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.
What lens can give a full body portrait a nice bokeh effect?
- Thread starter alexxk
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Another lens that came to mind now is the Sigma 105 2.8 Macro lens.. with OS as well.. which is a nice plus
I read its a fantastic lens for Macro photography and works really well with portrait as well.. with super beautiful bokeh effects
I read its a fantastic lens for Macro photography and works really well with portrait as well.. with super beautiful bokeh effects
Alex, I have similar camera bodies, t2i and 6D, and here are a few things to consider:
1) How much compression do you want when shooting your portraits?
- 50mm is basically the sweet spot for 0 compression (the camera sensor will record what your eye sees)
> 50mm = Compression
< 50mm = Distortion
Most people in general wish they appeared slimmer, which is why having a lens with some amount of compression is preferable over not as the compression will help flatten the image.
2) How far are you generally from your subjects when you're shooting?
I shoot many of my portraits in a garage with my portable studio. This normally allows me to use anything up to 180mm for full body shots, but there have been many times where I am required to use a shorter focal length due to space limitation.
3) What type of lighting will you be using?
If you're using strobes you could get by with a lens without IS, meaning you could pick up a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 w/o VC within your price range. A good place to look is Sigma's refurbished store.
If you do more outdoor portraits then it's best to have IS in my opinion on a 70-200.
Last edited:
Thanks my friend.. enjoyed reading your feedback..
I have decided to go with the 85mm 1.8, the price is right for me at the moment.. it's sharp even at 1.8 and it will give me a good background isolation.
In time, I will also buy a Tamron or Canon 70-200.. The Sigma I'm not reading too much good things about it.. the other 2 are more expensive.. but that's why I said in time haha
My 50mm 1.8, Im afraid there might be something wrong with it.. People say its very sharp at 1.8 but yesterday I was having a incredible difficult time to get crisp, sharp image even at smaller apertures such as 2.8 or higher..
Today I will test it again to see what's going on!!
Where have you read the Sigma isn't sharp? I shoot with it personally and have found the sharpness to be incredible. Here are some of the portraits I've taken with it:
http://photographykc.com/?page_id=2292
http://photographykc.com/?page_id=2292
At the risk of opening a can of worms...
"Compression," as I understand you to be using it here, relates to perspective (i.e., the size of a foreground object relative to a background object), which for a given scene is a function of where you stand, not what focal length lens you use.
If you were to take two pictures from the same spot, one with a wide-angle lens and one with a telephoto lens, and then crop the wide-angle image so that the field-of-view matched that of the telephoto image, you would see the same compression. (Yes, you would also lose a ton of pixels and I am purposely not addressing depth-of-field or noise.)
A given focal length lens on a crop sensor body will appear to result in more compression than the same lens on a full-frame body -- assuming you move backward so as to achieve the same framing of your subject. If, instead of moving back, you were to use a wider lens with a roughly equivalent field-of-view (say a 35mm lens on a Nikon DX instead of a 50mm lens on a Nikon FX), you would see similar compression.
While not cheap, some of the best portrait lenses can be the ~60-~100mm macro lenses.
By their nature they allow need to be super sharp, but also as distortion free as possible. They will also give you full flexibility on how close you are to the subject.
Want a closeup of just their eyes, you can fill the frame with them and still be super sharp. Something a telephoto lens can't claim.
Amazingly flexible lenses.
By their nature they allow need to be super sharp, but also as distortion free as possible. They will also give you full flexibility on how close you are to the subject.
Want a closeup of just their eyes, you can fill the frame with them and still be super sharp. Something a telephoto lens can't claim.
Amazingly flexible lenses.
Allow me to agree and disagree with you.
When using the same lens on both a crop and full frame you're able to obtain almost the same image composition by changing your distance to the subject. The only thing that'll change here is your depth of field as DOF is measured by aperture and distance to subject.
However, your example of a 35mm on crop shooting the same at a 50mm is not accurate. I'll try explaining why using the 50mm and 85mm as those are the most referred to lenses on this discusison.
The Canon 50mm 1.4 has an angle of view of 46.
The canon 85mm 1.8 has an angle of view of 28.
Whether you put those lenses on a crop or a full frame that angle of view is not effected. The only thing effected is how much magnification a 50mm will appear between full frame and cropped. The 50mm on a crop sensor has a reach of 80mm, but the angle will still be 46 degrees.
It is the complete opposite. It is all to do with focal length and has nothing to do with the crop factor of the sensor or your distance to the subject. With a crop sensor you just get a smaller chunk of the scene recorded and moving closer just changes your perspective. Compression is an effect of light being bent through the lens.
Take two shots, one at 24mm and one at 200mm and you will see very different levels of compression all without moving and inch.
Last edited:
I'll be happy to eat my words if I am wrong, but I am sticking to my guns for the moment.
If you change your position, you will also change the perspective as between objects in the foreground and background (i.e., the compression). In other words, you can step back so your subject is framed the same, but by moving, you affect how the subject looks relative to the background. So the two images will not have the same composition (with regard to perspective).
The angle of view of the lens does not change, but the effective angle of view as seen by the sensor is different because the crop sensor only sees the center of the image. Otherwise, you would see no difference (in field of view) when taking a photo from the same spot with the same lens on a crop-sensor and full-frame sensor body.
For practical purposes, the compression you observe may be influenced by focal length, but only because the focal length you choose to use will drive where you need to stand to frame your subject in a given way (i.e., with a wide-angle lens you get up close and with a telephoto lens you move back). The perspective between the foreground objects and background objects, however, is based entirely on where you are standing. So if you change lens (or focal lengths) and do not move, you may see a wider or narrower field of view, but you do not change the perspective.
I will try to find time to take and post some examples later this afternoon.
If you change your position, you will also change the perspective as between objects in the foreground and background (i.e., the compression). In other words, you can step back so your subject is framed the same, but by moving, you affect how the subject looks relative to the background. So the two images will not have the same composition (with regard to perspective).
The angle of view of the lens does not change, but the effective angle of view as seen by the sensor is different because the crop sensor only sees the center of the image. Otherwise, you would see no difference (in field of view) when taking a photo from the same spot with the same lens on a crop-sensor and full-frame sensor body.
For practical purposes, the compression you observe may be influenced by focal length, but only because the focal length you choose to use will drive where you need to stand to frame your subject in a given way (i.e., with a wide-angle lens you get up close and with a telephoto lens you move back). The perspective between the foreground objects and background objects, however, is based entirely on where you are standing. So if you change lens (or focal lengths) and do not move, you may see a wider or narrower field of view, but you do not change the perspective.
I will try to find time to take and post some examples later this afternoon.
No need for examples - this video does a good job explaining it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY
That video does not address compression (or perspective). It only addresses focal length, depth-of-field, and noise/image quality as related to crop factor, which I specifically said I was not addressing. It does, however, show that compression does not change when shooting from the same position, despite changing sensor sizes and focal lengths.
If you look at 1:26 on the video, it shows three images shot from the same position at 100mm on a Canon full-frame, a Canon crop-sensor, and an M43 body. If you look at the size of the foreground subject (her head) relative to the background (the window panes and the foliage in the background), you can see that there is no change between the three images.
If you look at 2:36 on the video (and several times after that), it shows two images shot from the same position, but this time at 200mm on the Canon full-frame and at 100mm on the M43 body. Again, the position has not changed, so there is no change in compression (look at her face relative to the foliage in the background), even though the focal length has changed.
If you go back and compare the full-frame images from 1:26 and 2:36 (which were shot at 100mm and 200mm, respectively), you can see that there is again no change in compression, despite the change in focal length on the same body.
Again, I am not referring to depth-of-field, or background blur, or bokeh. I am specifically referring only to compression, or the perspective between the foreground objects and background objects.
What, no one was going to suggest a Petzval? It's even in the OP's budget:
http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/petzval-portrait-lens/
http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/petzval-portrait-lens/
See the following video from the awesome Mike Browne to see how FoV affects perspective & compression.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3A3SnPFPk0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3A3SnPFPk0
Good illustration of perspective/compression, but they are moving the camera when they move to the longer lens.
At 3:12: "Now because of the magnification aspect Jayne's had to move back with the camera in order for it to fit."
When he moves to the longer focal length lens, he moves the camera back. It is this change in position that results in a change in perspective. The longer focal length results in a narrower field of view. If they had kept the camera in the same position, you would only see a portion of the rock in the foreground, and the compression would have remained unchanged.
Similarly, at 4:09, when discussing perspective and moving to the longer lens, he says "it's the same shot, keeping this stone the same size in the picture."
So once again, they have moved the camera, and the change in perspective results from moving the camera back. Zooming the lens (or using a longer focal length lens) allows him to reframe the subject (the rock), but it is the change in position that results in a change in perspective.
He does make the statement that long lenses flatten things together (sometimes described as long lenses compressing the scene), but they only have that effect when you change your position (relative to a normal or wide lens) by moving back and reframing your shot. So for practical purposes, you will frequently observe more compression with a longer lens, but that is because you need to stand further away to use it to reframe your subject.
Think of it this way, the camera can only see the world from where it is sitting. No matter what lens you put in front of it, the relationship of objects in the foreground and background does not change. You have to move the camera.
Like I said, a can of worms.
EDIT: Returning to the question that I originally replied to, this is why a given lens (in this case, an 85mm) will have more compression if used on a crop-sensor camera than on a full-frame camera. The answer is (still) no and yes. If you do not move the camera, putting the lens on a crop-sensor body merely crops the field of view. It does not affect compression. However, if you move back in order to achieve the "same" framing of your subject, you will change the perspective, and you will then see more compression than when you had it mounted on a full-frame body and were standing closer. So when used to achieve similar framing as on a full-frame body, a given lens will exhibit more background compression when used on a crop-sensor body (because you have to move to reframe the shot).
Last edited:
Not to be overly pedantic, but the notion that longer focal length "compress" while shorter focal lengths "distort" is a myth. "Telephoto compression" occurs because of the relative distances between the subject/camera and the background/camera. That's all. If you take a photo with a 200mm lens and then take a photo with a 20mm lens *from the same spot* and crop it 10x, you end up with *exactly* the same result, with respect to "compression" or "distortion" (i.e. perspective).
Conversely, "wide angle distortion" occurs not because of the short focal length involved, but because, generally speaking, you're closer to the subject with a wide angle lens.
What the OP should be asking is: what focal length will allow me to be an appropriate distance from my subject, to minimize both perspective distortion (i.e. the relationship between near and far objects) and depth of field?
A 400 f/2.8 would do both, but the distances involved would likely (a) not be available and/or (b) would dramatically affect the perspective such that the subject appears 'flattened'.
A 35 f/1.4 would work, but the distances would be too short to allow for very shallow DoF, and the perspective distortion (because of the distances, not the focal length) might be objectionable.
An 85 f/1.4 would, likely, be an ideal mix of shallow DoF and appropriate subject-to-camera and background-to-camera distance.
Last edited:
Literally *everything* you need to know about the effect of distance (subject/camera and background/camera) and focal length on perspective (i.e. the relationship between near and far objects) is detailed, with images, at:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=672913
For those who don't want to click, here's the short answer:
Focal length has *nothing* to do with it. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=672913
For those who don't want to click, here's the short answer:
Focal length has *nothing* to do with it. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
And well you should because you are completely correct.
Perspective (compression with long lenses and "expansion" with short ones) is purely the result of the relative distances between the camera and the subject and the background, or in the OP's situation the relative distances between the camera and the various portions of the subject (nose, ear, ...).
For proper facial rendering in true portraits, you should shoot at a distance that is roughly the same as the distance that you would normally pay attention to that same portion of a person's body. A tight face only view is normally seen at around 1-1.5m (3-5ft). Full length views are normally noticed/seen from a greater distance of about 2.5-4m (8-13ft).
To get a normal looking image of a full length portrait somewhere in the 2.5-4m range and simply choose a lens that yields the desired framing at that distance. An overly long shooting distance can render the face too flat, squashing the nose and making the ears seem overly large. A little bit of this can help with a subject with an overly big nose and/or small ears but can destroy the image when the subject has the opposite "flaws". It is common in fashion work, which is rather different that portrait work, to use a significantly longer shooting distance and a proportionally longer lens. This can yield a poor "portrait" but renders the clothing "flatter".
Very well said, couldn't have said it better! I see too many people shooting at 17mm with their first DSLR. The first thing I tell them is to shoot at 50mm with their kit lens for portraits.
Well assuming you may not have infinite MP (I have 12), then the size of your location and physics will dictate the focal range you need to get the subject in (so short enough), and an acceptable number of pixels covered by the subject (so acceptable resolution without or after cropping), so long enough.
Then you need to select a lens which gets the best background quality (or bokeh), that you can. Bokeh is largely a feature of lens design (my 500mm mirror is crap on bokeh due to donut hilights on out of focus bright points), and specifically the aperture diagphram blade design (round aperture is good).
Then you need to select a lens which gets the best background quality (or bokeh), that you can. Bokeh is largely a feature of lens design (my 500mm mirror is crap on bokeh due to donut hilights on out of focus bright points), and specifically the aperture diagphram blade design (round aperture is good).