CTphotogGuy Loc: Connecticut

appreciate it - thx

CTphotogGuy Loc: Connecticut

thanks balticvid - it is appreciated

CTphotogGuy Loc: Connecticut

thank you GSP77

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

The issue with a portrait lens is this: longer lenses all you to fill the frame and stand back farther from the subject and thus avoid "stretching" the features...i.e. the nose looking longer..the ears looking like they are on the back/far side of the head..etc.

You will fill the frame with your subject, (for example a head/shoulders shot) and to get the right framing, you'd need about an 85mm lens.

It depends a bit on what camera you have...if you have a cropped sensor camera you naturally stand a few more feet back to get the same framing.

So...to get the most pleasing facial compression of features....this is sort of the guide/rule of thumb:

50mm
Nothing closer than full length

85mm
Head/chest

135mm
Head/shoulders

200mm
Tight head shot.


I know that people will say that they take fine head shots with a 50mm but....I disagree. I've done that and then went back and looked at them side by side with a longer focal length and was shocked at the (now noticeable) distortion.

This set of images illustrates what you get with each lens choice.

CaptainC Loc: Colorado, south of Denver

Portrait photography is what I do. My main lens - 90% of my work is done with a 70-200. It has ALL the best focal lengths in one package. It is, however, expensive. I also use the 24-70 if I am doing 3/4 or full-length stuff. While I occasionally use the 85mm 1.4, it is for special use when it is REALLY low light or I want a very soft background - it is by no means my go-to lens for portraits as it is too limiting.

All this baloney about needing to use a prime (single focal length) lens is just that - baloney. Is the 85 a great portrait lens? Yes. But the 70-200 is FAR more versatile, allows you to change the framing without having to move and since portrait photography is best done with the camera mounted on a tripod, not having to move is a real plus.

You will see some touting how sharp a particular lens is. Big deal - incredible sharpness is NOT a great attribute for portraits! Other than the iris of the eyes, a bit of softness has to be added to most any portrait to make skin look decent.

Having said all that. ANY lens can be a portrait lens. It depends on the look and perspective you want. Anything shorter that that 70-85 range for head and shoulder images is going to invite some unwanted distortion.

Your 24-105 is a wonderful starting point. Use that until you know you need something else...and that will be a while.

AntonioReyna Loc: Los Angeles, California

IF YOU ARE GOING CANON, AND WANT PRIME LENSES, TRY THEIR 85/1.8, 85/1.4, 85/1.2 OR 100/2.0, DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO SPEND. ALL WILL GIVE YOU SUPER PORTRAIT IMAGES ON FULL FRAME CANON BODY.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

I hope I didn't imply that the lens focal lengths that I listed were primes that you had to use (as opposed to a zoom)...that's not what I meant...only that the focal lengths work.

Bret Loc: Dayton Ohio

Also my fav...and it also does a few other things very well.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Hey Terry. Welcome.

Hit the "Quote Reply" button beneath the person you want to answer, then place your cursor AFTER the quote to start your reply. That way folk will know who you are talking to. ;)

The answers given so far are all pretty good. Let me make another suggestion.

Check out a few magazines for background: Popular Photography and Shutterbug Magazine are a couple of the best.

Learn as much as you can about photography BEFORE you sink major dollars into a camera. That way you'll be sure of what you want AND need and can find the product that best suits the type of photography you are interested in.

GOOD LUCK!

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Like THIS:



Oh... and one more thing:

Take a look at the Sony SLT-A99. It's cheaper than the 5D MkIII and has much better image quality. ;)

amehta Loc: Boston

The key to doing portrait photography is figuring out your style and tastes. A part of how you create your style will depend on the equipment, but the equipment should follow the style, not the other way around. Since you asked about lenses, there are two major aspects of the style which can be expressed differently by different lenses: perspective and depth of field (DoF).

When taking a full-body shot, we're making a 2-dimensional, 1 inch image of a 3 dimensional, 6 foot person. If the focal length is short, you need to be fairly close to fill the frame with the person, and angle between the head and the foot is quite apparent, giving a sense of curvature. If the focal length is long, the subject will be much further away, the angle between the head and foot is much smaller, so the image looks flatter. The same effect happens with closer portraits, though smaller, but it's more apparent because we notice this in the face more than in the whole body.

The depth of field is about what is visibly in focus and what is not in focus. Some portrait shooters like things in front of and behind the subject in focus so they can include things which help define the subject. If you're doing a portrait of an athlete, for example, shooting on their field or court could give context for what is important to the person. Having more of the area in focus is good, because it is integral to the portrait. This is a "deep" DoF. Alternatively, the portrait could be all about the person, with the setting secondary, so you want it out of focus, since the viewer's attention is drawn to things in focus. This can be done with a "shallow" DoF. One pro photographer friend described this as "incorporate vs isolate". There is no right or wrong on this, it's about your style.

To the question of which lens to use, let's say you're using the Canon 5D Mark III, and you want to take a full body standing shot of someone which fills the frame. The if we then pick a focal length for the lens, the distance to the subject is set. With these factors, perspective is simple: a shorter focal length has more sense of curvature, a longer focal length is flatter. Meanwhile, DoF depends on two more things: the focal length and the aperture, but the dependence is not simple. With a longer focal length, the DoF is also longer, and a smaller aperture (f/8 instead of f/4), the DoF is deeper.

To the question of specific lens choices, the main question is whether you want a shallow DoF? One thing associated with DoF is bokeh, the character of what is out of focus. It can be smooth and creamy or harsh and distracting. This isn't a big factor for deep DoF since everything is supposed to be in focus anyway. For shallow DoF, however, the prime lens has two advantages: for comparable level lenses, the prime will tend to have a larger maximum aperture, and their design can concentrate on good bokeh. Meanwhile, zooms offer a lot more versatility.

If you want to isolate your subjects, consider primes. If you want to include the environment in the portraits, zooms are an easy choice.

sbesaw Loc: Boston

captainC, aka, Cliff has been kind enough to mentor me through 2 portrait shoots. Check out his work on his website. He is a pro and as he says he does this for a living. I shoot Nikon and have 85 1.4, 105mm, 135 mm DC. Any of which would work on my D3s. He suggested I use my 70-200mm 2.8 and the results exceeded the clients expectations and quite frankly mine. He also provided tips on lighting. I have since used this set up on other shoots. Should mention I shoot FF. If you are investing in Mark III you need good glass as well. Keeping with above philosophy the Canon 70-200 2.8 L if you can swing it or the 70-200 f4 L would be way to go and you will love the all around flexibility of the 70-200.
Oh, BTW I am quite full of myself :D

OddJobber Loc: Portland, OR

Understood. And most of those covered by CaptainC's 70-200mm zoom.

RaydancePhoto

On a crop sensor, a 50mm is one of the most economical lenses you can use, and a must have. You can usually pic one up for $100 or less. A good investment in my opinion is a 50mm 1.4. just a great low light lens and very good for portraits.

That said, I recently bought an 85mm Rokinon f/1.4 especially for portraits. I have since found that it is great for taking flowers, etc. as well. The lens is strictly manual, no auto-anything, so that is a consideration for less advanced photographers. This lens is extremely sharp, and at 1.4 almost requires a tripod to use, any slight camera or model movement will loose focus.
@ $250.00 it is a steal for the lens you get.

CTphotogGuy Loc: Connecticut

Wow - thank you rpavich - and those images are so helpful! thx again Terry