unsure on what lens for portrait work

camcap

camcap

Messages
116
Edit My Images
Yes
i was going to get the Nikon 50mm 1.4 afs lens for portrait work but when i was looking at the lens the other day the shop assistant told me that this was not the best lens for this type of shot and should be looking around the 100mm lens its for my d60 Nikon so need it to be auto focus that's y i was looking at the afs 50mm
 
I've always been told that around 60 to 90mm makes the best range for a portrait lens. And I always manual focus when doing portraits anyway. I have often used the Nikon 50mm f1.8 which works fine but the f1.4 may cause problems when used wide open as your depth of field will be very narrow.

Andy
 
Depends where you're using it. If you go for something as long as 100mm you need the space to back up far enough. On studio I use I can shoot at 85mm, another I ws hard pressed to get anywhere near 50mm for full length, and ended up at closer to 30mm. Longer is better for portriats, but there's no point buying a long lens if you haven't got the space to use it.

I use my 2 kit lenses on my D40, gives me anywhere from 18mm to 200mm (if I need it! :lol:)
 
The 50mm (will equate to an FF AOV of 75mm on a Nikon crop body) which may be a little short for the best perspective for purely Head and Shoulder shots, although it will be useful for waist length portraits and wider depending on the amount of room you have available.

The best perspective for pleasing head & shoulders portraits are normally acheived by having a lens with a focal length of between 85mm and 135mm with a FF camera which would be in the region of 60mm - 90mm to give a similar AOV on a Nikon crop body, although depending on how much space you have longer lenses could also be useful.
 
I'd definitely consider a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 lens....perfect for portraits on DX. :)
 
Where I can I use my 70mm Sigma for portraits. Cracking lens and great value.
 
50-150 would be my vote for a crop sensor. most portraits are not shot with waffer thin DOF
 
i used the 100 lens
the objective is to get rid of background and keep the face looking flat and diminish the nose
135 does it as well

i did use a 50 flat field macro lens wide open and got pretty good results
the only thing is one doesnt want to get toooooo close to the sitter

cable release enables you to distract a bit from the lens when communicating

rule 1...at least one eye...the nearer razor sharp..or both if possible
and check for catchlights which you can put in with a card or hankie
or later if you want to cheat with PS
 
I use the 50 1.8 on my D60, manual focus doesn't bother me, it's crop value is 75mm anyway and you can always crop further in PP if you need to.
 
Dman said:
I use the 50 1.8 on my D60, manual focus doesn't bother me, it's crop value is 75mm anyway and you can always crop further in PP if you need to.
Click to expand...

the long lens isnt always needed for cropping..its to eliminate distortion and flatten the features..a bonus is the reduced dof
 
50mm f1.4 (canon) on crop is vvv nice for portraits for headshots get close for longer shots back up some

and f1.4 can make awesome portraits just need to want the 'limited' DoF
 
david1701 said:
50mm f1.4 (canon) on crop is vvv nice for portraits for headshots get close for longer shots back up some

and f1.4 can make awesome portraits just need to want the 'limited' DoF
Click to expand...

i used a 55 macro without tube:lol: and wide open and got some decent results
you need to know your subject well and make sure you use the right kind of mouthwash
macro gives flat field so you dont get any unnecessary distortions at the edges
not good for women..shows too much detail
 
I think the most important consideration for portraits is subject distance. I like about 5 feet ideally. This is close to the kind of distance used for normal conversation and it allows you to communicate easily, without shouting from across the room, or crowding and intimating the subject by being too close.

And because it is close-ish to normal conversational distance, perspective also looks normal - it is distance that dictates perspective, not focal length.

Having established that, a 50mm lens is good for a nice head and shoulders on a crop format camera at this distance (equivalent to about 80mm on full frame).

Then there is the question of depth of field, and some portraits do benefit from the shallow DoF you get at around f/2.8 and f/2, or even lower. It is certainly good to have available a lower f/number than the f/4 to 5.6 you get with many standard kit zooms at 50mm.

All of which leads me to suggest that a 50mm f/1.8 is a good lens to have for portraiture with a crop camera, especially at the price. 50mm f/1.4 even better. You can do a heck of a lot with one of those :)
 
It used to be accepted practice that when shooting full-frame 35mm, a focal length of 85mm or above was better for portraits as it eliminated the 'big-nose' syndrome when filling the frame with the sitter's face...

I still stick to this principle - using the fat-end of my 28-80 or the 70-200 for portraits and mug-shots...using a longer focal length helps to throw the background OOF as well...
 
Arkady said:
It used to be accepted practice that when shooting full-frame 35mm, a focal length of 85mm or above was better for portraits as it eliminated the 'big-nose' syndrome when filling the frame with the sitter's face...

I still stick to this principle - using the fat-end of my 28-80 or the 70-200 for portraits and mug-shots...using a longer focal length helps to throw the background OOF as well...
Click to expand...

<pedant on>

How does it do that?

<pedant off>

Edit: Okay, to answer my own question, increasing focal length does not inherantly reduce depth of field so cannot "throw the background out of focus" per se. If the image remains the same size, then depth of field remains the same. However, using a longer lens often means that you will shoot from a greater distance when field of view is reduced. This reduces the background often making it appear less cluttered, and that tends to make the subject stand out more. But if you have a plain background in a studio shot, that will make no difference at all.

It is magnification which alters depth of field, not necessarily focal length. Making the image bigger reduces depth of field, and that will obviously happen if you use a longer lens without moving back to reframe. If you just want to reduce depth of field, then moving closer will have exactly the same effect.
 
HoppyUK said:
<pedant on>

How does it do that?

<pedant off>

Edit: Okay, to answer my own question, increasing focal length does not inherantly reduce depth of field so cannot "throw the background out of focus" per se. If the image remains the same size, then depth of field remains the same. However, using a longer lens often means that you will shoot from a greater distance when field of view is reduced. This reduces the background often making it appear less cluttered, and that tends to make the subject stand out more. But if you have a plain background in a studio shot, that will make no difference at all.

It is magnification which alters depth of field, not necessarily focal length. Making the image bigger reduces depth of field, and that will obviously happen if you use a longer lens without moving back to reframe. If you just want to reduce depth of field, then moving closer will have exactly the same effect.
Click to expand...

**yawn** you know what i mean...stop being a cock...
 
Arkady said:
**yawn** you know what i mean...stop being a cock...
Click to expand...

I know what is correct, and what you said is not correct. Other people might think that what you say is true, so I put it right ;)
 
HoppyUK said:
<pedant on>
How does it do that?
<pedant off>
It is magnification which alters depth of field, not necessarily focal length. Making the image bigger reduces depth of field, and that will obviously happen if you use a longer lens without moving back to reframe. If you just want to reduce depth of field, then moving closer will have exactly the same effect.
Click to expand...


i think we should give some consideration to the effects of aperture as well
and since the op is about portraiture then large lenses would make the image larger keeping the viewing distance constant
imagine going into a studio and the photographer insists you sit further away as he changes lenses
then crops the image
the whole idea of long lenses for portaiture is the compression so that the sitters features are flattened, fill the frame, and so get the benefit of reduced dof
i have taken most portraits at open aperture...going for one eye or both as the main point of focus
the eyes have it!!
 
The flip side is using a lens stopped down more. It's nice having a very shallof DoF, but unless you're perfectly square on (which you rarely are for portraits), then you'll have the one eye in focus, the other out. I love the ridiculously shallow DoF an 85 @ 1.4 gives you, but I've missed many otherwise-would-be-keepers because it's just too shallow!

I guess it really boils down to what background do you have. If it's a white background suitably lit, then no real problem if the background is in focus because it'll be blown out. And then, you get not only one eye, but both eyes + chin, neck, shoulders in focus. And the end result will probably be sharper too as you're not pushing the lens to its limit :) And you don't need an expensive wide lens to start with :)

my amateurish 2p worth :)
 
tfboy said:
The flip side is using a lens stopped down more. It's nice having a very shallof DoF, but unless you're perfectly square on (which you rarely are for portraits), then you'll have the one eye in focus, the other out. I love the ridiculously shallow DoF an 85 @ 1.4 gives you, but I've missed many otherwise-would-be-keepers because it's just too shallow!

I guess it really boils down to what background do you have. If it's a white background suitably lit, then no real problem if the background is in focus because it'll be blown out. And then, you get not only one eye, but both eyes + chin, neck, shoulders in focus. And the end result will probably be sharper too as you're not pushing the lens to its limit :) And you don't need an expensive wide lens to start with :)

my amateurish 2p worth :)
Click to expand...

thats really quite valid..using the most open aperture could be f4 or f5.6 for a more economical lens...the dof being the same as an expensive shut down

about the two eyes...some portraits are taken side on deliberately with the nearer eye in focus
the background i feel should be dullish, neutral and non intrusive..canvas or an old tarpaulin used to be favourites
the main thing in portrait is the lighting...and there are many types as in diffused light box overhead with fill under, two lamps and/or reflector, rembrandt type
all are fun to try...but
the real portrait is about the person...and their personality and character...if you get that all other technical items fall to the side in lower priority...its good to know the sitter in some way or at least as others know them...

this is a brilliant thread
 
tfboy said:
I guess it really boils down to what background do you have. If it's a white background suitably lit, then no real problem if the background is in focus because it'll be blown out. And then, you get not only one eye, but both eyes + chin, neck, shoulders in focus. And the end result will probably be sharper too as you're not pushing the lens to its limit :) And you don't need an expensive wide lens to start with :)

my amateurish 2p worth :)
Click to expand...

If you use a studio set-up I wouldn't have thought any fast lenses would/should be used wide-open. Outdoors is an entirely different proposition though. :)
 
what lens to use for portraits...the one you have...and well
 
sdb123 said:
If you use a studio set-up I wouldn't have thought any fast lenses would/should be used wide-open. Outdoors is an entirely different proposition though. :)
Click to expand...
Ahh too true. I assumed the OP was talking about studio work :)

I've taken portrait or rather candid shots in dimly lit bars without flash. Great because you're stealth and no one hears the mirror slap above the noise. :DAnd in those conditions, shooting massively wide open is a real joy :) But then again, it helps to have a camera with good high ISO performance (mostly full frame).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top