Your favorite portrait focal length/lens?

divamum

I'm curious:

1. what focal length y'all like best
2. What maximum aperture you're preferring
3. Any specific suggestions

I'm shooting on a crop camera, btw (Canon xsi).

I find I'm shooting most of my portraits with the 85 1.8 these days. I love the lens, but it DOES tend to feel a little too close a lot of the time which leads me away from full length shots, and/or simply cropping too close in camera, thus reducing my options when it comes time to crop for real. I'm starting to wonder if I should be thinking about using something a little shorter. But I don't want to lose all that lovely compression!

I know that many of you favour the 70-210 - how do you make that work for you - do you just stand way back (well duh - obviously :giggle)? What about the 50mm 1.4? Any other great portrait lenses I've missed in my reading?

Just curious.

Nikolai

Here's the set I used

• 50/1.4 (used to be 50/1.8) - nice all-around lens
• 100/2.8 Macro - great for headshots and "face parts"
• 70-200/2.8 IS USM - that's pretty much my default lens for outdoors portraits, although sometimes I use it in the studio, too
• when I was on crop sensor body (40D/50D) I also used 17-55/2.8 quite often

Aperture wise I'm shooting mostly f/4 or f/5.6.

HTH

Swartzy

It really depends on the shot. Full length? 1/2 body? Tight crop? Each requires it's own focal length. True, you can take a 200mm and walk away...with a crop body..far away

I use the 24-105 constantly....on a full frame body. For headshots I'm at 105 but will use the 70-200 as well....getting in tight. The tighter the shot, I'll usually stop down so both eyes are in focus..say f/6.3 to f/9.0 depending on light (whether available or creating my own). Some like the f/4.0 look but drives me crazy if the face isn't in focus. Besides, stopping down affords the sweet spot in a lens regardless what type it is. If your f/4.0 is sharp at f/4.0, then it will be sharper if stopped down a bit. When shooting loose, f/4.0 is fine. Very seldom will I go to f/2.8 unless the lighting is low (think churches).

Close ups with a wide angle is not a good scenario unless one is going for a particular distorted look which is ok for an interesting composition...but rule of thumb...70mm and above is the ticket for pleasing portraiture.

Tim Kamppinen

Perspective distortion doesn't have anything to do with your focal length, but rather how far away from the subject you are. If you were at a distance where you were taking a normal looking, undistorted headshot with a 200mm lens, and then switched to a 10mm lens, your subject would look exactly the same distortion-wise. The only difference is that you'd be able to see their whole body and it would be taking up a very small part of the frame. So what would you do? You'd move closer to fill the frame with your subject, and it's this moving closer that introduces perspective distortion, because now the ratio between the distance from your camera to the closest parts of their body and the distance from your camera to the farthest parts of their body is increased.

Anyway I shoot Nikon (D90, so 1.5 crop factor) and I've been using a 28-75mm tamron 2.8 for portraits, as well as a 50mm 1.8. The 50 is nice because it's a bit sharper and I can get shallower depth of field, but you have to move back and forth to frame your subject. "Zooming with your feet" isn't the most ideal way to do things when shooting portraits, because as I said above when you move back and forth you change the perspective of your shot. With a zoom lens you can stay in one spot and get full length, 3/4, headshots, etc without changing perspective. (Not that changing the perspective is necessarily bad, but at least you have the option of not doing it).

I like to shoot with wider apertures whenever I don't have a "studio" background, just to make the backround less distracting. With the tamron f/4 seems to be a good place to hang out so that the shots are still very sharp but the DOF is limited. With the 1.8 I'll shoot wide open on occasion but a stop down is better.

HOWEVER, I've recently acquired a Nikkor 80-200 f/2.8 AF-D... which I'm falling in love with. I can already tell that it's going to be my go-to portrait lens whenever I have the space to use it. (I got it from an ebay seller for $700, and he described it as "mint"... much to my surprise, it actually WAS mint! And $400 cheaper than a new one at B&H!)

Swartzy

Tim Kamppinen wrote:

Perspective distortion doesn't have anything to do with your focal length, but rather how far away from the subject you are. If you were at a distance where you were taking a normal looking, undistorted headshot with a 200mm lens, and then switched to a 10mm lens, your subject would look exactly the same distortion-wise. The only difference is that you'd be able to see their whole body and it would be taking up a very small part of the frame. So what would you do? You'd move closer to fill the frame with your subject, and it's this moving closer that introduces perspective distortion, because now the ratio between the distance from your camera to the closest parts of their body and the distance from your camera to the farthest parts of their body is increased.

Telephoto and other long-focal-length lenses are best known for making distant objects appear magnified. This effect is similar to moving closer to the object, but is not the same, since perspective is a function solely of viewing location. Two images taken from the same location, one with a wide angle lens and the other with a telephoto lens, will show identical perspective, in that near and far objects appear the same relative size to each other. Comparing magnification by using a long lens to magnification by moving closer, however, the telephoto shot appears to compress the distance between objects due to the perspective from the more distant location. Long lenses thus give a photographer an alternative to the type of perspective distortion exhibited by shorter focal length lenses where (when the photographer stands closer to the given subject) different portions of a subject in a photograph can appear out of proportion to each other.

For those who like visuals:

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

Perspective is dependent on the distance between the photographer and the subject. The longer focus lenses compress the perception of depth, and the shorter focus exaggerate it. This effect is also used for dolly zooms. The perspective of the so-called normal lens, 50mm focal length for 35 mm film format, is conventionally regarded as a "correct" perspective, though a longer lens is usually preferred for a more pleasing perspective for portraits.

Tim Kamppinen

Swartzy wrote:

Telephoto and other long-focal-length lenses are best known for making distant objects appear magnified. This effect is similar to moving closer to the object, but is not the same, since perspective is a function solely of viewing location. Two images taken from the same location, one with a wide angle lens and the other with a telephoto lens, will show identical perspective, in that near and far objects appear the same relative size to each other. Comparing magnification by using a long lens to magnification by moving closer, however, the telephoto shot appears to compress the distance between objects due to the perspective from the more distant location. Long lenses thus give a photographer an alternative to the type of perspective distortion exhibited by shorter focal length lenses where (when the photographer stands closer to the given subject) different portions of a subject in a photograph can appear out of proportion to each other.

For those who like visuals:

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/strippage.htm

Perspective is dependent on the distance between the photographer and the subject. The longer focus lenses compress the perception of depth, and the shorter focus exaggerate it. This effect is also used for dolly zooms. The perspective of the so-called normal lens, 50mm focal length for 35 mm film format, is conventionally regarded as a "correct" perspective, though a longer lens is usually preferred for a more pleasing perspective for portraits.

I think we're both saying the same thing, except that I would point out that longer focal lengths don't compress the depth of an image, but rather standing farther away from your subject does this. You need to stand farther away with a longer lens, but the compression isn't a property of the lens but rather a property of the subject-camera distance. If you took a shot with a 200 mm lens and a shot with a 10mm lens and then cropped out the center of the 10mm shot to match the field of view of the 200mm shot, you'd have identical images in terms of perspective and depth compression.

WingsOfLovePhoto

By far for people my favorite is a 24-70 2.8 a great all around lens for Nikon and can give great bokeh depending on the conditions..don't know if Canon has a comparable, I also use my 70-200 2.8 for some pictures but since I got the "beast" I use it a little less often, it is quite heavy and I find that handholding at slower shutter speeds under 200 doesn't work so well for me. My next investment will be the 85 mm that you have. I work full frame now so no crop factored in. Before the full frame camera I used a 17-55 2.8. Still used as a backup. I think that for Canon the one Swartzy uses is great from the Canon shooters I know. Hope you get to make a purchase soon!

divamum

:lurk

Keep 'em coming!

jeffreaux2

I used a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 for a year or so before I bought the 17-55mmF2.8IS. It was an adequate lens, but really is no comparison to the Canon in terms of sharpness....this is especially true at wider angles. I did, however start a business with that Tammy as my primary lens.

I have captured some fine portraits with the Canon 50mm F1.8, but alas...I sold it because I was also capturing a good many shots where it misfocused. I found it finicky ....hit or miss...in that regard. I hope to replace it someday with a 50mm F1.4 Canon lens.

That leaves me with the Canon 17-55mmF2.8IS and the Canon 70-200 F2.8L IS and a Canon 85mmF1.8. Although I love the sharpness and bokeh of the 85mm I admitedly seldomly use it. The 17-55 and 70-200, though, are seeing a lot of use.

I wasn't sure when I bought the 70-200 how it would fit in for portrait work. I was using the 17-55 for nearly 100% of what I shot. I would say that I am now using the 70-200 for about half of what I shoot in portraits. For events, I am still using the 17-55 a bit more. This is on a crop body.

I vary focal lengths with the zooms, but I REALLY like to be able to rack the 70-200 out to 180mm or so and shoot a full length pose...especially a seated one to take advantage of that slicey DOF.

F2.8 to F4 is likely to be set on my camera when shooting portraits.

An example with the 70-200



The 17-55


The Canon 50mmF1.8

....and again...


The Tamron 28-75F2.8


...and the Canon 85mm F1.8

Ed911

WingsOfLovePhoto wrote:

By far for people my favorite is a 24-70 2.8 a great all around lens for Nikon and can give great bokeh depending on the conditions..don't know if Canon has a comparable, I also use my 70-200 2.8 for some pictures but since I got the "beast" I use it a little less often, it is quite heavy and I find that handholding at slower shutter speeds under 200 doesn't work so well for me. My next investment will be the 85 mm that you have. I work full frame now so no crop factored in. Before the full frame camera I used a 17-55 2.8. Still used as a backup. I think that for Canon the one Swartzy uses is great from the Canon shooters I know. Hope you get to make a purchase soon!

I second the Nikor 24-70mm f-2.8...a very nice lens and the range is great on my D300. 105mm equivalent all the way out. I've done some really nice portrait shoots with it and highly recommend it. It stays on one of my D300's.

Elaine

I think I like the 50 1.4 a bit better than the 85 1.8. I like being able to get closer, and for whatever reason, I usually get sharper shots with the 50 than with the 85. I tend to shoot pretty shallow (probably would drive Swartzy crazy! ). I'm often in the f/2-4 range. It seems I rarely go beyond 5.6, and that's usually for groups. But, this is with natural light and maybe fill flash. I also like the 17-55 2.8 IS and I really enjoy using my 70-200 f/4 L IS. It's so sharp and light that I've been thinking I'd like to use it more for portraits.

blaser321

love my 24-70 2.8L f/8 to 10

I can get a full body shot at 35mm from 6 feet I don't have much room small space

Manfr3d

I used the Tamron 28-75mm/2.8 (great range) and Canon 85mm/1.8 (great
DOF at f1.8 and 2.0) on a crop Camera. On fullframe I use the Canon 50mm/1.8
for half body portraits. And I will be purcheasing the Canon 100mm/2.8
Macro for headshots some time later this year. It is very nice for portraits.

divamum

Wow - what a great bunch of responses! This is exactly what I was hoping for when I started this thread (thus why I started it here rather than in the gear section). I'm not, strictly speaking, in the market for a new lens YET, but I have a feeling I might be heading that direction I love my Tammy 17-50 but find myself (in general) wanting more length and seldom using the wide end; the 85, as I mentioned, encourages me to shoot too tight, which is my natural tendency anyway (crop in camera = good. Crop TOO tight in camera = bugger, how do I make this into a decent 8x10? :giggle) I'm seriously wondering if I should jump to a 24-70L at some point, and a few of you seem to love that lens which is really good to know. Assuming I ever have enough money to buy anything ever again

Btw Elaine, I'm like you - I think I shoot f2-4 for almost all the portraits I do outside a studio environment. Love me some shallow DOF! Of course, it means I have to NAIL the focus point... which of course I don't always, thus I can miss a shot which is frustrating (especially since it's only really possible to tell after the fact when I upload); I've yet to decide whether I'd rather go with the greater accuracy of greater DOF or take the risk of missing it and get the creamy blurring I really like. Ah well, learning curve I guess. At least I'm now at the technical stage where thinking about the focus point and DOF is pretty much in my mind ALL the time instead of "only when I think about it", so I guess I'm getting somewhere

Swartzy

Something I didn't mention is that when event shooting, my DOF changes as well as the focal length, lens usage. Initially, you asked about portraits..so, in my mind..thinking set up..well....you know...portraits. Events, candids, etc. may be a different story. I love the Tammy 17-50 on the 40D and shoot that at times at f/2.8-f/4.0. When in the studio or outdoor portraiting (new word..) as in Senior photos, when doing a tight head shot, then the aperture is stopped down. F/2.8 close up will indeed leave one eye out of focus if not on the same plane was my point. Any lens will work (heck even the kit lens as I have some stellar shots using that silly thing) but typically as demonstrated in the link I provided......70 mm & above for close ups look better to my eye.

The 24-70 is a heavy piece of glass, non IS and the sharpness/clarity/saturation varies from lens to lens. I think that particular lens has had it's own set of variances in the Canon line. The 24-105 is another animal...that baby is as sharp as my 400mm prime...now that's saying something!