what to use

January 3, 2007 12:16 PM

I would like to take close up photos of hands and eyes of people. My question relates to what lenses should I use.

Pursuant to a post on the blue, I started thinking about a photography project involving expressive parts of the human body. The two things that I came up with where hands and eyes. For the hands I need a relatively fast lens (for Canon), as I plan on taking pictures of hands in motion as well as at rest, that will work well under varying lighting conditions. As long as I'm close enough would a 50mm f/1.4 work well for this?

As well, taking pictures of peoples eyes, I'd like it to be as natural as possible so I am a little leery of being right up in their face in personal space, what would provide a fairly tight focus on eyes (or preferably just one eye) from about 3 - 4 feet away.


(useless addition, yes I'm talking about 35mm lenses)

posted by edgeways to Media & Arts (11 answers total)

Minimum focus distance for that lens is 45 cm (assuming it's the Canon one). Is the subject large enough for you at that distance?
posted by smackfu at 12:28 PM on January 3, 2007

One of Canon's nicest macro lenses is the 100mm f/2.8 macro. It will suit your purposes nicely. It's also one of the sharpest lenses I've ever seen.
posted by notsnot at 12:36 PM on January 3, 2007

What smackfu said about subject size. If you're going to be 3-4 ft from the subject, you probably want a longer lens. If you'll be shooting any candid stuff from further away, you'll want an even longer lens, I suspect.

That being said, I own the Canon 50mm f/1.4 USM, and I like it a lot.
posted by thinman at 12:40 PM on January 3, 2007

If you're using a digital camera with an APS-size sensor, that 100mm lens (assuming it's actually 100mm and they haven't pre-fudged the numbers) is going to magically turn into the "35mm equivalent" of around a 160mm, which is a nice length if you're 3-4 feet away. I'd say that's the lens you want, if you can afford it. It seems to go for around $470 from Adorama.

Your 50mm f/1.4 is a nice lens, but I suspect to get photos of just one eye, you're going to be doing a lot of cropping and throwing away information (whether film or digital).
posted by Kadin2048 at 1:00 PM on January 3, 2007

If your camera is digital, you can also ask you question over at dpreview in the Canon lenses forum. Some lenses are interchangeable between digital and film cameras, so it may still be relevant.
posted by mach at 1:13 PM on January 3, 2007

A friend of mine shoots eye macros, and uses a ring flash. He also uses a Canon camera, so you can check his Flickr tags, EXIF data, or contact him through FlickrMail, starting with the above link.
posted by matildaben at 1:33 PM on January 3, 2007

i did a project similar to this a few years ago... same general idea anyway. although i did posed shots instead of candid so i used a bellows on the lens to get focus for extremely close subjects.

be sure to come back after you've finished and let us know what you went with and how it worked out.
posted by MonkNoiz at 2:20 PM on January 3, 2007

1) I have that lens, and I don't think it will do what you want. It's not a close up lens. Especially not eyes.

2) A macro lens is very good for eyes. Not so much for hands. Maybe you need two lenses.

3) The lens will work in lower light or at faster shutter speeds. But only a bit so. To freeze moving hands in low light may be asking a bit much.

4) To get a tight macro shot of an eye you'll need a macro lens and you'll need to be right in their face. Inches not feet. The other way to go would be a long lens and then crop. I've actually done things similar with a 400mm lens. But I have to crop a lot.

This was shot from about 3 feet with a canon 100-400mm on a D60 (so about 600mm equiv). Much cropping.

This was shot from about 3 inches with a 90mm macro. No cropping.

This was shot with the Canon 50mm f1.8 at very low light and minimum focus distance. Some cropping. And I had to crank ISO up to even get that crappy DoF.

Bottomline - For great closeup shots, go with a macro lens.
posted by Devidicus at 2:36 PM on January 3, 2007

Response by poster: thanks that gives me something to work from. Sorry I wasn't precisely clear, I was thinking the 50mm for the hands as I'm not too worried about people being all squeamish about me being close if I'm not focusing on the face, then something else for the eye/s.

Thanks again
posted by edgeways at 2:48 PM on January 3, 2007

Everyone's lens suggestions are reasonable, but really what you should do is rent first and decide what you want. I don't know Duluth, but there may be somewhere that rents to you. If not, there are a few web rental places like RentGlass which will mail you lenses for a week or whatever.

Try a few, buy the one(s) you like best.
posted by aubilenon at 6:14 PM on January 3, 2007

I'm a photojournalist and put a 17mm lens within inches of peoples' faces on a daily basis, in news, portrait, street, and long-term documentary situations. In 95 percent of those situations, the squeamishness about a camera being that close is entirely owned by me; the subjects have usually agreed to be photographed or don't notice me, and trust me enough to roll with whatever I want to do. Just like with taking pictures of strangers in the street, in your described situation the discomfort and strangeness is almost always something for the photographer to overcome and not something for the subjects to overcome. It's all in how confident you are about what you're doing and how you present yourself and that confidence to your subjects.
posted by msbrauer at 6:51 AM on January 4, 2007