[dirwood]

I am planning on taking some photos of my wife and our classic mustang this summer. The last time I took photos of her and her horse I used the pancake xs40mm and I never really thought highly of the quality of those photos (it also could very well be the user on this but any excuse to use to justify another lens should be ok). Some came out ok but I feel with a different lens, they could've come out quite a bit better.

I do have the 18-135mm and will most likely end up using that if I don't find a prime in a good price range. Which prime would be a good starting point if you want the model and the car in sharp focus? I know I have keeping my eye out for decently priced 50mm 1.4 or a 77mm but I'm thinking the 77 would have to much reach or maybe even the 50 as well. Should I be considering the 31 or even lower instead?

[pepperberry farm]

which camera body?

[UncleVanya]

How far away do you want to be?

The easiest way to know what focal length might work is to simply use the 18-135 to take some test images. Even if she’s not in the photos you can take shots at various angles imagining that she’s there to figure out what focal length fits those views. I suggest setting the lens to focal lengths you think you’re interested in and “zooming” with your feet to see if that focal length might work.

The problem with using a prime in these circumstances in my mind is that it seems likely there’s a need for different focal lengths for different views. A tight close framed shot with some cad details and your wife’s face is a different shot that a full body length pose next to the entire car. With movement (“zooming with your feet”) you can frame the two using the same prime lens if you have enough room - but perspective changes when you move your position - which can be good or bad depending on the situation. This is why I suggest setting the 18-135 to a focal length that is similar to the primes you are thinking about using and then keep it there for testing that focal length.

The DA40xs is a good lens that is quite similar to my DA40 limited. I’d like to see some images that you are disappointed with - feedback on improving those may be more helpful than a new lens - which doesn’t preclude getting a new lens. Ideally a few primes makes for a nice alternative to a zoom when that’s the way you want to shoot. As an example, I carry a 15 / 35 or 40 / 70 (or 77) or a 21 / 50 / 100 when I feel like using primes.

[pres589]

An example shot and more information in general would help. What focal lengths are you using on the 18-135 that is about what you're looking for as far as "I like this" feeling to the images you get back?


The DA 40 on a crop body, which I assume you're using because of the lenses you mention, is kind of tight but not too tight. I think it's an odd compromise focal length on a crop system.

[normhead]

Most of the factors involving keeping a whole scene in focus, do not include fast lenses. At wide open settings, DoF is at its narrowest.
The longer the lens the narrower the DoF.

So, I'll start off with, the smaller the sensor, the easier it will be to get everything in focus. Think cell phone.
Next, you can do anything with a larger sensor camera, you just need more light. A K-1 at ƒ22 on 50mm lens will have everything from 6 feet to infinity in focus if you know how to set up . But you'll need a lot of light, and knowledge of hyperlocal focussing.

My 40xs was fine lens, but for hyperfocal focussing, you need a DOF scale on the lens. My FA 50 macro has one. My FA 50 1.7 has one. MY DA*55 1.4 has one, almost all of my primes do. Cheaper primes like my DA 35 2.4 lack this feature. None of my zooms have this feature. When zooms did have this feature, it was very difficult to correctly interpret what they were telling you. But, if you can find a point about 1/3rd into the DoF and have the AF focus on that, you'll get your best result. SO just to be clear, that would be look at where the first thing you want to be in sharp focus is, and the last image element, then divide the distance into thirds and focus on something 1/3 of the way into the area to be in acceptable focus.

As for what lens to use. That depends on what you want the final to look like. A wide angle close up that emphasizes one element of the car (or woman) or a more distant image, that tends to look flatter, but keeps the real world relationship between the person and the object more real.

One of my compatriots used to shoot cars and trucks for GM. That involved renting a huge white cotton circus type tent, and banks of portable lights, some on cranes, and using the tent as a diffuser, shining the light through it for really powerful diffused light. So that's what at least one commercial shooter used. The issue then becomes, how far do you want to go with this?

SO your decision comes down to wide angle with perspective distortion but relatively close working distance.
or
Longer lens for less perspective distortion but further working distance.
Or something like a 50, that's sort of half way in between.

But, it's a choice of personal preference. So we can't really give you a definitive answer.

If it were me, I'd probably use my DA*55 1.4 as long as I had enough room. I might take a couple images with a 100 or 200 and few more with a 20-35 range lens just to have a choice in the digital darkroom.

Or on my K-3 I'd just use my 16-85 or 18-135. I've been using hyperfocal for so long now, it's wired into me. I rarely use the DoF scale for hyperfocal. You're going to be shooting the narrowest possible aperture (highest numbered ƒ stop) so wide open value isn't important. You'll probably be shooting at least ƒ5.6 and possibly as much as ƒ16 or 22.

Oh, and be sure an pick a place to shoot with a background that won't distract from your image, or at least can be effectively integrated into your image. The background needs your attention as well as your subjects.

[photoptimist]

For total front-to-back focus on both the model and car (together in one photo), wider angle is much better. Even a 31 mm on APS-C might be longer than optimal. There's also the issue of object composition (model-next-to-the-car, model-in-the-car, model-on-the-hood-of-the-car) and perspective (side-view, front-view, various angled views, shot-from-low-down, shot-from-eye-level, shot-from-high-up). Keeping everything in focus will depend on the distances of the nearest parts of the scene and the farthest parts of the scene and will likely require stopping down the lens, especially for non-wide-angle focal lengths. Note: wide angle is also great at bringing the surroundings into the picture such as a model+car+idyllic landscape (but comes with the burden on having to be careful about picking the background).

The best composition and perspective depends on the car, the model, and your personal preferences. Given that you have the 18-135 and don't need these photos until summer, I'd practice with zoom lens and the car in an empty parking lot to see what looks good to you. Digital pictures have almost no cost at all so can easily wander around car, closer or further from the car, zooming-in-and-out, trying different apertures, and shooting with abandon. Then you can go through the images, looking at your favorite compositions/perspectives and seeing which focal lengths and aperture settings worked and, thus, which lens to buy.


(Note: if you want a great portrait of just the model, then the 50 or 77 will be better.)


Good luck!

[pres589]

I really want to see a sample shot to get an idea of how far away the image was taken and what the shooter doesn't like about it. This sounds like time for something like the DA 14 or something like that. I use my DA 15 for such things but if there's glass to be purchased, faster glass would be useful here, in my estimation. Sigma 8-16 anybody?

[VictorDA]

More importantly, is the mustang a car or a horse? The OP is confusing
(Sorry)

[normhead]

I've only ever used my sigma 8-16 for landscapes.... but who knows, it could work.

Here my 21 ltd.


Here's the 10-17 fisheye.


Here's the Sigma 8-16


Notice how the UWA shots help me emphasize the foreground over the background.

For everything in focus with people... a small sensor camera, in this case the Optio W90 but also a cell phone with a good camera.


Picking up puppy Tia (that's her mom in the middle of the dogs) with the DA 18-135 at 31mm. (Just in case you're wondering what the FoV of the 31 might be like. Even here, Tia's sister on the right is bigger than she is, in real life. I'm holding Tia. Even with the 31 on APS-c there will be some perspective distortion.


With the DA* 60-250 @250mm, almost no perspective distortion.


K-1 and DA 28-105 at 73mm


How much space you have is a big factor, which is why you need to get out with your DA 18-135 and get a feel for how far away you prefer to be and what FL might be suited to what you want.

Just for the record, on Aps-c I personally wouldn't like to shoot the type of image you propose at less than 50mm. Many prefer longer lengths for portraits, standing further away compresses the background, which can limit the distraction of a messy background, and maintains a more natural looking image, compared to how we see.

[normhead]

More importantly, is the mustang a car or a horse? The OP is confusing
(Sorry)

I almost sent him here.
"Every time I ride, my heart is no longer in my chest but ? | Flickr

[EssJayEff]

More importantly, is the mustang a car or a horse? The OP is confusing
(Sorry)

Or both?!
1991 Ford Mustang (Car) vs. Mustang (Horse)

---------- Post added 02-09-23 at 11:28 AM ----------

and, thus, which lens to buy.

. . . or rent if it is a lens you don't envision using for anything else.

[dirwood]

which camera body?

KP and I do the K-70 but I mostly use the KP for everything.

---------- Post added 02-09-23 at 12:02 PM ----------

More importantly, is the mustang a car or a horse? The OP is confusing
(Sorry)

Well...technically it is a car BUT we do have the horses to use although none are mustangs

---------- Post added 02-09-23 at 12:15 PM ----------

Thanks for the replies. My plan was to use the 18-135 and do what was mentioned as far as setting it to the different lengths and moving my feet to see how they come out. I have plenty of space to set up and take the photos where ever I want on the farm. Seeing the links with the horses and car...that might end up happening if the weather and ground conditions are ideal to drive out to the pasture.

Without testing anything, I have a feeling I would like to be close for most shots, not sure why I feel I need to do that but thats the way I am envisioning the pictures right now. We still need to get the car painted (another year or 2 out) and when that happens, I definitely want those close ups so I will practice those.

I will have to check and see about the photos, I may have posted some on here previously but I also started using lightroom over the fall so I went through some of those photos as well and made some more tolerable.

She did Boudoir pictures last year for me and spent a good amount on them. I told her I would enjoy taking those photos and it wouldn't cost you a thing, so the mustang photos are my ticket in if I can help direct her for poses and do any post processing for masking blemishes etc etc. Hopefully I can figure out the post processing stuff as my skill is very limited in lightroom.

[dirwood]

So here are a few of my favorites from that photoshoot we did. As I was scrolling through, the ones I didn't care for were user error or bad angles from shadows etc etc. I think I can improve on that. I do recall feeling like I had to stand a million miles away to get all of her and the horse in some shots.

Of these photos, I believe only 1 I had used lightroom on just a few months ago. Its the more vibrant photo.

---------- Post added 02-09-23 at 12:52 PM ----------

So after looking at the exif's and knowing more now than I did when I took these photos. I would slow the shutter speed, change the f/stop to a higher number and go from there.

[normhead]

So what would you like to be different? Those are good images....
For subject isolation with blurred background, you'd want a 50-100mm lens capable of ƒ2 pr less. ( Like the 50 1.8.) to to step back and use a longer lens.
For everything in focus, you could probably just shoot ƒ8 with the same lens. 40mm is getting pretty close to wide angle, but it's not there. Especially on APS-c.
I would imagine since you're shooting at ƒ2.8, you were going for subject isolation through an out of focus background. If it were me, I'd back up and use my Sigma 70mm @ƒ2.8, or DFA 100 Macro 2.8.
However, if you're planning to include in-focus scenery on the background, you'll be stopping down. A 2.8 zoom might give you more options in terms of background options.

[UncleVanya]

Lighting is a big issue that will transform these. You have many shots with the light behind the subjects but no fill lighting. Using reflectors or flash (possibly with color filters to match the lighting temperature) is a skill that you need to invest in before grabbing new lenses.

Also you have a shot where your subject’s face is blown out. You may need to work on using the histogram and perhaps spot metering or at least biasing exposure to avoid blowing the highlights. I think working on techniques will help more than anything. Your framing and posing is on target - just need to tinker with the desired outcome and adjust techniques to match. Some of it will take a lot of practice.