get what I'm looking for but, I  have no experience with a crop body.

Thanks is advance

Michael


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2015)

That math only works if you are shooting the same subject _at the same spot_.

So for example, yes, if you are used to a 5D shooting a 85mm f/1.8 and now starting shooting a 7D with a 50mm @ f/1.8, you'd get about the same results as the 85mm at f/2.8 in terms of DOF and Bokeh.   This assumes very similar framing.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> What you get with a crop body is a reduced field of view by the crop factor. A 100mm lens has the _field of view _of a 160mm lens on a 1.6 crop.



i.e., extra reach.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 27, 2015)

I guess change the terminology to make everyone happy.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> A reduced field of view does not equal additional reach.



define reach.


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jul 27, 2015)

I use the same lenses on my digital camera with the APS-C sensor and on 35mm film rangefinder cameras. Yes, standing in the same place shooting with both, the field of view is different and the pictures look as if I was using a longer lens on the digital camera than I actually was. Makes it seem as if I was 'in closer'.

I think you're talking about the depth of field. The bokeh is the _quality_ of the out of focus parts of an image; that seems to be better if you have a better quality lens (more aperture blades, to make it less choppy looking).


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 27, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > I guess change the terminology to make everyone happy.
> ...



Some of us understand the difference and are not concerned to the point you are.  Posting a link as you did helps those that want a better explanation and to show their lens does not magically change.  

I know the difference of what a bird looks like when I shoot it with a crop sensor opposed to a full frame sensor.  That difference is what is important to me no matter what I call it.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2015)

People that click that link are going to see one camera that produces a closer image than the other and think to themselves: wow, a 300mm lens on the crop sensor has a lot more reach.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2015)

even if they read it.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2015)

and they wont be wrong.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2015)

define reach.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 27, 2015)

ie,
the Field of View will look like you are zoomed in on a crop body camera.  It uses less of the image circle from a general FF lens.
So with a crop body camera you would have to stand further back if you used the same lens to get the same Field of View.

a FF with an 85mm  vs a crop & 50mm, at the same distance might be the same Field of View image but then you also have to take into account any distance distortion too.
ie, being closer to a subject may instigate distortion - larger noses, slimmer faces and stuff like that.

general sensor stuff ==> Digital Camera Sensor Sizes How it Influences Your Photography

using wide angles up close ==> Using Wide Angle Lenses

it all comes down to how you define "reasonable working distance".  When I tried to do portraits in my basement I ran out of "reasonable working distance".  a FF camera solved that.  Just try in your "studio" to take 10 to 20 steps back to simulate a crop body.  Use the FOV calculators out there to figure out the distance that you need.


----------



## julianliu (Jul 27, 2015)

If you want better bokeh, stick to full frame camera, which produces better bokeh than APS-C camera. Check out the discussion here (FF vs. Aps-c DOF Bokeh Photography Forum

The "extra reach" with APS-C camera ( whether you call or believe it or not, I think it's useless) is not worthy to switch from full frame.


----------



## dennybeall (Jul 27, 2015)

If I understand this whole crop sensor - full size sensor thing.
If I take the same lens (say 100mm) and put it on a crop sensor and also on a full frame and take the same picture. I can put the two photos in Photoshop on separate layers and the photo from the crop sensor will overlay right on the center of the full frame picture and line up perfectly. Just as if the crop sensor shot was a crop of the full frame photo.
Ignoring other technical details about the two cameras - is that correct?


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 27, 2015)

julianliu said:


> The "extra reach" with APS-C camera ( whether you call or believe it or not, I think it's useless) is not worthy to switch from full frame.



It's not 'useless' if you can't otherwise get close enough to your subject in order to get the photo you want.

It's simply a trade off.  In this case the OP desires extra - whatever you call it, and faster burst speeds.

OP you may need two cameras.  FF to keep your field of view, depth of field, lens bokeh wishes.  Crop for your wildlife and sports desires.   Or purchase a 1Dx along with a $10k lens.  Problem solved.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 27, 2015)

dennybeall said:


> If I understand this whole crop sensor - full size sensor thing.
> If I take the same lens (say 100mm) and put it on a crop sensor and also on a full frame and take the same picture. I can put the two photos in Photoshop on separate layers and the photo from the crop sensor will overlay right on the center of the full frame picture and line up perfectly. Just as if the crop sensor shot was a crop of the full frame photo.
> Ignoring other technical details about the two cameras - is that correct?



You will have to move your feet.


----------



## GlennT (Jul 27, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> dennybeall said:
> 
> 
> > If I understand this whole crop sensor - full size sensor thing.
> ...


He's got that right.  If he "zoomed" with his feet, that would change the perspective.  A photo shot on a crop body, at the same focal length and aperture as a shot taken with a full frame, will be a crop of the full frame image.  Aside from cropping, they should be optically similar in every other way.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> Have fun with your word games. Your 200mm lens is now 320mm. Bless you.



no one here said: reach = focal length, but you.



> Aside from cropping, they should be optically similar in every other way.



oh, so would you say one has more reach than the other?


----------



## Braineack (Jul 27, 2015)

astroNikon said:


> it all comes down to how you define "reasonable working distance".  When I tried to do portraits in my basement I ran out of "reasonable working distance".  a FF camera solved that.  Just try in your "studio" to take 10 to 20 steps back to simulate a crop body.  Use the FOV calculators out there to figure out the distance that you need.



why?

if youre used to 85mm on a FF, and now shoot a 50mm on a crop, you'll be standing in relatively the same place.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 27, 2015)

GlennT said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > dennybeall said:
> ...



Thanks for clarity (highlighting exactly what Denny typed).


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 27, 2015)

Hmmm.  Now I am confusing myself.


----------



## Designer (Jul 27, 2015)

JacaRanda said:


> Hmmm.  Now I am confusing myself.


I gave up on trying any explanation.  It's not worth the keystrokes.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 27, 2015)

Designer said:


> JacaRanda said:
> 
> 
> > Hmmm.  Now I am confusing myself.
> ...



I'm saving this 'If you want pictures that SEEM like they are closer to the subject, get a croppy camera'   The End


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 27, 2015)

Braineack said:


> People that click that link are going to see one camera that produces a closer image than the other and think to themselves: wow, a 300mm lens on the crop sensor has a lot more reach.



right,  "reach" looks closer but I suppose it depends on the definition of "reach"


----------



## PropilotBW (Jul 27, 2015)

So, buy a Micro 4/3 sensor.   You'll have even more "reach"!!!  .


----------



## Designer (Jul 27, 2015)

kc4sox said:


> Am I correct in assuming that a lens  such as a 50mm f 1.4  ( APS-C factor of 1.6 = 80mm f 2.24 ) would give me results similar to what I get with my 5Dmk3 and say an 85mm f 1.8 as far as the OOF area in a portrait ?


In the time it took you to type this question and post the thread, you could have looked it up in the DOF Master about four times.


----------



## astroNikon (Jul 28, 2015)

Braineack said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > it all comes down to how you define "reasonable working distance".  When I tried to do portraits in my basement I ran out of "reasonable working distance".  a FF camera solved that.  Just try in your "studio" to take 10 to 20 steps back to simulate a crop body.  Use the FOV calculators out there to figure out the distance that you need.
> ...


Yeah, I meant to type something else too but I cut some out to keep it short.  You'll just have to read my mind for the encyclopedic version.


----------



## TCampbell (Jul 28, 2015)

I recognize that when someone says "reach" what they probably really means is that they are using a reduce angle-of-view, such that when the narrower angle of view image is displayed at the same true physical dimensions (not angular size, but dimensional size) it will seem as if the image was taken with a lens having a longer focal length.

The reality is, you could crop in an the image with the full-frame sensor and get the same result.

The 7D II has a 4.1 µm pixel size vs. the 5D III 6.25 µm pixel size.  This allows the 7D II to capture more information in the smaller area, but otherwise there's no reason you can't crop in with the 5D III. 

With the Canon 5Ds and 5Ds r, there's a crop/aspect-ratio menu which allows you to put the full-frame camera into an APS-H or APS-C mode (note that I think it still really captures the image on the whole sensor, but then processes a JPEG out of it using just the area that would have been used for the respective format size.  While this camera has a menu option for it, there's absolutely no reason a person couldn't go into their favorite photo editing program and do exactly the same thing.


----------



## Didereaux (Jul 29, 2015)

kc4sox said:


> I've been shooting a 5Dmk3 for over a year now. And while I love the body it isn't well suited as a sports and wildlife camera. So, I'm going to sell it because I find myself wanting the extra "Reach" and speed of an APS-C body for sports and wildlife. I'm looking at  the 7Dmk2. I would like to be able to use the body for portraits as well . I'm a HUGE fan of Bokeh / separation in portraits. And, I  understand the relationship of F stop / focal length and distance to subject in relation to bokeh on a FF body. I need advise on lens that will give that nice OOF background and reasonable working distance when using an Crop sensor body such as the 7Dmk2. Am I correct in assuming that a lens  such as a 50mm f 1.4  ( APS-C factor of 1.6 = 80mm f 2.24 ) would give me results similar to what I get with my 5Dmk3 and say an 85mm f 1.8 as far as the OOF area in a portrait ? And if my thinking is on track would that also mean that the same 85mm 1.8 I mentioned would work as well and give similar results as a 135 f 2.0 ? ( 85mm f 1.8 x 1.6 crop factor = 136mm f 2.88 ) The math alone says I'd get what I'm looking for but, I  have no experience with a crop body.
> 
> Thanks is advance
> 
> Michael




That's odd! Some of the worlds best sports, and best wildlife photographers use a 5D mkIII.   Since you are posting in the Beginner's section you are probably safe in concluding that the problems you are encountering are of operator in origin and not equipment.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 29, 2015)

So in conclusion OP that disappeared; suck it up and keep your 5D mkIII and purchase longer lenses if you want more reach like some of the worlds best (ignore the cost, you can do it) or creep closer to the lion or sneak onto the football field.  Ignore the 1.6 croppy factor magnification whatever it is thingy, it's just a trick and is not worthy.  Suck it up if you want the extra 4 frames per second, because that's your problem and timing is everything.  
You could also use teleconverters.  Still trade offs.


----------



## Solarflare (Jul 30, 2015)

kc4sox said:


> I've been shooting a 5Dmk3 for over a year now. And while I love the body it isn't well suited as a sports and wildlife camera.


 What the ... ??? The 5D3 is optimal for sports, given the right lenses. Second best AF system of any camera, only the 1D line is even superior. At least thats what people claim.

The only reason why APS-C is prefered by wildlife shooters is because they need so insane reach, APS-C just saves them a buttload of money, if not makes effective focal lengths possible that are simply not available for fullframe DSLRs.


----------



## Braineack (Jul 30, 2015)

he said effective.

youre really bad at arguing semantics.


a crop sensor WILL increase your effective focal length all things being equal.


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 30, 2015)

depth-of-field perspective

From final summary on webpage "So, yes, a 50mm does (kinda) act like a 75mm / 80mm when used on a crop-sensor camera. The focal length is effectively increased on a crop-sensor camera. But at the loss of the shallow DoF that a larger sensor gives you."

Effective and (kinda) act like......


----------



## Braineack (Jul 30, 2015)

Bryston3bsst said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > *a crop sensor WILL increase your effective focal length *all things being equal.
> ...



to be fair: that is actually technically unfactual--I was mistaking effective with _equivalent_ focal length.  (i believe solarflare did as well).  EFL is actually a thing.

again, I, nor no one else here is suggesting that a 300mm lens on a crop sensor is now a different focal length.  And we all agree that the FOV is narrower on a crop body all things being equal.

we started arguing "reach", something currently undefined, but apparently not used to your satifaction.

If stood Kobe Byrant and Micheal Jordan next to each other, both standing at 6' 6", and asked them both to jump.  And Micahel Jordan had a vertical leap longer than Kobe and therefore I suggested Jordan had more height than Byrant, would you not accept that since they are both the same measured height?


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 30, 2015)

Solarflare said:


> kc4sox said:
> 
> 
> > I've been shooting a 5Dmk3 for over a year now. And while I love the body it isn't well suited as a sports and wildlife camera.
> ...



Need the behavior of extra reach, can't afford FF, can't afford the f2.8 lenses required to take full advantage of what FF offers, can't afford super telephoto lenses, CAN accept differences in depth of field and bokeh quality.

Canon EOS 7D Mark II AF System Compared to the 1D X and 5D III


----------



## JacaRanda (Jul 30, 2015)

Braineack said:


> Bryston3bsst said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...


ef·fec·tive
əˈfektiv/
_adjective_

*1*.
successful in producing a desired or intended result.
Works for me.


----------



## beagle100 (Jul 31, 2015)

PropilotBW said:


> So, buy a Micro 4/3 sensor.   You'll have even more "reach"!!!  .



or use your cell phone - Phantastic Reach !


----------



## jaomul (Aug 1, 2015)

Well the op asked about Bokeh.

Reach- should it not be a combination of sensor size and lens? The 35mm format is used as the ruler stick, but I mean if one has a m4/3 or aps-c with a 50mm lens, does it matter that someone with a ff gets a different fov, I mean you use different lenses to get different framing on different formats


----------



## Braineack (Aug 1, 2015)

no, reach should be undefined, and when anyone mentions it, call them ridiculous.


----------



## kc4sox (Aug 5, 2015)

Well starting this thread was a huge waste of time. I asked about Bokeh and got an argument about "reach" last time I ask a question of this group.


----------



## Derrel (Aug 5, 2015)

kc4sox said:
			
		

> Well starting this thread was a huge waste of time. I asked about Bokeh and got an argument about "reach" last time I ask a question of this group.



Congratulations! You've been treated to an *Official TPF Thread Derailment and Ensuing Trainwreck!* You are now hereby a regular poster in good standing. You will no longer be treated to the Guest Bathroom, nor The Good Towels, nor The Fancy Soaps. You are now just "one of us".


----------



## Braineack (Aug 6, 2015)

kc4sox said:


> Well starting this thread was a huge waste of time. I asked about Bokeh and got an argument about "reach" last time I ask a question of this group.



to be fair I answered your question in 16mins...

you had 10 days to read the rest.


----------



## robbins.photo (Aug 6, 2015)

kc4sox said:


> Well starting this thread was a huge waste of time. I asked about Bokeh and got an argument about "reach" last time I ask a question of this group.


Not to worry, it's one of those things that always seems to start a silly kerfluffle for whatever reason.  The crop factor thing really isn't a big deal but for whatever reason it seems to spark these hypertechnical merry go rounds that always seem to dissolve into people arguing over the correct terms to describe it.

It's sort of the third rail of TPF posting.  Another one you'll probably want to avoid is a discussion of grey market equipment.  But on the upside there are a lot of great folks with a lot of knowledge, just have to sift through and find the stuff that is of use to you.

Sent from my 306SH using Tapatalk


----------

