«

I am experimenting with the portrait mode on my Canon Rebel. With the stock
lens (18-55), I cannot get the blurring of the background. I am assuming
that I need to use something other than a wide angle lens. How would a
55-200 or 75-300 lens work in this situation? Or, am I just doing something
wrong with the 18-55 lens?

Thanks,
Jeff

"Jeff Durham" <> wrote in message
news:CEJyc.83159$...
> I am experimenting with the portrait mode on my Canon Rebel. With the
stock
> lens (18-55), I cannot get the blurring of the background. I am assuming
> that I need to use something other than a wide angle lens. How would a
> 55-200 or 75-300 lens work in this situation? Or, am I just doing
something
> wrong with the 18-55 lens?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff

Have you tried putting more distance between your subject and the
background?

--
Sorby

"Jeff Durham" <> wrote in message
news:CEJyc.83159$...
> I am experimenting with the portrait mode on my Canon Rebel. With the
stock
> lens (18-55), I cannot get the blurring of the background. I am assuming
> that I need to use something other than a wide angle lens. How would a
> 55-200 or 75-300 lens work in this situation? Or, am I just doing
something
> wrong with the 18-55 lens?

You will get the most background blurring if you use the lens at the highest
end of it's zoom, and as wide open as possible (lowest f number)

If you want more, you could buy something like an 85mm f1.8 prime lens which
would be ideal, or indeed use a more powerful zoom like the two you
mentioned.

The 55 would be difficult to get shallow dof from unless you are willing
to take shots with your subject very close and the background very far. I
would recommmend the 75-300 Canon - I've owned the original and now have the
IS version and it is a lot of lens for the money. My wife uses it at 300mm
and wide open to do flower portraits. Very shallow dof.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Jeff Durham" <> wrote in message
news:CEJyc.83159$...
> I am experimenting with the portrait mode on my Canon Rebel. With the
stock
> lens (18-55), I cannot get the blurring of the background. I am assuming
> that I need to use something other than a wide angle lens. How would a
> 55-200 or 75-300 lens work in this situation? Or, am I just doing
something
> wrong with the 18-55 lens?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
>

I have used both the 100mm F2.0 and the 135mm F2.0. Either of those lens
will give you a very shallow depth of field and a great deal of background
blur. Also the 70-200mm F2.8 from Sigma or Canon will do a great job.
These lenses are a bit pricey though with the best deal being the 100mm F2.0
which can be found in the $300-$350 range. This is a great multi-purpose
lens though as you can do great portraits as well as indoor sports and such.

If you are looking for something cheaper, I would suggest the 50mm F1.8 or
maybe the 85mm F1.8 although the later is not that much cheaper.

You can control some of the DOF by moving closer to your subject and moving
the subject further away from the background. Also, longer focal lengths by
nature give more background blurr. Still though, I have found that the
larger apetures (F2.8, F2.0 etc.) seem to do the best job with background
blurr.

Ben

"Jeff Durham" <> wrote in message
news:CEJyc.83159$...
> I am experimenting with the portrait mode on my Canon Rebel. With the
stock
> lens (18-55), I cannot get the blurring of the background. I am assuming
> that I need to use something other than a wide angle lens. How would a
> 55-200 or 75-300 lens work in this situation? Or, am I just doing
something
> wrong with the 18-55 lens?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
>

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:25:06 GMT, "Jeff Durham" <> wrote:

>I am experimenting with the portrait mode on my Canon Rebel. With the stock
>lens (18-55), I cannot get the blurring of the background. I am assuming
>that I need to use something other than a wide angle lens. How would a
>55-200 or 75-300 lens work in this situation? Or, am I just doing something
>wrong with the 18-55 lens?
>
>Thanks,
>Jeff
>

Look at the 50mm/1.8 prime. Portrait examples at
http://www.splatco.com/david/kids-web_deploy/index.htm

I will give that a try. I think I had about 15 feet between the subject and
background. I was also as close as possible to the subject with the lens
set to maximum zoom.

Jeff


"Sorby" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Jeff Durham" <> wrote in message
> news:CEJyc.83159$...
> > I am experimenting with the portrait mode on my Canon Rebel. With the
> stock
> > lens (18-55), I cannot get the blurring of the background. I am
assuming
> > that I need to use something other than a wide angle lens. How would a
> > 55-200 or 75-300 lens work in this situation? Or, am I just doing
> something
> > wrong with the 18-55 lens?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeff
>
> Have you tried putting more distance between your subject and the
> background?
>
> --
> Sorby
>
>

To get the lowest possible F number, I assume that I would not use the
predefined portrait setting, but use a custom mode where I could give
priority to the aperture setting.

Thanks,
Jeff


"adm" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
> "Jeff Durham" <> wrote in message
> news:CEJyc.83159$...
> > I am experimenting with the portrait mode on my Canon Rebel. With the
> stock
> > lens (18-55), I cannot get the blurring of the background. I am
assuming
> > that I need to use something other than a wide angle lens. How would a
> > 55-200 or 75-300 lens work in this situation? Or, am I just doing
> something
> > wrong with the 18-55 lens?
>
> You will get the most background blurring if you use the lens at the
highest
> end of it's zoom, and as wide open as possible (lowest f number)
>
> If you want more, you could buy something like an 85mm f1.8 prime lens
which
> would be ideal, or indeed use a more powerful zoom like the two you
> mentioned.
>
>

I appreciate everyone's input. I will try a longer telephoto setting with
the minimum f number as well as getting the subject further away from the
background.

Thanks,
Jeff


"Jeff Durham" <> wrote in message
news:CEJyc.83159$...
> I am experimenting with the portrait mode on my Canon Rebel. With the
stock
> lens (18-55), I cannot get the blurring of the background. I am assuming
> that I need to use something other than a wide angle lens. How would a
> 55-200 or 75-300 lens work in this situation? Or, am I just doing
something
> wrong with the 18-55 lens?
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
>

Basic problem with that is that if your subject is humn and you are too
close they are going to have a big nose, or cheek or forehead or chin -
whatever is closest to the lens.

--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
home of The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Improved Links Pages are at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/links/mlinks00.html
A sample chapter from my novel "Haight-Ashbury" is at
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com/writ/hait/hatitl.html
"Jeff Durham" <> wrote in message
news:kDPyc.31117$...
> I appreciate everyone's input. I will try a longer telephoto setting with
> the minimum f number as well as getting the subject further away from the
> background.
>
> Thanks,
> Jeff
>
>
> "Jeff Durham" <> wrote in message
> news:CEJyc.83159$...
> > I am experimenting with the portrait mode on my Canon Rebel. With the
> stock
> > lens (18-55), I cannot get the blurring of the background. I am
assuming
> > that I need to use something other than a wide angle lens. How would a
> > 55-200 or 75-300 lens work in this situation? Or, am I just doing
> something
> > wrong with the 18-55 lens?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Jeff
> >
> >
>
>