Which Focal Length for Full Frame Portraits

[willie45]

Hi

I wonder what focal length people generally recommend for portraits? I have heard some say anything from 50mm to 135mm ( 35mm equivalent.)

I have generally used my 24-105mm quite happily although it might be useful to have slightly longer for really tight head and shoulder shots. I seem to use it around 80 or 90 mm most often but I'm wondering if perhaps I would be better investing in a 100mm f2, and stepping back a bit while benefiting from the reduced DOF and better light gathering. Alternatively the 85mm f1.8 might do the trick.

What are your views?

Willie

[Fen]

I usually use between 50mm and 105mm. Love using the 105mm macro lens. But also for weird shots I like the effect an extreme wide angle gives as well

[willie45]

Similar to me it seems. I was pretty busy taking family pics over Christmas and attempting to gain maximum benefit from the studio kit I bought in the autumn. I was taking mostly kids and their g/f and b/fs but also wanted some group shots of 7 or 8 people.

I found that the softbox and brolly I had wasn't man enough for the job and i need to get some bigger ones, and also that I could do with a bigger aperture than the f4 of my 24-105mm.

I am sort of considering the 100m f2 and the 85mm f1.8. I doubt I'd notice a great deal of difference between the two though.

If I buy, I will probably go for the 85mm as its a little cheaper. Also it might be more useful for couples and full length shots while still allowing me to either get closer without messing up perspective for head and shoulders. Alternatively I could just crop larger shots.

Do you reckon my deductions are correct?

Willie

[SqueamishOssifrage]

For portraits showing appropriate surroundings, like a writer at his desk, a chef in his kitchen, or a barman polishing a glass, I am sufficiently blinkered to think only a 85mm f1.4 will do the trick, but I have used a 128mm f2.8 for tighter head-only shots. (This is for 135 film.)

However, you would do well to ignore anything I say, because I also think black and white is the only way to do a portrait ...

[Barney]

I wonder what focal length people generally recommend for portraits? I have heard some say anything from 50mm to 135mm ( 35mm equivalent.)

Willie, I'll give the trite answer and say that it's whatever the image requires. People are hung up on the 85mm being the 'perfect' focal length for portraits without considering that this only applies in the confines of a studio where the subject to photographer distance is limited and the 85mm lens gave the most flattering perspective for that given distance. I've read some right guff on other forums about you not being able to shoot portaitrs with wide angle lenses, and yet both times I've won the forum comp were with portatraits taken with winde angle lenses.

20mm on a D300


32mm on a D3


200mm is also a nice focal length, if you get the subject to photographer distance right.

[Benchista]

Well said, Barney - that's the right answer.

[Barney]

Well said, Barney - that's the right answer.

Any excuse to post my winning photos again, Nick!

[willie45]

I understand your points Barney, and I realise it is very easy to get hung up on issues like this. I suppose I was really wondering what you would pick if you only had one lens to use in order to produce generally pleasing shots with a flattering looking perspective for formal portraits and within the confines of a home studio environment. I really would consider buying a prime to give me extra light gathering but don't want to buy more than one.

I have also used a variety of lenses ranging from 17mm to 300mm to take shots of people but I would imagine something around the 85mm to 120mm would be the most useful length for the type of thing I mean.

By the way, I am impressed with your photos, particularly the hold up in the alley scene. I reckon you are right to use the excuse to post them again

Willie

[willie45]

Thanks Squeamish. As I said in my above post I will probably buy a 85mm because apart from being generally useful, it will give me more stops to play with too. ( I like B&W too but might use colour from time to time )

Willie

[Barney]

I suppose I was really wondering what you would pick if you only had one lens to use in order to produce generally pleasing shots with a flattering looking perspective for formal portraits and within the confines of a home studio environment. I really would consider buying a prime to give me extra light gathering but don't want to buy more than one.

Ah, now if we're talking about within the studio and only having on lens then that's a different kettle of fish and in which case, for full frame, I would go for one of two zoom lenses ranges, either 24-70mm or 70-200mm, both f:2.8 naturally. (If you're shooting on a cropped sensor you could also consider Sigma's 50-150mm f:2.8)

I would want the flexibility of the zoom over the extra stops of a prime. Firstly, in the sutdio, you control the light so you shouldn't need to shoot wide open anyway. Secondly, as you control the background, there's no real advantage in shooting at apertures wider than f:2.8.

So, which lens you choose would be down to the size of the studio and whether you'll be shooting any group shots or will be more likely to be shooting headshots.

I have also used a variety of lenses ranging from 17mm to 300mm to take shots of people but I would imagine something around the 85mm to 120mm would be the most useful length for the type of thing I mean.

Sounds like a 70-200mm f:2.8 is a calling you.

By the way, I am impressed with your photos, particularly the hold up in the alley scene. I reckon you are right to use the excuse to post them again

Hey, you can come again!

[daft_biker]

I'd get an 85mm f/1.8 if I couldn't afford an 85mm f/1.2.

I use my 50mm f/1.4 on a cropped sensor most for portraits, indoors or out. Not saying it's the only lens I ever use but I find 80mm(equiv) is most likely to fit my idea of a portrait unless I can't fit everything in or want even tighter framing.

Zoom? Yuk! Dat's what feet are for [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[Dorset_Mike]

How about one of the macro lenses around 90-100 mm, around the length you are considering and most are f2.8 plus you'd kill 2 birds with the one stone, I'm quite satisfied with the results from my Tamron 90/2.8 both as a macro and when used as a "normal" lens

[Learning]

85mm. Having said that I haven't used the thing since I moved away from film. This isn't a film versus digital thing; its just that my move from primes to zooms coincidentally took place at the same time as my move from film to digital. I have an f1.8 Nikkor. The f1.4 would have been better so only the eyes are really piercingly sharp.

[willie45]

Well thank you to everyone for your comments and advice. I am minded to have the 85mm f1.8 lens and enjoy it.

Ah Barney, if only I could justify spending the amount on the delightful Canon 70-200mm f2.8........sigh!!!!!!

I was curious to see what people would say and am most grateful for your opinions. TBH I got a bit of cash from work lately and am keen to spend it before the banks crash again or the government spends it on another war with some poor sods who don't know what day of the week it is, or I am left subsidising some arms dealing SOB from wherever, etc etc

Do you like my attempt, morally to justify spending money, unnecessarily, on photographic equipment?

Willie

[daft_biker]

....The f1.4 would have been better so only the eyes are really piercingly sharp.

In a head shot f/1.4 would get you something like the pupils in focus and the eye lashes out of focus (or vice versa ). I personally don't find much use for such wide apertures....anything faster than f/2.8 I find is a bonus that comes in handy occasionaly rather than something I want to set out to use. Worth bearing in mind that calculating DoF for a 10x8 print from 35mm might not cut it on a high resolution DSLR.

Macro lens as a portrait lens?
100mm macro....


180mm macro....

(recognise him? )

Aye, they seem to work too

[Benchista]

The 85mm f1.8 is a nice lens, and good for a lot more than portraits.

[Barney]

Zoom? Yuk! Dat's what feet are for [img]/forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

You still have to use your feet with a zoom. DOn't forget that perspective is a product of distance to subject, whcih is why a zoom can be far handier than a prime.

[daft_biker]

DOn't forget that perspective is a product of distance to subject, whcih is why a zoom can be far handier than a prime.

Who said anything about perspective or convienence. Maybe I just don't like slumming it with a Canon 24-70L

[Barney]

Maybe I just don't like slumming it with a Canon 24-70L

Yeah, you;re right, why slum it with a Canon when you could have a Nikkor.

[Monobod]

Or a beautiful Pentax K-7 !

I agree with using whatever lens suits the image and zooms are not always ruled out. A 100mm F/2.8 prime does give a beautiful out of focus background, if that is what you want of course!

Horses for courses, as always. Feel the quality, not the width in this case.