Is a 28mm lens good for portraits on a cropped sensor?

M

Michael D Beckwith

Messages
130
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a 50mm lens for portraits but am wanting a wider angle lens for portraits (which is equivalent to 80mm on my cropped sensor). I have read that the 28mm being a wide angle lens will produce some distortion. Bear in mind that I have a cropped sensor so it worth getting a 28mm lens for portraits? The 28mm would be equivalent of 44.8mm on my Canon EOS 7D. The lens that I am eyeing up is the prime Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM. If the distortion is minimal then I would be inclined to get it, if it is massive then it probably wouldn't be a good idea. What are your thoughts?
 
I would of thought 28mm would be to wide for portraits unless you mean group shots? Normally the prefrence is 80 -135mm (these are based on FF) for portraits.
 
Wide angle for portraits hmmm are you looking for special effects such as large noses etc go longer, not shorter than 50mm. hth mike.
 
I have a very small room and want to take a shot of a person with more of them in it being roughly half of their body and possibly full body shot.
 
Michael D Beckwith said:
I have a very small room and want to take a shot of a person with more of them in it being roughly half of their body and possibly full body shot.
Click to expand...
Is there a door in your room? if so shoot from outside it, dont be confined by your surroundings. cheers mike
 
Go outside with a longer lens :)
It can be difficult to capture a flattering pic with a 28 but have a go, there's nothing to lose.
 
I'm with the OP on this one. A small room with a long lens like has been suggested just doesn't work and going outdoors may not be practical. I shot some portraits this week at 24mm on a Nikon crop so would be about 36mm equivalent. Worked just fine and didn't have any distortion that clicking the lens profile couldn't take care of. I also use my 35mm f1.8 indoors for portraits and again it works just fine. Just because it's a wider angle doesn't mean you need to be in their faces. I tend to go with a traditional 3x2, 4x3 or letterbox crop so their is some space around the subject.
 
Last edited:
I would have thought that about a 35mm would be preferable (equating to FoV of a 50mm on FF)
 
or find a bigger room :lol: - I don't do a great deal of portraiture (apart from weddings on location) but mostly on a crop body i use either a 50mm or an 85mm (although i do have a 17-50 f2.8 for those moments when 50mm is just not wide enough)
 
Half body+ I'd say you can get away with it. I wouldn't shoot head shots with such a wide lens though, the subject might get a bit of moose-nose! I've used my 35mm on FX for portraits though here and there. But as said, they would have been full or at least upper body shots. Never close in.
 
Cagey75 said:
Half body+ I'd say you can get away with it. I wouldn't shoot head shots with such a wide lens though, the subject might get a bit of moose-nose! I've used my 35mm on FX for portraits though here and there. But as said, they would have been full or at least upper body shots. Never close in.
Click to expand...

This sounds about right.

The distortion referred to above is not lens distortion in the technical sense, it's better described as an exaggerated perspective effect and is not caused by the lens. Perspective changes are only affected by shooting distance, though exaggerated perspective is often associated with wide-angles because they allow you to get close while still including the whole subject. By the same token, long lenses used from greater distance produce flattened perspective.

Easy to test - shoot the same subject from the same distance with a wide-angle and a longer lens. Enlarge the centre of the wide-angle image to the same size and perspective will exactly match.
 
A few replies here seem to be waaaaay off the mark and the suggestion to leave the room seems to be the sort you'd make after too many beers :D On APS-C you should easily be able to shoot a bit tighter than a half body shot without running into perspective distortion.
 
woof woof said:
A few replies here seem to be waaaaay off the mark and the suggestion to leave the room seems to be the sort you'd make after too many beers :D On APS-C you should easily be able to shoot a bit tighter than a half body shot without running into perspective distortion.
Click to expand...

There are some great interesting portraits taken right at 24 or even 17mm mark (35mm) but let's not take exceptions as a guideline.

The bottom line is - keep 1.5 or at the very least 1m+ distance from the subject unless you really know what (and why) you are doing.

P.S. I truly despise these famous old famous 'pros' shooting 35-50mm headshots on their clunky methodical Hasselblads. Pure vomit that is.
 
Last edited:
I'd quite happily shoot with the FF equivalent of 35mm and 135mm.

So 24mm is a great lens for environmental portraiture on crop.

But that's not what you're trying to do.

Frankly you can't just use a wide lens because circumstances dictate you get closer, it's the same fallacy as 'zoom with your feet'. Different focal lengths 'look' different, and people just 'look' more attractive at longer focal lengths.

So, whilst it may sound flippant, if you haven't room to shoot attractive portraits, you need more room rather than a wider lens. The wider lens will get you a shot, but it won't look as good. The longer space will get you the shot you actually want.
 
While sat here reading this I picked up my GX7+20mm and shot at less than arms length with no issues so 40mm on FF or 40mm equiv on APS-C shouldn't be an issue and not that I'm going to go sorting through my film prints.... but as far as I remember shooting tighter than half body with a 35mm lens on my RF wasn't an issue either.

Of course some of us just look odd no matter what we're shot with.
 
I've shot animal portraits at 35mm on FF and I rather quite like the look it gives! Not tried it on humans yet though (on FF at least)...
 
Shoot portraits at wide angle, the only two people who'll know if the proportions are wrong are the model and the photographer! Plenty of wide angle portraits about, and no one ever bats an eyelid! One of my favourite self portraits was taken at 16mm on full frame, nobodies ever tutted and told me to redo it with an 85mm!
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
Shoot portraits at wide angle, the only two people who'll know if the proportions are wrong are the model and the photographer! Plenty of wide angle portraits about, and no one ever bats an eyelid! One of my favourite self portraits was taken at 16mm on full frame, nobodies ever tutted and told me to redo it with an 85mm!
Click to expand...

Does my bum look big in this?
 
There are a few reasons why wide-angles are not the best choice for portraits - by which I mean head and shoulders, not full length and certainly not environmental type portraits when wide-angles are probably preferred.

With a wide lens, you will be too close, like 2-3ft, and the perspective at that kind of distance is just not attractive. It is also uncomfortable for the subject to have a camera shoved in their face at that range, it's intrusive, and their expression will reflect that. Also, shooting close with a wide lens inevitably includes a lot more background making it harder to control that important aspect of the shot.

Check out this sequence of portraits shot with a selection of different focal lengths at various distances http://gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how-lenses-beautify-or-uglify-your-pretty-face 100-135mm looks about right to me, and that also provides a good working distance - not too close and intrusive, and not too far and remote for good communication when you're trying to encourage the best expression.
 
Last edited:
I often have to shoot in tight spaces but I do now shoot at (generally speaking) 75mm or more on ff

That said one of my fave pics was at 20mm on a crop (the distortion added to it a bit I think!) so you can get creative! That said, more room is more flattering!!


Am I acting a little CRAZY? by Sir SR, on Flickr
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top