What makes a good portrait lens?

G

grum

Messages
3,234
Name
Graham
Edit My Images
Yes
Seen quite a few posts talking about lenses that are good for portraits. Seems like these are quite often also referred to as macro lenses?

Anyone fancy shedding any light on what factors come into play here?

I am trying to get my head around the concept of macro beyond just that it's 'taking really close-up pictures of small stuff'.

Not sure why a lens would be good for both of these things.

Cheers.
 
I think Macro lenses typically get touted as portrait lenses because they're usually pretty accurate with focus, come typically in the portrait focal lengths (60-90-135), and because in Macroland bokeh is everywhere, they usually have pretty good control over their Out of Focus areas.

There's no stipulation that one must use a macro lens for portrait photography as the focussing distances aren't short enough to warrant any macro functionality, it's just they often tend to be good at it.

I use a Tamron 90mm Macro for almost all my portrait stuff, for example.

Another highly respected portrait lens is the Nikon 85mm f1.4, and the Nikkor 135mm f2 DC.

Depending on whether you shoot DX, 35mm or Medium format, you may find 135mm too long or too short :) (I find 90mm just a touch long on DX, but it would be perfect for 35mm)
 
In an ideal world, a portrait lens will be SOFT, but in a controlled manner. An example would be the Canon EF 135mm f/2.8SF (for full frame as this is likely to be too long for a sub-frame camera). I guess you could always turn sharpening down on the camera or in PP.

Generally, the focal length should be approx two to three times the length of the diagonal of the sensor (e.g. 43mm on full frame give 85mm - 135mm, on sub-frame this comes down to approx 50mm - 85mm). This is so that you get far enough away from your subject to stop the perspective making noses too large.
 
I have the Canon EF-S 60mm macro lens and it's excellent for portraits. You have to remember that the EF-S cameras have a 1.6x crop which makes a 60mm actually more like a 90mm which is ideal for shooting portraits. One thing to consider though is not all macro lenses focus on infinity.
 
grum said:
Seen quite a few posts talking about lenses that are good for portraits. Seems like these are quite often also referred to as macro lenses?

Anyone fancy shedding any light on what factors come into play here?

I am trying to get my head around the concept of macro beyond just that it's 'taking really close-up pictures of small stuff'.

Not sure why a lens would be good for both of these things.

Cheers.
Click to expand...

That's a good definition. Nothing more to it than that! :thumbs:

I disagree with most of what has been posted previously.

It is coincidence that macros make good portrait lenses. They just have a focal length that's usually about right and quite a low f/number for shallow depth of field effects that can look quite good in portraiture.

But macros are not that brilliant at focusing at normal distances (they're usually plenty good enough for portraits though) and some macros are infamous for often unattractive bokeh at normal range! Not all though.

I also absolutely disagree that a portrait lens should be soft. That's crazy. If you want a soft-focus effect (I still like it, but it's very old fashioned these days) then use a filter or fake it in Photoshop. The Canon 135 SF is actually quite limited as a portrait lens as it only creates the soft effect at f/2.8 and f/4 which isn't always practical. I sold mine.

I think the most important thing in portrait photography is shooting at the right distance, something where you are both comfortable and can communicate. I like 5-6ft, which also gives natural looking perspective. I get that with 50-60mm on my crop format Canon. On a 4/3rd camera it works out at 40-50mm.

One of the differences with the 4/3rds format is the extra depth of field you get with the smaller sensor size, so if you want to try the shallow DoF look with portraits you'll need a very low f/number, like f/1.8 or so. That will give DoF equivalent to f/3.6 on full frame (f/number x2 crop factor).
 
While we're here...

I've been using a Canon FD 50mm 1.8 lens (non macro) on my GF1 - tried it with some extension tubes for macro photography.

It seemed to work ok - is there some reason why it would be different using a lens with 'macro' feature. Not exactly sure what this means. :)

Thanks
 
There is nothing "special" about the 'macro' designation. Typically it's applied to a lens that can focus close enough to garner a reproduction ratio of roughly 2:1 or better. (Tamron stick 'macro' on almost all their lenses, I don't think there's any real standard...)
By sticking extension tubes on a normal lens, you allow it to focus more closely, improving the reproduction ratio and thus moving into "Macro" territory. This is what a dedicated macro lens is doing internally, AFAIK.
 
True macro lenses are designed for a flat field of focus.

Some specific portrait lenses were designed for usual portrait shooting distances, and are less good than general purpose lenses at infinity. You're unlikely to come across them unless you're looking e.g. Tokina ƒ/2.8 60-120mm and Pentax FA* ƒ/1.4 85mm for full frame 35mm.

Recently, more lenses are designed with nine rounded aperture blades, which helps improve out of focus areas when the lens isn't used wide open.

A manual focus macro lens is usually far nicer to manually focus than any AF lens, and the longer focus throw is also preferable for static subjects.
 
There is no ideal portrait lens as such - different photos require different focal lengths and aperture capabilities.

I find on full frame a 35mm lens is a very good starting point. Personally I use anything from about 20mm equivalent up to about 50mm, but would almost never use longer than that because longer focal lengths IMHO can promote a rather flat and boring perspective - inevitably they tend to promote a tight-ish crop on the face. But it's up to the photographer to make something creative out of that, so there's nothing inherently 'wrong' with it. It's up to the photographer to make something out of the tools he/she has.

The possibilities of maximum aperture combined with focal length are important to allow for creative control of depth of field. You can also get 'defocus control' lenses which allow some limited control of out of focus areas.
 
Crofts said:
There is no ideal portrait lens as such - different photos require different focal lengths and aperture capabilities.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

People should get the idea of 'what makes a good portrait lens' out of their heads and concentrate on 'what makes a good portrait?'

Technique not kit makes a photograph, and this is especially true for portraiture. I use a range of lenses from 20mm to 400mm depending on the shoot.
 
grum said:
While we're here...

I've been using a Canon FD 50mm 1.8 lens (non macro) on my GF1 - tried it with some extension tubes for macro photography.

It seemed to work ok - is there some reason why it would be different using a lens with 'macro' feature. Not exactly sure what this means. :)

Thanks
Click to expand...

There is no formal definition of a macro lens but I think some generally accepted standards. They tend to go to 1:1 magnification unaided, that is if you photograph a subject 10mm long, it will deliver an image that is 10mm on the sensor. And they are always primes - nobody makes a zoom that can truly claim to be a macro.

The thing that really distinguishes a real macro is not just the ability to focus close, but to do so with a perfectly flat field, zero distortion and vignetting. Popular subjects like flowers etc are not very critical but if you photograph a postage stamp with a normal lens plus tubes, you will find that when the centre is in focus, the edges might not be, and vice versa - that's field curvature and you have to use a high f/number so that depth of field pulls everything sharp. Then the sides might be bowed with distortion, and the corners darkened with vignetting - both of those effects can be easily corrected in post processing.

And normal lenses are not optimised for maximum sharpness at close distance, so a true macro will be a bit better there also.

Having said that, you can get some very good results from humble equipment, if you don't shoot critical two-dimensional stuff. A decent quality regular lens usually works pretty well with extension tubes, many 'macro' zooms are very usable, and cheap close-up lenses fitted to the front of a normal lens also work well for just a few quid. The Raynox DCR-250 macro attachment goes very close and is pretty good for £40 (Amazon) and is very easy to use - it's just a strong close-up lens.

Here are a few sample shots I prepared earlier :D http://www.flickr.com/groups/raynoxdcr250/

Edit: Oops! crossed with above posts. But let me say that Crofts' advice here is, shall we say, unconventional. "I find on full frame a 35mm lens is a very good starting point. Personally I use anything from about 20mm equivalent up to about 50mm." 35mm lens for portraits on full frame? That will give you a head and shoulders with the lens one foot from the subject's nose :eek:
 
Portrait lenses in the days of film had a few special favourable characteristics.
They were usually about twice the normal focal length. On 35mm cameras some where between 80 and 135mm.
This gave far better drawing... i.e.. noses and ears were not distorted to seem larger.
They had a shallower depth of field... this emphasised the the features and threw out the background more easily.
They were usually wide aperture ... as above.
It was the custom to soften the focus on women. This is better done In camera when using negative film as the highlights diffuse into to shadow areas, this gives a slight glow.
When printing with a diffuser the shadows diffuse into the highlights giving a dull look to skin tones.

Some portrait lenses like the Softar had a facility to dial in the degree of softness.

To day Macro lenses are often used because they become dual purpose. Good for macro work and the Ideal focal length for head and shoulder portraits.

Contrary to common understanding, a majority of Macro lenses have quite excellent sharpness at normal distances Though the field may not be as flat as at macro ranges. This is totally unimportant when doing portraits.
The tamron 90mm being a prime example.
 
Thanks again folks. Some of those shots with the DCR250 are really nice.

The problem I seemed to be having with macro using the extension tubes was that I seemed to have an incredibly narrow depth of field, even when stopped down do f/22 but maybe that was actually this... ?

Popular subjects like flowers etc are not very critical but if you photograph a postage stamp with a normal lens plus tubes, you will find that when the centre is in focus, the edges might not be, and vice versa
Click to expand...

I was just hand holding the camera, and it seemed like incredibly tiny movements back and forth would put things out of focus. Do people always use a tripod for macro work? Sorry this had kind of turned into a macro thread. :)

Technique not kit makes a photograph, and this is especially true for portraiture.
Click to expand...

I do get that, just seen quite a few reference to lenses being 'good for portraits' and wondered what that meant.
 
just seen quite a few reference to lenses being 'good for portraits' and wondered what that meant
Click to expand...

It doesn't really mean anything, except perhaps that for family snapshots with the camera in the hands of some who is not into photography, a moderately long-ish focal length is probably not a bad thing because it makes the faces larger in the frame. So amateur photo mags sometimes refer to a moderately long lens as a 'portrait lens'. Helping to avoid auntie-as-a-dot-in-the-distance syndrome.

If you look at the work of the best known portait photographers - people like Harry Borden, Platon, Jason Bell, as well as various fashion photography in the magazines, you'll see a whole range of focal lengths being used.
 
NorthernNikon said:
Yes there is.
Click to expand...

I mean there is not a British Standards definition for macro or whatever, as far as I know.

grum said:
<snip>

The problem I seemed to be having with macro using the extension tubes was that I seemed to have an incredibly narrow depth of field, even when stopped down do f/22 but maybe that was actually this... ?

I was just hand holding the camera, and it seemed like incredibly tiny movements back and forth would put things out of focus. Do people always use a tripod for macro work? Sorry this had kind of turned into a macro thread. :)

<snip>
Click to expand...

I don't think that's field curvature, much more likely to be simple depth if field which is incredibly narrow when you get down to 1:1. All lenses suffer from that in the same way. You can measure exactly what you're getting by inputting the parameters here www.dofmaster.com

Shallow DoF is the bane of macro photographers, hence the popularity of ringflash which allows you to use a high f/number without resorting to a tripod and long shutter speeds, making it possible to capture moving subjects.
 
If it's worth anything I use a 60mm Nikon AF-D that I bought for macro stuff but find I'm using it more for short telephoto work, including portrait. Just find it's a nice lens; compact, sharp and fast to focus
 
HoppyUK said:
I mean there is not a British Standards definition for macro or whatever, as far as I know.
Click to expand...
That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a definition.

If after reading this thread one doesn't realise that a macro lens is a lens that can focus on stuff to achieve a 1:2 magnification ratio or better (or sometimes worse, lens manufacturers are quite liberal when applying this label) then we who have posted here have missed the point.
 
mustanir said:
That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a definition.

If after reading this thread one doesn't realise that a macro lens is a lens that can focus on stuff to achieve a 1:2 magnification ratio or better (or sometimes worse, lens manufacturers are quite liberal when applying this label) then we who have posted here have missed the point.
Click to expand...

The ratio is actually 1:1 or greater (hence macro) other close focusing lenses are micro lenses, which is how Nikon correctly designate them.
 
mustanir said:
That doesn't mean that it doesn't have a definition.

If after reading this thread one doesn't realise that a macro lens is a lens that can focus on stuff to achieve a 1:2 magnification ratio or better (or sometimes worse, lens manufacturers are quite liberal when applying this label) then we who have posted here have missed the point.
Click to expand...

Well you have said 1:2 (half size), I said 1:1 (life size) and Denyerec said 2:1 (twice size). So no clear definition even on that basic point.

Edit: and now Northern Nikon says macro (or is it micro) is 1:1 or greater. So 1:1.2, or 1:2 or even 1:3 is not macro then? :thinking: I like the OP's definition best "taking really close-up pictures of small stuff."
 
HoppyUK said:
Well you have said 1:2 (half size), I said 1:1 (life size) and Denyerec said 2:1 (twice size). So no clear definition even on that basic point.
Click to expand...

Just because 2 out of 3 people don't know the right answer doesn't mean that there isn't a right answer.
 
Nikon call their lenses MICRO
most others call them Macro.

Nikon are Correct.....Fact.
 
HoppyUK said:
Edit: and now Northern Nikon says macro (or is it micro) is 1:1 or greater. So 1:1.2, or 1:2 or even 1:3 is not macro then? :thinking: I like the OP's definition best "taking really close-up pictures of small stuff."
Click to expand...

It's all very simple. When refering to the size of the image on the film or sensor:

Lifesize or larger = macro
Smaller than lifesize = micro
 
NorthernNikon said:
It's all very simple. When refering to the size of the image on the film or sensor:

Lifesize or larger = macro
Smaller than lifesize = micro
Click to expand...

So all the lenses we know as macros are in fact micro lenses? :thinking:

How can you have a definition that nobody adheres to?
 
NorthernNikon said:
The ratio is actually 1:1 or greater (hence macro) other close focusing lenses are micro lenses, which is how Nikon correctly designate them.
Click to expand...

I'll give you that. I know it's supposed to be 1:1 but often 1:2 lenses get called "macro". The whole micro/macro thing is something I hadn't explicitly noticed but it does make sense. And I call myself a Nikon (amongst other things) shooter.

That said, the Ultra Micro Nikkors are super magnifiers, so you would think Nikon would call them "Ultra Macro Nikkors"

HoppyUK said:
How can you have a definition that nobody adheres to?
Click to expand...
People do it all the time. It's called marketing... or politics :shrug:
 
HoppyUK said:
So all the lenses we know as macros are in fact micro lenses? :thinking:

How can you have a definition that nobody adheres to?
Click to expand...

People refer to kit cars that are made to look like a Ferrari or a Cobra etc as a "replica", but that's an incorrect definition too. Just because something is in common usage doesn't make it correct....
 
one that allows you to take the image you require. I've shot portraits from 17mm to 400mm on crop depending on the effect I was after.




grum said:
Seen quite a few posts talking about lenses that are good for portraits. Seems like these are quite often also referred to as macro lenses?

Anyone fancy shedding any light on what factors come into play here?

I am trying to get my head around the concept of macro beyond just that it's 'taking really close-up pictures of small stuff'.

Not sure why a lens would be good for both of these things.

Cheers.
Click to expand...
 
Flash In The Pan said:
People refer to kit cars that are made to look like a Ferrari or a Cobra etc as a "replica", but that's an incorrect definition too. Just because something is in common usage doesn't make it correct....
Click to expand...

It can do; language changes. The term 'stop' strictly refers only to lens apertures, but now, after a more than a century of 'misuse' it has a universal meaning refering to any halving or doubling of exposure.

But I am rapidly losing the will to live...
 
NorthernNikon said:
It's all very simple. When refering to the size of the image on the film or sensor:

Lifesize or larger = macro
Smaller than lifesize = micro
Click to expand...

At the risk of killing off dear Hoppy, isn't that the wrong way round?

The Canon 65mm goes to, what, 5:1? - Microscopic.

Whereas macroscopic means: Large enough to be perceived or examined by the unaided eye. Stamps and stuff at 1:2.
 
photon said:
At the risk of killing off dear Hoppy, isn't that the wrong way round?

The Canon 65mm goes to, what, 5:1? - Microscopic.

Whereas macroscopic means: Large enough to be perceived or examined by the unaided eye. Stamps and stuff at 1:2.
Click to expand...

In a word no, but I can see where you're coming from. The term refers to the scale of the image on the film or sensor, hence large = macro and small = micro.
 
OK, but you say Nikon are correct using the term micro, yet their lenses get to 1:1, so are they conservatively named?
 
Never mind, 1:1 or greater = macro; up to 1:1 = micro.
 
photon said:
OK, but you say Nikon are correct using the term micro, yet their lenses get to 1:1, so are they conservatively named?
Click to expand...

Pretty much. Often the ratio isn't exact anyway, but AFAIA Nikon don't produce a lens with a reproduction ratio greater than 1:1 to call a macro. It's a bit like midday, it's not am or pm, it's 12 noon, except there's no term for 1:1 reproduction ratio so, historically Nikon have produced lenses with reproduction lenses of less than 1:1 and correctly designated them as Micros.
 
HoppyUK said:
It can do; language changes. The term 'stop' strictly refers only to lens apertures, but now, after a more than a century of 'misuse' it has a universal meaning refering to any halving or doubling of exposure.
Click to expand...
As a verb the word is fine. No one I have ever come across uses "stop" as a verb related to changes in ISO or shutter speed.

Used as a noun (and unit of measurement) maybe that is new, but it doesn't conflict with the original meaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top