Lens for head shots: Ladies & gentlemen I was wondering about the 60 f2.8 for head shots & that way i also would have a macro lens I know the 75 f1.8 is a good lens but $300 higher...

Hibler Loc: Oklahoma

Ladies & gentlemen I was wondering about the 60 f2.8 for head shots & that way i also would have a macro lens I know the 75 f1.8 is a good lens but $300 higher what do you all think on this
( mirrorless )

Thanks a lot

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

Hibler wrote:

Ladies & gentlemen I was wondering about the 60 f2.8 for head shots & that way i also would have a macro lens I know the 75 f1.8 is a good lens but $300 higher what do you all think on this

Thanks a lot

I don't know which lenses you are referring to (I don't know a 75/1.8), maybe you meant 85/1.8, but neverless, you're right, a 60/2.8 can do a great job (especially if you shoot a crop sensor), and you'll have the benefit of owing a macro as well!

Hibler Loc: Oklahoma

I forgot to say it was mirrorless

[
quote=speters]I don't know which lenses you are referring to (I don't know a 75/1.8), maybe you meant 85/1.8, but neverless, you're right, a 60/2.8 can do a great job (especially if you shoot a crop sensor), and you'll have the benefit of owing a macro as well![/quote]

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

At a minimum, I would use the 85/f1.8. I personally like the 70-200 f/2.8 or 105G f/2.8 with the 70-200 being my first choice.

Hibler Loc: Oklahoma

I forgot to say it was mirrorless
[
quote=DavidPine]At a minimum, I would use the 85/f1.8. I personally like the 70-200 f/2.8 or 105G f/2.8 with the 70-200 being my first choice.[/quote]

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Camera format matters, but based on the lens you mentioned, I would guess you have a micro 4/3rds? Should be just fine with that if you have room.
The rule of thumb when I went to school was "twice the normal focal length" for portraits (or longer). For an m4/3 sensor, that would be 25mm so a 50mm or longer would be recommended.

f8lee Loc: New Mexico

Two thoughts:

1) some folks think a macro lens has "too much" resolution capability for portraiture in that it can capture skin imperfections that might be best left unnoticed, and

2) it depends on your comfortable working distance from your subject - as @DavidPine points out (and he's not alone) the 70-200 can be a great portrait lens in that it gives some more flexibility in terms of how far from your subject you can stand so as not to intrude on his/her personal space (assuming your studio or location allows for standing further back). In fact, some photographers use a 300MM lens for portraits for similar reasons - of course, that's for FX so you can translate into the appropriate focal length for your camera (DX size 1.5 factor or 4/3 size 2X crop factor).

mcveed Loc: Kelowna, British Columbia (between trips)

[quote=Hibler]I forgot to say it was mirrorless

[
quote=speters]

What camera is it? Mirrorless goes all the way from Nikon's tiny CX, to M43, to DX, and now with the Sony A7, full frame FX. 60mm on a CX camera is equivalent to 162mm on an FX camera, or 120mm on a m43 camera. The FX equivalent of 80 - 100 mm is generally considered to be the most flattering focal length for portraits.

Hibler Loc: Oklahoma

Yes it is a 4/3 but what I am wanting to know will a macro lens work for head shots

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Camera format matters, but based on the lens you mentioned, I would guess you have a micro 4/3rds? Should be just fine with that if you have room.
The rule of thumb when I went to school was "twice the normal focal length" for portraits (or longer). For an m4/3 sensor, that would be 25mm so a 50mm or longer would be recommended.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Hibler wrote:

Yes it is a 4/3 but what I am wanting to know will a macro lens work for head shots

Absolutely.
I assisted a photographer who did seminars for Kodak years ago.
He commonly used the 120mm macro on his Hasselblad for portraits.
You can always soften the sharpness with a filter or in post-processing.
I assume you will be retouching anyway, right?

Hibler Loc: Oklahoma

Thanks a lot

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Absolutely.
I assisted a photographer who did seminars for Kodak years ago.
He commonly used the 120mm macro on his Hasselblad for portraits.
You can always soften the sharpness with a filter or in post-processing.
I assume you will be retouching anyway, right?

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Just keep in mind that the 75 1.8 is capable of giving you more shallow depth of field (more than a stop worth) than the 60, if that is a consideration for you.
In actual use though, I doubt there will be much practical difference.

Hibler Loc: Oklahoma

Yes I know, Thanks

GoofyNewfie wrote:

Just keep in mind that the 75 1.8 is capable of giving you more shallow depth of field (more than a stop worth) than the 60, if that is a consideration for you.

Tonyhh

hi Hibler
best portrait lens for the money is the Olympus 45mm 1.8 at around $300 - perfect as on your MFT will give you as focal length of 90mm, and the lens is very sharp and small and light

camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.

Hibler wrote:

Ladies & gentlemen I was wondering about the 60 f2.8 for head shots & that way i also would have a macro lens I know the 75 f1.8 is a good lens but $300 higher what do you all think on this
( mirrorless )

Thanks a lot

If you are referring to the Sigma Art 60mm f2.8 lens let me tell you that the lens is excellent for portraits. I have used it also for "macro" shots using a feature built into the Olympus EP-5 called "Digital Tele-Converter" with very good results.
The following is an informal b&w picture of my grandson that I made with this lens in ambient light.

(Download)