How are you gonna hold the camera with that lens with just one arm
Yeah, yeah, if money weren't an issue … [dreaming on about my potential equipment]
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
best lenses for portraits
- Thread starter rweakins
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah, yeah, if money weren't an issue … [dreaming on about my potential equipment]
What I suggested was a test to illustrate and prove how distance is the variable which affects near / far size differences (i.e. perspective) not a suggestion of how to shoot a portrait.
There is no one single focal length which is ideal for portraits because the geometry of faces are differ and different in-camera crops are used. If the goal is to flatter the subject the ideal workflow is to:
1) Find the facial angle and shooting distance which flatters the subject the most. It will vary person to person.
2) Then select the focal length which will produce the desired in-camera crop.
As I stated originally an 85mm or a 50mm on a 1.6 crop camera will work fine, depending on what in-camera crop is desired. If shooting with a 50mm the best strategy for flattering most subjects would still be to shoot from 7-8ft away and crop in post-processing instead of simply moving closer to crop in the camera. Moving closer would make the perspective less flattering.
See http://super.nova.org/DPR/Equipment/PortraitLens.html
someone mentioned earlier sinking my money into a 70-200 but that was definitely a gift haha. looking at the main options of a 50mm or 85mm i would love to get an 85mm if i had the money but i see those are running around 399 or so. sounds like the 50mm f1.8 is the best bet for the money.
How are you gonna hold the camera with that lens with just one arm
Yeah, yeah, if money weren't an issue [dreaming on about my potential equipment]
Why isn't your camera on a tripod?
I bought the MKII version, and then found a MKI on craigslist for a steal ($75) so I switched out to that one. Much better build quality.
The 50 1.8 does a good job on portraits, but my favorite portrait lens in my collection is the 135 F2L... it's just magic.
50mm @ 2.8, ISO 100
135mm @ 2.5, ISO 200
135mm @ 2.8, ISO 400
I'm never disappointed with my results from the 50, it's sharp and has a good bokeh. But if I use both lenses in a shoot, when I get to my pictures taken with the 135, I'm still just in awe and the sudden increase in beauty that the lens produces. I have rented the 50mm 1.2L though and it's results are just as stunning as the 135, but about $400 more.
50mm (1.2L) @ 2.2, ISO 100
Oreo
Not to belabor the point, but it was you that attempted to correct MacUserSince87 when he said:
Originally Posted by MacUserSince87
Distance to the subject, not focal length, is what controls perspective, such as how big the nose looks relative to the ears. Get too close with any lens and the face will look wider and the nearer nose, arms, feet, etc. will appear larger than normal. Keeping all the body parts a similar distance from the lens also reduces near/far size differences.
And then you said:
"The focal length has a profound influence on perspective, ever try to make a portrait with a wide-angle? (Well, unless you are doing it for the effect on purpose.)"
Again, although you understand the practical aspect of it, you are giving newbie photographers the WRONG information. Focal length does NOT in and of itself cause that effect, it's subject distance.
Yes you are correct in saying a wide angle lens will generally get you closer to the subject, which then causes the distortion, but why not just say that in the first place
I only bring this up again to reinforce it for other folks who may not understand the difference.
Cheers
Not to belabor the point, but it was you that attempted to correct MacUserSince87 when he said:
Originally Posted by MacUserSince87
Distance to the subject, not focal length, is what controls perspective, such as how big the nose looks relative to the ears. Get too close with any lens and the face will look wider and the nearer nose, arms, feet, etc. will appear larger than normal. Keeping all the body parts a similar distance from the lens also reduces near/far size differences.
And then you said:
"The focal length has a profound influence on perspective, ever try to make a portrait with a wide-angle? (Well, unless you are doing it for the effect on purpose.)"
Again, although you understand the practical aspect of it, you are giving newbie photographers the WRONG information. Focal length does NOT in and of itself cause that effect, it's subject distance.
Yes you are correct in saying a wide angle lens will generally get you closer to the subject, which then causes the distortion, but why not just say that in the first place
I only bring this up again to reinforce it for other folks who may not understand the difference.
Cheers
You have to read my other posts to take what I have posted into context: just like focal length determines the depth of field, this is a meaningless piece of information by itself. And no, I'm not giving wrong information here, because I said that each focal length (rather: viewing angle) and photography situation have typical parameters (such as working distance and effects you would like to achieve).
From a practical standpoint, it is completely irrelevant that you could achieve the same perspective with a wide angle lens than with a tele lens, because that's not the way you would take pictures.
I found his post misleadingly phrased and have objected to that. Note that I haven't said that MacUserSince87's statement was incorrect. He misunderstood my reply and tried to convince me of something I have never disputed. My objection just came from a practical point of view (mostly typical working distance in this case) -- which is much closer with wideangle lenses. The perspective is different with wide-angle lenses, because the typical working distances are. That's not incorrect information nor is it IMO hard to understand.
50mm f/1.4 for $300.00, but I have heard that nothing beats the 85mm f/1.2 L for portraits. The 85mm f/1.8 costs $300 like the one above, but the f/1.2 ii incredible, although expensive.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224258
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=224258