# Canon 24mm 1.4 distorting faces for close ups.



## CJRodgers (Apr 15, 2011)

Hey!

I only really have enough money to buy one lens to begin with on a 5dmkii and i decided i wanted a fast wide lens for photos such as group photos and events and filming. However I am reading that the 24mm will disort faces for portraits. I have two questions, 

1/ how close do you have to be to distort faces because this sort of portrait looks fine to me? http://www.flickr.com/photos/shaynabatya/4060563740/

2/ if i used a 2x extender would this solve my problems? I cant find any examples of anyone using an extender on a wide angle lens so i am wondering if anyone has experience with this? or i could possibly afford the zeiss 1.4 if the quality of the 24mm and 2x extender is no good? What would you recommend?

Thanks for you help!


----------



## prjkt (Apr 15, 2011)

a wideangle lens will always distort when close up.... that's why you'll find a lot of people prefer to use a 50mm or longer on a F camera (85 & 135mm are common focal lengths)

extenders won't work on a lens shorter than 70mm (ie 70-200)


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 15, 2011)

ah ok so ill have to get the zeiss then, was just trying to save some money as i would probably buy a 2x extender at some point anyways! thanks


----------



## Bob Howland (Apr 15, 2011)

I agree that the cited portrait doesn't look particularly distorted and I think there are two reasons for that. First, the mask hides her ears and rear portions of her face. Everything is on one plane. Her nose, on the other hand, does look a bit too large. Second, you're not very close to the subject. It isn't really a head and shoulders portrait and 50mm might have been the optimum focal length.

My Canon TCs extend too far and don't fit on my 24 f/1.4. Don't know about the Zeiss.


----------



## gmrza (Apr 15, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> Hey!
> 
> I only really have enough money to buy one lens to begin with on a 5dmkii and i decided i wanted a fast wide lens for photos such as group photos and events and filming. However I am reading that the 24mm will disort faces for portraits. I have two questions,
> 
> ...



If I could only have one lens for a 5DmkII, my first choice would be the 24-105mm f/4L IS USM. It is not a fast lens, and it does not provide the most pleasing bokeh, but it is a workhorse. It can be used as an all-day walkabout lens. It is a favourite with many wedding photographers because of its versatility. Bundled with the 5DmkII, as a kit, you also pay slightly less for it than you would for the lens on its own. I think it is no surprise that this is the lens Canon bundle with the 5DmkII as a kit lens. Despite the 24-105mm not being a fast lens, the 5DmkII does a good job at high ISO settings, so you can quite comfortably shoot at ISO800 or possibly higher at times.

If I could not afford the price tag of the 24-105mm, then I would opt for the 50mm f/1.4 USM. - Keep in mind that before zoom lenses become common, the standard 50mm lens was probably the most widely used lens you would see on a camera. Oh, and if you can afford the 24-105mm, then the 50mm f/1.4 is probably a good choice as a second lens!

Also, regardless of what lens you purchase, you will probably want to look, sooner rather than later, at buying a speedlite.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> 1/ how close do you have to be to distort faces because this sort of portrait looks fine to me? http://www.flickr.com/photos/shaynabatya/4060563740/



FWIW, I'd estimate that picture was taken at a subject distance of a little over 2 feet. That's close enough to distort, and I agree that the effect is minimized due to the mask.

Here's another 24mm portrait shot - I suspect her nose is not really as large as it appears, and most people aren't happy with pictures of that sort.



CJRodgers said:


> 2/ if i used a 2x extender would this solve my problems? I cant find any examples of anyone using an extender on a wide angle lens so i am wondering if anyone has experience with this?



The Canon extenders won't work with the 24L (they only work with L-series primes of 135mm, the L-series 70-200mm zooms, and the 100-400mm). However, many 3rd party extenders will work with any Canon lens (even wide angle). But, you stated that you want a fast wide prime, and a 24mm f/1.4 with a 2x becomes a 48mm f/2.8 lens and the IQ would suffer quite a bit.



CJRodgers said:


> or i could possibly afford the zeiss 1.4 ... ah ok so ill have to get the zeiss then



Which Zeiss f/1.4? They don't make a 24mm f/1.4 - their f/1.4 lenses are 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm. Assuming you mean the 35/1.4, for that amount of money you can alternatively get the excellent Canon 35mm f/1.4L *and* the Canon 85mm f/1.8 (the latter being the 'classic' focal length for portraits).


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 15, 2011)

Personnaly I think the 24 would be a great choice for "events" in restricted space, and the distortion creates great effects in big closeups (ex. shoulder to forehead tightly framed) emotive portraits (altought it certainly won't be flattering if it's for someone else you do the photo). Otherwise as you saw on the photo you posted distortion is really not that bad as soon as you are at a certain distance. For group photos it will be great, and for filming it will allow you to have a great bokeh control, but consider that you'll have to be close to what you're filming most of the time so it might create some complications. As a guy said you could throw in a 50 1.4 (350$) in asap after you bought the 24. If you really can't afford both in a short laps of time you could consider the 35 if the distortion is really a deal breaker for you. 

Are you talking about the 24L II and wich zeiss are you talking about (like the other guy said if you're thinking about 35 1.4 you should consider the L + another lens)? 

Here is an exemple of a closeup 24mm : http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs44/i/2009/103/4/8/Lier_3_by_BenoitPaille.jpg
an extreme one: http://fc06.deviantart.net/fs41/i/2009/039/a/d/Jean_Jacque_meunier_63_ans_3_by_BenoitPaille.jpg


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 15, 2011)

Thanks for all the replies, really helpful. I didnt realise an extender would double the aperture aswell? Thanks for that. Also after a couple of replies i think that possibly looking at 24mm portraits on flickr i didnt realise what i was looking for with distortion. Your correct, i dont think her nose is that big!

And i meant the 50mm 1.4 ziess. I wanted a 2x extender on a 24mm to get 50mm ish, although it would have been cheaper to use an extender than buy a second lens. I think i can just about afford a 24mm and a 50mm zeiss.

I did want the 24-70mm 2.8 but i know a lot of stuff i want to do is low light and im not sure where the line ends really as to what f2.8 can cope with?

Yea i have a seperate small lighting budget. I want a 580ex or ill wait and see if a new version with a video mode comes out. Other than that i wanted some cool continous lights but i cant really find much. I might have to build my own LED panel i guess!


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 15, 2011)

Read the reviews of the zeiss 50 1.4, it's really not impressive, the lens is more about the "zeiss" name, and it's mf. The canon will offer far more price/quality... The 50 2.0 zeiss is a whole different thing and allows you to do macro (but is pretty damn expensive)


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 15, 2011)

Oh rite, i read a couple of reviews saying the zeiss was a fair bit better than the canon 50mm 1.4 but not a touch on the 1.2 (which i cant afford). Ill have to read a few more then! It is cheaper so id rather have it!

Ideally id like the 24-70 if anyone could tell me what the limits of f2.8 is before i have to put the ISO up to far. Id like to do low light stuff. But the term low light isnt exactly defined!

Thanks


----------



## tinisoli (Apr 15, 2011)

Another lens to consider is the 40mm Voigtlander Ultron f/2.0. It's affordable, small, and obviously a bit wider than the 50mm Canon f/1.4. But like the Zeiss series, it's a manual focus lens.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 15, 2011)

The 24 f1.4 is a fantastic portrait lens. In fact I reach for this lens indoors alllll the time. Face distortion is NOT a problem when you learn how to use the lens. Remember 24mm is wider than reality so the edges MUST stretch to fit everything on a flat rectangle. I HIGHLY recommend Canon's 24mm f/1.4 as a portrait lens. Don't be scared and run off to mediocre 24-105 glass when you can learn how to use a truly fantastic prime.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> Ideally id like the 24-70 if anyone could tell me what the limits of f2.8 is before i have to put the ISO up to far. Id like to do low light stuff. But the term low light isnt exactly defined!



The 5DII performs well even up to ISO 3200, especially if you use good post-processing software (DxO handles noise much better than DPP or ACR). The combination of ISO 3200 and f/2.8 is good in relatively dim light (a single 60 W incandescent bulb in a room as long as your subject isn't moving too fast). 

Don't forget the trade off - a wide aperture gets you more light, at the cost of depth of field. With a 50mm lens at f/1.4, framing a head/shoulders shot of a single person, your DoF will be about 2". That's not a show-stopper if you're aware of the limitation (however, a head-shot with my 85mm f/1.2L II has a D0F of less than an inch, meaning depending on subject position you can nail focus on one eye and the other eye is blurry).


----------



## traveller (Apr 15, 2011)

Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you want a 5D Mk2? Are you upgading from another DSLR and if so, what lenses do you already have? Another way of looking at your dilemma could be that if you can only afford one lens for a 5D Mk2, buy a cheaper camera and spend more money on the lenses (I know this is oft quoted advice, but it is _good_ advice). 

If you are looking to buy your first DSLR, I'd consider spending less on a body and saving your money to spend on lenses. First of all though, I'd make sure that you know what lenses you will need and that means taking photos. Buy a cheaper camera kit, such as the 600D or 60D (+ 18-55mm or 18-135mm) and find out what the kit lens doesn't allow you to do. This way you can find out what you need before you buy lots of expensive glass that doesn't suit your style (I'm speaking from bitter experience here!).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Apr 15, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> Thanks for all the replies, really helpful. I didnt realise an extender would double the aperture aswell? Thanks for that.



Missed this - yes, a 1.4x extender costs you one stop of aperture, and a 2x extender costs you 2 stops of aperture.



traveller said:


> If you are looking to buy your first DSLR, I'd consider spending less on a body and saving your money to spend on lenses.



In general, I'd absolutely agree, except:



CJRodgers said:


> i know a lot of stuff i want to do is low light



If low-light shooting is your goal, a full frame sensor is the best option. With my 7D, I am reluctant to go above ISO 800. With my 5DII, I'm comfortable using ISO 3200. That's two full stops, at a cost that's less than getting those two stops with aperture, and has no DoF penalty.


----------



## prestonpalmer (Apr 15, 2011)

If low light is your goal, the 5DII combined with a fast prime (24 f/1.4) for example, is a KILLER combination. The 5DII performs VERY well at 3200 ISO. I rarely push beyond that.


----------



## CJRodgers (Apr 15, 2011)

Thanks for the advice. Again, i have no dslr, just a massive passion for a long time. I really want a FF camera and i only want to get decent glass. Its a lot of money and i want to get the majority of it right first time if thats possible. I have a 4.5 k budget but want to leave some money for lighting. I dont want to grow out of things quickly so i want to buy what i think ill need and learn how to use it properly. If i have any spare ill get more glass after that. I want to do band photos and music videes and live gigs. Then mayb move into wedding stuff many many many years down the line if i get good enough.


----------



## TexPhoto (Apr 15, 2011)

24mm 1.4 is a an awesome lens, but a poor choice for first/only lens, and it's a lousy portrait lens. As others have said, get the 24-105mm "kit lens". It is a great all around lens, and you can add lenses later. You can also sell it for $200 more than it costs in the kit. If you insist on the 24mm 1.4 , add a 50mm 1.8 (or 1.4) for portraits.

Oh and the 24mm flikr portraits may have been cropped. (And as others have said, mask covers all)


----------



## traveller (Apr 15, 2011)

CJRodgers said:


> Thanks for the advice. Again, i have no dslr, just a massive passion for a long time. I really want a FF camera and i only want to get decent glass. Its a lot of money and i want to get the majority of it right first time if thats possible. I have a 4.5 k budget but want to leave some money for lighting. I dont want to grow out of things quickly so i want to buy what i think ill need and learn how to use it properly. If i have any spare ill get more glass after that. I want to do band photos and music videes and live gigs. Then mayb move into wedding stuff many many many years down the line if i get good enough.



I missed the interest in low light part (well pointed out Neuroanatomist). A full frame camera would obviously be advantageous in low light, but avoid the 24-105L as it just won't be fast enough for what you will need (even the 24-70L might struggle a bit). I would still be careful about shelling out mega-bucks on kit, it's tough to establish yourself as a pro photographer from scratch (I hope you have some connections in your chosen field); it's your money of course... 

If you're interested in photographing bands, you'll probably want something longer than 24mm unless you want to be shoving the camera in the performers' faces (giving them big noses!) or want shots of the band lost amongst the stage. If you're on a budget, you might try the 50mm f/1.8 and the 100mm f/2 if you can get reasonably close; if you can't then tough luck as the prices of fast lenses longer than 100mm goes rapidly upwards through the, still quite reasonable 135mm f/2 L, to the absurd 200mm f/2 L.


----------



## Tommygun (Apr 16, 2011)

I've used the 50 1.2 to shoot bands, and it's downright dreamy. You could probably get away with the much cheaper and in many ways better 50 1.4, but there's something to the 1.2 that I just love - the increased chromatic aberration adds some artful mojo to the scene. If I were you I'd rent the 50 1.2, the 50 1.4, and the 35 1.4 and use them for a week, then base your purchase decisions from your results. Goodluck!


----------



## Admin US West (Apr 16, 2011)

With a 5d II, for portraits, start with a 85mm lens. The reason is that a bit longer lens flatters a face while a wide angle lens distorts the closest area (the nose). Even a 135mm L is excellent for head and shoulder portraits, and if you can stand back a ways, a full body.

For example, here are some 135mm portraits taken at our local school play with my 5D MK II. It is my favorite lens for this type of use, most of the images are wide open.






















This one is with my 35mm L


----------



## LFG530 (Apr 16, 2011)

IMO stick to the 24 (wich is a too awesome lens to forget about it for low light) and you might consider the 100 2.0 (wich is cheap and great) to give you a good reach. And I think shooting primes is an awesome way to start and learn/ work on the framing and learn the options of your slr. 

Anyways if you don't need reach I'm still strongly suggesting the killer combo 24+50(canon) the 50 zeiss is pretty deceiving for the double of the price w/o af. If you want a good zeiss wait to have 1000 + to spend (the 35 2.0 is great and the 100 2.0 is out of this world).


----------

