Anyone use the 35mm 1.4L for portraits?

kingmamaof2 · February 26, 2010

Hi guys,

Just curious if anyone here uses the 35mmL for portrait work. I know it's a wide angle, but what about for indoor shots and outdoor portrait wide angle/full body shots?? I have a crop sensor camera w/ the 50mm, 85mm, 135mm and think about getting the 35mm & selling the 50. :scratch

Thanks! I'd love to see some shots w/ this lens.:-)

insanefred · February 26, 2010

kingmamaof2 wrote:

Hi guys,

Just curious if anyone here uses the 35mmL for portrait work. I know it's a wide angle, but what about for indoor shots and outdoor portrait wide angle/full body shots?? I have a crop sensor camera w/ the 50mm, 85mm, 135mm and think about getting the 35mm & selling the 50.

Thanks! I'd love to see some shots w/ this lens.:-)

I do use a 35mm f2 more than the 50mm 1.8 indoors. Even on FF, just beware of any problems it may cause and you'll be fine. Usually nobody notices the difference anyways.

craig_d · February 27, 2010

kingmamaof2 wrote:

Just curious if anyone here uses the 35mmL for portrait work. I know it's a wide angle, but what about for indoor shots and outdoor portrait wide angle/full body shots?? I have a crop sensor camera w/ the 50mm, 85mm, 135mm and think about getting the 35mm & selling the 50.

For your 1.6x camera, 35mm is not wide-angle, but standard. It's a perfectly decent choice for half to full body portraits.

On 1.6x, 50mm is a good choice for close-range head/shoulders shots, so I'd suggest hanging onto that one as well.

Ozzwald · February 28, 2010

i love my 35mm on my crop body, as said before its good for body shots and group shots. i use it for events and people. its a great lens that provides a "normal" view. you can use it for head shots and tight portraits like that, but you will be in the models face...but you still can produce great results.

NeilL · February 28, 2010

I think it's true to say that the image characteristics produced by a lens are independent of the size of the camera sensor. So a 35mm lens is a little wide, no matter on FF or crop, and will produce the characteristic distortions of wide on both. These distortions might not appear to the same extent on a crop as on a FF, but they will appear on the crop if you push the limits, eg fill the frame with a face.

Neil

craig_d · February 28, 2010

NeilL wrote:

I think it's true to say that the image characteristics produced by a lens are independent of the size of the camera sensor. So a 35mm lens is a little wide, no matter on FF or crop, and will produce the characteristic distortions of wide on both. These distortions might not appear to the same extent on a crop as on a FF, but they will appear on the crop if you push the limits, eg fill the frame with a face.

Neil

No, not exactly. The field of view is what matters, and that results from the combination of the focal length and the crop factor. A 35mm lens on a 1.6x camera is showing you a slightly narrower field of view than a 50mm lens on full-frame (56mm equivalent). If you take a full-frame camera with a 55mm lens (Nikon makes one) and fill the frame with someone's face, then do the same thing with a 1.6x camera with a 35mm lens, the results will be quite similar.

For a more dramatic illustration, consider my phone, which has a camera with a 14x crop sensor (no kidding, you'd practically need a microscope to find it). Its lens gives it a field of view equivalent to a 28mm lens, meaning it is physically a 2mm lens. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of "characteristic distortions" a 2mm lens would have on a full-frame 35mm camera, but the phone's images look pretty much like what you'd get from a full-frame camera with a 28mm lens (except nowhere near as good).

NeilL · February 28, 2010

craig_d wrote:

No, not exactly. The field of view is what matters, and that results from the combination of the focal length and the crop factor. A 35mm lens on a 1.6x camera is showing you a slightly narrower field of view than a 50mm lens on full-frame (56mm equivalent). If you take a full-frame camera with a 55mm lens (Nikon makes one) and fill the frame with someone's face, then do the same thing with a 1.6x camera with a 35mm lens, the results will be quite similar.

For a more dramatic illustration, consider my phone, which has a camera with a 14x crop sensor (no kidding, you'd practically need a microscope to find it). Its lens gives it a field of view equivalent to a 28mm lens, meaning it is physically a 2mm lens. I can't even begin to imagine what kind of "characteristic distortions" a 2mm lens would have on a full-frame 35mm camera, but the phone's images look pretty much like what you'd get from a full-frame camera with a 28mm lens (except nowhere near as good).

Nevertheless, there are characteristic distortions associated with focal length.

And I guess the phone has image correction sw?

Neil

craig_d · February 28, 2010

NeilL wrote:

Nevertheless, there are characteristic distortions associated with focal length.

Not independent of format, no. The "characteristic distortions" result from the combination of focal length and frame size. Change the frame size and you change the distortions.

And I guess the phone has image correction sw?

It has about the degree of distortion I would expect from a 28mm lens on full-frame, which is exactly what I would expect without correcting the image. Anyway, I'm not sure my phone has enough CPU power to remove distortions from the image in live view.

If you try to imagine what the "characteristic distortions" of a 2mm lens would be like on full-frame, you should be able to figure out that you're not making sense.

NeilL · February 28, 2010

craig_d wrote:

Not independent of format, no. The "characteristic distortions" result from the combination of focal length and frame size. Change the frame size and you change the distortions.

It has about the degree of distortion I would expect from a 28mm lens on full-frame, which is exactly what I would expect without correcting the image. Anyway, I'm not sure my phone has enough CPU power to remove distortions from the image in live view.

If you try to imagine what the "characteristic distortions" of a 2mm lens would be like on full-frame, you should be able to figure out that you're not making sense.

My imagination doesn't have enough CPU power in live view to conceive of a 2mm lens!

If you mean the smaller area of a smaller sensor doesn't capture those areas which are most distorted by a wide angle lens which are captured by a larger sensor, then yes, that makes sense to me. If that is what you mean, the sensor is not changing the distortion, just not picking up where it is happening.

Neil

ziggy53 · February 28, 2010

The perspective "and" FOV "and"distance to subject using a 35mm lens on a crop 1.5x/1.6x body should be extremely similar to a 50mm lens on FF with the same subject and scene, so much that no one could tell the difference between the resulting images if you only adjust the apertures to provide similar DOF.

A 35mm lens has no intrinsic or characteristic distortions except by its use.

The "very" short focal lengths used by P&S cameras do not have any characteristic distortions induced by their focal length alone, although the designs used in some zoom lenses do induce additional distortions, but that is a function of the zoom design, not the focal length in and of itself.

craig_d · February 28, 2010

NeilL wrote:

My imagination doesn't have enough CPU power in live view to conceive of a 2mm lens!

If you mean the smaller area of a smaller sensor doesn't capture those areas which are most distorted by a wide angle lens which are captured by a larger sensor, then yes, that makes sense to me. If that is what you mean, the sensor is not changing the distortion, just not picking up where it is happening.

That's more or less correct. The point, though, is that what you think of as "standard" or "wide angle" is dependent on format. The technical definition of a "normal" or "standard" lens is that the focal length is equal to the diagonal measurement of the frame. Full-frame 36x24mm is 43mm diagonally, so strictly speaking a 43mm lens would be exactly "standard," though in general we call a 50mm lens "standard." For 1.6x, "standard" ought to be about 27mm (43/1.6), and 31mm gives a view equivalent to 50mm on full-frame.

Even a 300mm lens can give "wide angle" distortion if you make it big enough to fill a large-format frame. Reading Ansel Adams' book "Examples", you find a number of pictures that look like standard or wide-angle shots, but which he actually made with 300mm or longer lenses because he was working with 4"x5" or 8"x10" large-format view cameras.

NeilL · March 1, 2010

craig_d wrote:

That's more or less correct. The point, though, is that what you think of as "standard" or "wide angle" is dependent on format. The technical definition of a "normal" or "standard" lens is that the focal length is equal to the diagonal measurement of the frame. Full-frame 36x24mm is 43mm diagonally, so strictly speaking a 43mm lens would be exactly "standard," though in general we call a 50mm lens "standard." For 1.6x, "standard" ought to be about 27mm (43/1.6), and 31mm gives a view equivalent to 50mm on full-frame.

Even a 300mm lens can give "wide angle" distortion if you make it big enough to fill a large-format frame. Reading Ansel Adams' book "Examples", you find a number of pictures that look like standard or wide-angle shots, but which he actually made with 300mm or longer lenses because he was working with 4"x5" or 8"x10" large-format view cameras.

Interesting post, and I think we understand each other better.

Neil

DeVerm · March 1, 2010

I am probably trying to understand this too much. What Craig writes is like I find it on Wikipedia. But I am also reading this book from John Shaw and he gives a very different view of it. I currently tend to Shaw's explanation.

Here is what they write on Wikipedia:

A lens with a focal length about equal to the diagonal size of the film or sensor format is known as a normal lens; its angle of view is similar to the angle subtended by a large-enough print viewed at a typical viewing distance equal to the print diagonal; this angle of view is about 53 degrees diagonally.

Now, I find that the most un-scientific and hard to comprehend definition I ever read in my life! Stuff like "similar", "large-enough print" and "typical viewing distance" just kill that definition for me.

The 53 degree diagonal angle is also beyond me. I just tried and can see well over at least 90 degrees diagonal (even with one eye)... is there something wrong with me that I see everything in wide angle?

According to Shaw, the 50mm standard lens has nothing to do with how we see things normally or the focus distance of the human eye or whatever. According to him it was more historical accident than rational decision.

Now, my 7D is APS-C. So, every lens over 27mm is to be considered telephoto and under 27mm is wide angle? Why are so many people buying the 50mm lens for their APS-C when they should be buying the 35mm or less instead? They think they buy a "standard lens".... or not?

See, my background is in digital electronics and math etc. and I feel a bit lost with definitions that can be turned into extremes... ;-)

I think I'll do some tests on perspective so find out which focal length comes closest to how I see it in reality. But that isn't of much use when my eyes are different from yours... which brings me to the next question... are all our eyes the same? When we look at a photo technically, do we see the same picture?

cheers,
Nick.

craig_d · March 2, 2010

I didn't say anything about "large-enough print" etc. I just said a "normal" or "standard" lens for a given format is one where the focal length is (roughly) equal to the diagonal measurement of the image frame. I didn't say why that is, and for the purpose of this discussion I don't think it matters. The crucial thing to take away from this thread is that what constitutes a "standard" focal length varies with the frame size. A 35mm lens may be somewhat wide on 35mm full-frame, but it isn't on APS-C, and still less so on 4/3 or P&S sensors.

ChatKat · March 2, 2010

No tech talk in this post....
Yes, I have used the 35 for portraits on my 5d2. I bought it when I got a last minute call to do an event and was asked to do an event that was called Dancing with The Stars where there would be ballroom dancing in low light. I absolutely love that lens. I think it was a best purchase in the lens department.

NeilL · March 2, 2010

craig_d wrote:

I didn't say anything about "large-enough print" etc. I just said a "normal" or "standard" lens for a given format is one where the focal length is (roughly) equal to the diagonal measurement of the image frame. I didn't say why that is, and for the purpose of this discussion I don't think it matters. The crucial thing to take away from this thread is that what constitutes a "standard" focal length varies with the frame size. A 35mm lens may be somewhat wide on 35mm full-frame, but it isn't on APS-C, and still less so on 4/3 or P&S sensors.

Craig, what you say is relevant to the thread, and interesting in its own right. So, a 35mm on a crop body could be regarded as a normal lens for the same reason that a 50mm is regarded as a normal lens on a FF. Settled.

But I think the OP also wants to know about the *performance* of a 35mm versus 50mm on his crop body. The nature of lenses is such that light is affected in a certain number of ways as it passes through them. This is just physics. No matter the size of the receiving sensor, a 35mm treats light differently to a 50mm. They both can be regarded as "normal" according to your definition, but the results they produce are not identical.

The field of view is important, yes, and the distortions in the image produced by the lens due to its physical characteristic are also important. The two things are related, but not identical.

Neil

ziggy53 · March 2, 2010

NeilL wrote:

Craig, what you say is relevant to the thread, and interesting in its own right. So, a 35mm on a crop body could be regarded as a normal lens for the same reason that a 50mm is regarded as a normal lens on a FF. Settled.

But I think the OP also wants to know about the *performance* of a 35mm versus 50mm on his crop body. The nature of lenses is such that light is affected in a certain number of ways as it passes through them. This is just physics. No matter the size of the receiving sensor, a 35mm treats light differently to a 50mm. They both can be regarded as "normal" according to your definition, but the results they produce are not identical.

The field of view is important, yes, and the distortions in the image produced by the lens due to its physical characteristic are also important. The two things are related, but not identical.

Neil

Please demonstrate and provide examples of what you describe.

DeVerm · March 2, 2010

craig_d wrote:

I didn't say anything about "large-enough print" etc. I just said a "normal" or "standard" lens for a given format is one where the focal length is (roughly) equal to the diagonal measurement of the image frame. I didn't say why that is, and for the purpose of this discussion I don't think it matters. The crucial thing to take away from this thread is that what constitutes a "standard" focal length varies with the frame size. A 35mm lens may be somewhat wide on 35mm full-frame, but it isn't on APS-C, and still less so on 4/3 or P&S sensors.

wow, that's the first time I'm put down on a forum for asking a question. I think I made it clear that I was quoting Wikipedia, not you Craig; I just said that what you wrote is in line with what Wikipedia states.

But I now realize that technical questions aren't allowed here, so I'll remove myself from the thread.

cheers,
Nick.

craig_d · March 2, 2010

DeVerm wrote:

wow, that's the first time I'm put down on a forum for asking a question. I think I made it clear that I was quoting Wikipedia, not you Craig; I just said that what you wrote is in line with what Wikipedia states.

But I now realize that technical questions aren't allowed here, so I'll remove myself from the thread.

I wasn't putting you down at all, but if you're going to be so over-sensitive, I don't imagine we'll miss your contribution.

When you wrote "What Craig writes is like I find it on Wikipedia" you seemed to me to be associating my view with the quote. I wanted to make it clear that the definition of "standard" can be taken as a given in this context, and doesn't require us to agree on the reason for it.

The stuff from Wikipedia about a "large-enough print" and a "suitable viewing distance" suffers from poor expression. I can kind of tell what they mean, but it's expressed quite vaguely, so I don't blame you for finding it confusing. I think what they basically mean is that people are comfortable looking at an image when its size and distance combine to make the image subtend approximately 53 degrees in their view. A "standard" lens, then, is one that results in an image with realistic perspective when viewed under such conditions. One can debate how meaningful or accurate this notion is, but I think that's basically what they mean.

ziggy53 · March 2, 2010

This thread is taking a nasty turn. Any further personal attacks will be deleted. Back to the discussion please.

ziggy53 · March 2, 2010

My preference, for the purpose of DGrin discussion, is that the term "Standard Focal Length" is a rather loose convention in photography, as opposed to a finite scientific definition.

If we can agree on the 2 conditions that Craig has postulated as "roughly" the measured diagonal of the intended format or "approximately" a 50-55 degree angle of view/field of view (AOV/FOV), that conforms to most published and practical applications of the term, "Standard Focal Length".

A "Standard Lens" would be a lens that approximates these conditions for measured diagonal and FOV/AOV.

craig_d · March 2, 2010

ziggy53 wrote:

This thread is taking a nasty turn. Any further personal attacks will be deleted. Back to the discussion please.

What exactly are you characterizing as a "personal attack"? DeVerm was incorrect in saying that I put him down, and I have a right to reply to that. I think it's quite fair to say that he was being oversensitive. I don't think anything either of us said qualifies as a "personal attack."

DeVerm · March 2, 2010

Ziggy, Craig,

There's no problem other than some communication difficulties and it looks like we almost worked that out already ;-)

Craig, I was trying to agree with you but couldn't work out the info I found on Wikipedia and John Shaw's book. You took it that I associated that vague definition on Wiki with you (I didn't) so you focused on that instead of addressing my questions which put me off a bit and so we spiraled down without knowing why....

I think the "realistic perspective" explanation you gave is better than anything I read on the subject and I will do some tests to see if 27mm indeed gives me the most realistic perspective on my APS-C sensor. I only do this because I want to understand it better, not for proving anyone right or wrong.
I must also admit that I don't have any information to contribute to this thread... all I have are questions. But if we all know all the answers, there wouldn't be any use for a thread so I guess my contribution would be to trigger others to post info that some of us don't know yet.

Back to the subject of the thread: what is the function of using a standard lens for a portrait photo? How important is perspective for portraits? From what I have been reading, some prefer wide angle while others go to 200mm for portraits. Besides my "standard zoom" (17-55mm) I have used my 100mm macro for head shots and like that so much that I am thinking of buying a prime for full body and/or group portraits. And that is where my interest on the 35mm vs 50mm comes up. But I never considered the differences in perspective between the two choices before...

thanks,
Nick.

ziggy53 · March 2, 2010

DeVerm wrote:

... what is the function of using a standard lens for a portrait photo? How important is perspective for portraits? From what I have been reading, some prefer wide angle while others go to 200mm for portraits. Besides my "standard zoom" (17-55mm) I have used my 100mm macro for head shots and like that so much that I am thinking of buying a prime for full body and/or group portraits. And that is where my interest on the 35mm vs 50mm comes up. But I never considered the differences in perspective between the two choices before...

thanks,
Nick.

It's fairly common to choose lenses for "people" photography to try to reduce exaggerations which can occur at very short focal lengths.

"Portrait" photography has several different definitions and subordinate applications which tend to indicate the use of particular focal lengths (which vary further by format size):

A moderate telephoto to (normal) telephoto is commonly used for head shots and head-and-shoulders.
A standard lens is often used for 3/4 length and full length and seated poses.
A wide angle lens is often used for group portraits.

Which lens you actually use may also depend on working distance to the subject and from the subject to the background, the nature of the background, etc.

I've seen "extreme" telephoto lenses used on occasion and even fisheye lenses used specifically to promote and exaggerate features for effect.

As you develop your own style that will also impact your personal choice in focal length.

NeilL · March 2, 2010

ziggy53 wrote:

Please demonstrate and provide examples of what you describe.

To be clear, Ziggy, in my last post I was talking about lenses on cameras, and not a lens on an optical bench.

The lens on a camera is a complex assembly. I was talking about the variations between the performances of camera lenses of the same focal length but of different designs when tested on the same camera body.

Any lens review site will tell you there are differences in the aberrations produced by this make of lens compared with that make of lens, both the same focal length on the same camera body. The field of view is the exact same, but the performances of the two lenses with respect to lens aberrations will likely be different.

I know that apparent distortions interpreted to be due to different focal lengths are not really distortions, but are due to the different perspectives.

Neil

craig_d · March 2, 2010

DeVerm wrote:

Ziggy, Craig,

There's no problem other than some communication difficulties and it looks like we almost worked that out already ;-)

Okay, that's cool.

I must also admit that I don't have any information to contribute to this thread... all I have are questions. But if we all know all the answers, there wouldn't be any use for a thread so I guess my contribution would be to trigger others to post info that some of us don't know yet.

Questions are good! We all have questions.

Back to the subject of the thread: what is the function of using a standard lens for a portrait photo? How important is perspective for portraits? From what I have been reading, some prefer wide angle while others go to 200mm for portraits. Besides my "standard zoom" (17-55mm) I have used my 100mm macro for head shots and like that so much that I am thinking of buying a prime for full body and/or group portraits. And that is where my interest on the 35mm vs 50mm comes up. But I never considered the differences in perspective between the two choices before...

Perspective is a major element of portrait photography.

The choice of a particular focal length simply results from how far the camera is from the subject (which you may or may not be free to change) and what framing you want.

This leads us to the question of how far away the camera SHOULD be for a good portrait, which has to do with perspective and how a person looks at different distances. If you're too close, perspective seems exaggerated, with the nose over-emphasized and the ears diminished. If you're too far away, things look flat.

I think most photographers would agree that the camera should generally be at least six feet away from the subject; some would argue for as much as 15 feet. For a portrait that takes in more of the subject (say, full-body as opposed to head-only), it may be good to increase the distance somewhat rather than allow the subject to subtend too great an angle (which is what causes "wide-angle" perspective effects).

I think one source of confusion on this subject is that people start with a focal length by applying rules of thumb like "Use 85mm for a head shot," and then find a position from which to shoot. Instead, they should start with physical distance and perspective, and then choose a focal length that provides suitable framing.

pathfinder · March 2, 2010

craig_d wrote:

Perspective is a major element of portrait photography.

The choice of a particular focal length simply results from how far the camera is from the subject (which you may or may not be free to change) and what framing you want.

We sometimes use a wide angle lens because we literally cannot back up any farther away from the subject - maybe a wall prevents us from backing up.

This leads us to the question of how far away the camera SHOULD be for a good portrait, which has to do with perspective and how a person looks at different distances. If you're too close, perspective seems exaggerated, with the nose over-emphasized and the ears diminished. If you're too far away, things look flat.

I agree and would like to emphasize this point - The 'look/effect' folks associate with a "wide angle lens" is not due to the lens, but due to the photographer being closer than usual to his subject. If you examine a person, without a camera, but just your eyes, from 4-6 inches away, you will see that the nose or their ears look very different in size. It is not the lens, but the lens to subject distance that is significant.

I think most photographers would agree that the camera should generally be at least six feet away from the subject; some would argue for as much as 15 feet.

And yet their are hundreds of environmental portraits done with 24 - 35mm lenses on FF cameras. Not 'typical' studio work, but quite lovely none the less. One does have to be careful with framing. I am not talking about deliberate distortion here either.

For a portrait that takes in more of the subject (say, full-body as opposed to head-only), it may be good to increase the distance somewhat rather than allow the subject to subtend too great an angle (which is what causes "wide-angle" perspective effects).

I think one source of confusion on this subject is that people start with a focal length by applying rules of thumb like "Use 85mm for a head shot," and then find a position from which to shoot. Instead, they should start with physical distance and perspective, and then choose a focal length that provides suitable framing.

Lots of lovely portraits are done with 200mm lenses ( full frame 35mm equivalent ), even in the studio - the stand off distance minimizes the change from nose to ear, seen with shorter focal lengths, due to the increased lens to subject distance.

The depth of field of the 28mm lens and the 200mm lens is the same IF - IF the subject's face is the same size with both lenses on the sensor plane; the perspective does change dramatically since the shorter focal length has to be so much closer to accomplish this.

Moogle Pepper · March 2, 2010

Just look on the wedding forums, a lot of the posters, who use Canon primes, use the 35mm L.

It's a sick sick lens! Get it if you can!

On my 30D:

kingmamaof2 · March 2, 2010

Thanks for the replies everyone! I figured that most wedding photographers used this lens, from what I've heard it's a sharp lens with minimal distortion. I think I'll rent one before buying though.

Thanks again for all the replies and keep it coming, I'm learning so much!

craig_d · March 2, 2010

kingmamaof2 wrote:

Thanks for the replies everyone! I figured that most wedding photographers used this lens, from what I've heard it's a sharp lens with minimal distortion. I think I'll rent one before buying though. Thanks again for all the replies and keep it coming, I'm learning so much!

According to the published tests/reviews I've seen, the EF 35mm f/1.4L has more chromatic aberration than the much cheaper EF 35mm f/2, but CA is easy enough to correct when processing raw images, and the f/1.4L makes up for it with quieter, faster focusing, less vignetting, and better bokeh (the f/2, like some of Canon's other cheap primes, has only a five-bladed aperture iris; the f/1.4L has eight blades).

Moogle Pepper · March 2, 2010

kingmamaof2 wrote:

Thanks for the replies everyone! I figured that most wedding photographers used this lens, from what I've heard it's a sharp lens with minimal distortion. I think I'll rent one before buying though. Thanks again for all the replies and keep it coming, I'm learning so much!

Definite plus to rent before you buy. Especially with camera gear, unless you know your shooting style to a T, renting is the best way to experiment without plunkering down lots of cash immediately!

Anyone use the 35mm 1.4L for portraits?

Comments