Using a RF 35mm f1.8 macro as a portrait lens on R body’s good or bad?

[Deleted member 55]

Is using a RF 35mm f1.8 macro as a portrait lens on R body’s a good or bad idea?

I use the macro because it works correctly with out an adapter with my ML-3/200 200 WS ring light.

Here’s an example where my 50mm was at the very edge of being not wide enough for daylight fill and needing to be closer since the flash was at the full power of 200 WS or 1/1 output.

 

[Asher Kelman]

Will,

Great that you can illuminate her so well with one light! The ring essentially is a beauty dish and it works!

I never imagined one might need more than 200 Watt-Seconds.

......But on second thoughts could you have stepped back and then upped the ISO from 100 to 200 and stepped back?

Asher

 

[Jerome Marot]

You are asking a peculiar question. Why would the lens alone make a difference?

Let me analyse the picture instead. First: it is an interesting picture, or I would not be motivated to analyse it. But, second, with the parts I find puzzling: the flash light is a bit unnatural, as the viewer wonders where the light comes from. There is also the aspect of short focal length, combined with a down view, which makes the model legs look shorter than they need to be. However, third, this picture is interesting, as we see the surroundings and the fright train. The play with foreground and background with a hint of unsharpness to remind us where the actual subject is only possible with short focal and wide aperture. There is also the issue of colour and the play between pink and green is a nice touch.

So the conclusion is: that picture is interesting, which is rare enough to be noted. It would not have been possible with a longer focal or with a slower lens. Does that answer your question?

 

[Asher Kelman]

Jérôme,

I really like your analysis and learned a lot. I am appreciative that you took the effort as it does help us relate better to this unusual picture.

....to the lighting. If a second light was added above and to the right of the camera to give added dimension, would that help your reception of the picture being worthy?

IOW, sides the even light and masking of structure constitute part of the “success of the shot to you?

Asher

 

[Deleted member 55]

Thanks for the responses.

I should have stated that the lighting is not changeable.

 

[Jerome Marot]

IOW, sides the even light and masking of structure constitute part of the “success of the shot to you?

Yes, I think that the particular light and the choice of colours contribute to the picture.

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Will,

Here’s an example where my 50mm was at the very edge of being not wide enough for daylight fill . . .

I don't think I know what that means.

Best regards,

Doug

 

[Doug Kerr]

Hi, Will,

I don't think I know what that means.

Oh, I get it. That refers to general illumination by daylight plus flash fill.

Doug

 

[Asher Kelman]

Hi, Will,


Oh, I get it. That refers to general illumination by daylight plus flash fill.

Doug

The limit is that the Godox 200 W/S power supply is maxed out! Of course, one could slightly underexpose and easily correct from RAW in post processing.

But Will’s picture is the pristine, out of the camera JPG and that’s an time-economical workflow!

Asher