Which Portrait lens for Canon?

Please let's keep this friendly, all advice is important to me as I am still learning about all things photography....
 
I am trying! Some people just want to make an argument in every thread and I'm getting tired of it...

But anyway, I'd go for either;

Canon 35mm f/2

or

Sigma 50mm f/1.4 - this is better than both Canon's IMO and you can get these cheaper now than the Canon 50mm f/1.4 in some places, but I still prefer the 35mm focal range for the reasons stated above but thats me.
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
Point 1 - incorrect. Simple laws of physics, the focal plain between 35 and 50mm makes no difference in flattening the perspective. Unless you're talking about 3d lenses?!
Click to expand...

:thumbsdown:

His point about more flattering is completely correct, see here for a series of examples http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm
In the 350mm shot the whole face looks quite flat, the distance between the nose and ears is quite small compared to the distance between camera and subject.
Going to shorter lengths the nose is much closer than the ears so looks larger and the whole face appears more rounded.

The reason people say to use an 85 or 100 or 135 for portraits is less to do with the framing options and more to do with the look it gives a person. a 50 or 35 is fine, or a 300 is fine but you are beginning to create a different look that doesn't necessarily flatter the subject.
 
nano said:
:thumbsdown:

His point about more flattering is completely correct, see here for a series of examples http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm
In the 350mm shot the whole face looks quite flat, the distance between the nose and ears is quite small compared to the distance between camera and subject.
Going to shorter lengths the nose is much closer than the ears so looks larger and the whole face appears more rounded.

The reason people say to use an 85 or 100 or 135 for portraits is less to do with the framing options and more to do with the look it gives a person. a 50 or 35 is fine, or a 300 is fine but you are beginning to create a different look that doesn't necessarily flatter the subject.
Click to expand...

I accept there is a relationship between flattening the image and longer focal lengths but this is less relevant between the 35 and 50mm lenses due to the relatively short focal lengths...

On I'm iPhone at the mo and can't get the link to work for some reason so can't look at it.
 
nano said:
:thumbsdown:

His point about more flattering is completely correct, see here for a series of examples http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm
In the 350mm shot the whole face looks quite flat, the distance between the nose and ears is quite small compared to the distance between camera and subject.
Going to shorter lengths the nose is much closer than the ears so looks larger and the whole face appears more rounded.

The reason people say to use an 85 or 100 or 135 for portraits is less to do with the framing options and more to do with the look it gives a person. a 50 or 35 is fine, or a 300 is fine but you are beginning to create a different look that doesn't necessarily flatter the subject.
Click to expand...

FFS. How many times does it have to be said? :bang::bang::bang:

The focal length of a lens does not alter perspective.

The only thing that alters the perspective is the distance to subject. It's really not that hard to grasp. Even the example you link to states clearly: at various focal lengths accounting for framing with distance (moving closer or further to the subject)

It really isn't a hard concept to grasp. Using a longer focal length has the same effect on perspective that cropping the image would i.e none. If you used a 50mm lens at the distances he does 11", 17", 24" 40" and 65" cropped to match the focal lengths he uses in that link, the perspective would be the same as the focal length he shot at that particular distance.
 
NorthernNikon said:
FFS. How many times does it have to be said? :bang::bang::bang:

The focal length of a lens does not alter perspective.

The only thing that alters the perspective is the distance to subject. It's really not that hard to grasp. Even the example you link to states clearly: at various focal lengths accounting for framing with distance (moving closer or further to the subject)

It really isn't a hard concept to grasp. Using a longer focal length has the same effect on perspective that cropping the image would i.e none. If you used a 50mm lens at the distances he does 11", 17", 24" 40" and 65" cropped to match the focal lengths he uses in that link, the perspective would be the same as the focal length he shot at that particular distance.
Click to expand...

A) for a head and shoulders portrait if using a wider lens e.g. 35mm you typically have to so close to the subject that they become distorted. For a similar shot using a longer lens you are typically far enough away that distortion does not occur. So while focal length does not alter perspective in practical terms wider lenses do force you to go closer to the subject than a similarly framed shot taken with a longer focal length.

B) you have anger management issues :)
 
dubcat said:
A) for a head and shoulders portrait if using a wider lens e.g. 35mm you typically have to so close to the subject that they become distorted. For a similar shot using a longer lens you are typically far enough away that distortion does not occur. So while focal length does not alter perspective in practical terms wider lenses do force you to go closer to the subject than a similarly framed shot taken with a longer focal length.

B) you have anger management issues :)
Click to expand...

A) That's correlation not causation.

People are perpetuating an incorrect notion. Trying to justify it doesn't help anyone because it is still wrong.

B) That was mild and restrained for me.
 
NorthernNikon said:
A) That's correlation not causation.

People are perpetuating an incorrect notion. Trying to justify it doesn't help anyone because it is still wrong.

B) That was mild and restrained for me.
Click to expand...

A) fair enough and true

B) impressive! :)
 
I use the 50mm 1.8 which seems to produce a good results...

IMG_2903.JPG
 
dubcat said:
A) for a head and shoulders portrait if using a wider lens e.g. 35mm you typically have to so close to the subject that they become distorted. For a similar shot using a longer lens you are typically far enough away that distortion does not occur. So while focal length does not alter perspective in practical terms wider lenses do force you to go closer to the subject than a similarly framed shot taken with a longer focal length.

B) you have anger management issues :)
Click to expand...

Distortion? On primes?

Completely wrong, the Canon 35mm f/2 lens is one of the few lenses that suffers from absolutely no distortion whatsoever.

Sure possibly if you used 35mm on a superzoom there may be distortion, but not the 35mm prime.

And you dont have to be particularly close to the subject for a head and shoulders shot at 35mm on a crop body anyway!
 
Last edited:
SixToes said:
He's talking about the perspective change, not lens distortion.
Click to expand...

But you only incur noticable distortion through getting very close with a very wide lens, such as a 10mm.

There's absolutely no distortion evident (unless you put it in a lab and then its only slight) when close (or any distance) with a 35mm prime.

This discussion is getting stupid now, with some very silly photography theories coming out!
 
Last edited:
odd jim said:
But you only incur noticable distortion through getting very close with a very wide lens, such as a 10mm.

There's absolutely no distortion evident (unless you put it in a lab and then its only slight) when close (or any distance) with a 35mm prime.

This discussion is getting stupid now, with some very silly photography theories coming out!
Click to expand...
I wasn't debating that, I was just trying to clarify that the two of you seemed to be talking about different types of distortion without realising.

I'm done with this thread now - good luck to the OP With whichever decision he makes :)
 
NorthernNikon said:
FFS. How many times does it have to be said? :bang::bang::bang:

The focal length of a lens does not alter perspective.

The only thing that alters the perspective is the distance to subject. It's really not that hard to grasp. Even the example you link to states clearly: at various focal lengths accounting for framing with distance (moving closer or further to the subject)

It really isn't a hard concept to grasp. Using a longer focal length has the same effect on perspective that cropping the image would i.e none. If you used a 50mm lens at the distances he does 11", 17", 24" 40" and 65" cropped to match the focal lengths he uses in that link, the perspective would be the same as the focal length he shot at that particular distance.
Click to expand...

Nice rant - which completely misses the point.

Both distance and focal length have a minor influence on the perspective of an image but what really makes the difference is the lens' angle of view.

Longer focal lengths have (or tend to have) narrower fields of view to shorter ones, which is where the concept of more flattering at longer FL comes from. Likewise distance will take an effect because the further away you stand the more the subject is framed in the centre of the lens where distortion comes into play less.


If you are going to go off on one, at least try to get it vaguely accurate.
 
odd jim said:
But you only incur noticable distortion through getting very close with a very wide lens, such as a 10mm.

There's absolutely no distortion evident (unless you put it in a lab and then its only slight) when close (or any distance) with a 35mm prime.

This discussion is getting stupid now, with some very silly photography theories coming out!
Click to expand...

Personally I think 35mm on a crop can be fine but it requires more care in setup than the 50mm would.

http://www.digifotografi.com/Digifotografi/Perspective_Distortion.html

And hey I managed to make my point without acting like a small spoiled child too.
 
Back to the original point of the thread, personally on a crop body I would go with the 17-55 f2.8 from canon.

Why ? - It gives you a lot of options, it's fast enough (generally), the build quality is fine and it also has IS (helpful if you're chasing little ones around).

It's also useful as a very good general purpose lens on a crop body.

Steve
 
Jelster said:
Back to the original point of the thread, personally on a crop body I would go with the 17-55 f2.8 from canon.

Why ? - It gives you a lot of options, it's fast enough (generally), the build quality is fine and it also has IS (helpful if you're chasing little ones around).

It's also useful as a very good general purpose lens on a crop body.

Steve
Click to expand...
Wow forgot all about this lens, for the price of buying a new prime, i could sell my 15-85 and upgrade to a 17-55, read many a review on this kit and the pictures are stunning and it has a constant f2.8 and superb IS.....
 
DemiLion said:
Nice rant - which completely misses the point.
Click to expand...

Given what follows, this is hilarious. :LOL:

Both distance and focal length have a minor influence on the perspective of an image but what really makes the difference is the lens' angle of view.
Click to expand...

The lens' angle of view does not affect the perspective of an image during capture. If it did, anyone with an 18-200mm lens would see faces distort before their eyes as they zoomed from one extreme to another.

The angle of view of the photographer/camera/sensor/film plane, call it what you, will has an effect on perspective because, wait for it, this angle of view is directly related to the distance between the camera and the subject. The further away the camera is, the more acute the angle of travel of light from objects away from the the centre point.

As I said before, take a photo from the same position at varying focal lengths and then crop the images to match and you'll see that the perspective is the same from one image to another. In fact, you don't have to because this bloke has already done it for you.

Longer focal lengths have (or tend to have) narrower fields of view to shorter ones, which is where the concept of more flattering at longer FL comes from.
Click to expand...

Take a photo of a man with a 20mm lens from 2 feet away and you won't get a flattering picture. Take a picture with the same lens 20 feet away and is his face distorted now? The answer is, no, it's not. The lens has the same field of view as it did before, the only thing that has changed which could possible alter the perspective is the camera's distance to subject.

Likewise distance will take an effect because the further away you stand the more the subject is framed in the centre of the lens where distortion comes into play less.
Click to expand...

Now this really is the pièce de résistance of drivel! Lens distortion and perspective are completely different things.

If you are going to go off on one, at least try to get it vaguely accurate.
Click to expand...

Oh the irony. You might want to take a leaf out of your own book, because there wasn't single accurate assertion in your post.
 
£179.99 I know I had that in my basket last night then pulled out to do some more research lol.
 
I am looking forward to seeing how it compares to the canon 50mm F1.4. I really like the 50mm. I was thinking about it driving home, when taking pics of our son I think it was better/easier with a shorter lens so you can inter-act and get them smiling(y)
 
bren-escape said:
I am looking forward to seeing how it compares to the canon 50mm F1.4. I really like the 50mm. I was thinking about it driving home, when taking pics of our son I think it was better/easier with a shorter lens so you can inter-act and get them smiling(y)
Click to expand...

Well let me know how you find it please, would be great if you could take a couple of snaps and post them so I can compare, using the 35 mm range on my zoom seems better than the 50 but I am the worlds worst decision maker when buying gadgets lol
 
I am not great either!

Seeing as we are looking at the same subject, here are some examples with different lenses:

First I started with a sigma 18-50 F2.8

Less than 20min old in hospital at 50mm

Sebastian 1 by Dirtywater2009, on Flickr

Same lens two weeks old at 50mm

IMG_1798 by Dirtywater2009, on Flickr

Then came the 50mm F1.4

three weeks old

Seb in Sarah hands 2 by Dirtywater2009, on Flickr

Bit of a jump, eight months old 50mm

seb 1 by Dirtywater2009, on Flickr

I see you maybe parting with your 15-85mm, but I also like that lens, I sold my sigma 18-50mm F2.8 for it:

Seb_0074 by Dirtywater2009, on Flickr

But if in doubt I go for the 50mm(y)

seb 19 by Dirtywater2009, on Flickr

I will let you know what 30mm is like, although I just got a 135mm F2:bonk:
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top