Hibler Loc: Oklahoma

Thanks Tonyhh & Camerapapi

coot Loc: Evansville, IN.

Well long long ago when I was studying photography it was said that a portrait lens is selected for the viewing perspective, which is a factor of the image size and the viewing distance. As I remember the normal was a 100mm, 10 feet away for an 8x10 at 4 or 5 feet viewing distance. So if your showing a head shot on a 60 inch TV and the head is 3 feet tall and the viewing distance is only 1 foot away, to have proper perspective, I'd guess about a 7mm lens at 12 inches. No way you could see the ears on a person with a 3 foot head if you were only 1 foot away from their nose. So if you are viewing your head shots on your laptop I'd think a 60mm lens would be pretty close.
I have an Olympus e-m10 4/3 camera with a 14 to 42mm lens. I bet you have a lens like that with your 4/3s camera too. I suggest you borrow someones head and take a few same size head pictures of it at different mm's. Then view them on your viewing device at the normal distance and or print them up at the size you would like see how they look. You should also be able to find somewhere on the net something that in detail explains portrait photography perspective.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

On a 4/3, your 60 will be fine. Would not be by first choice of focal length for macro, but overall, a nice length to do both.

James R. Kyle Loc: Saint Louis, Missouri (A Suburb of Ferguson)

+++++++++++++++++++++++

I was about to suggest the same --- :-)

billwassmann Loc: Emerson, NJ

Why do you need 1.8 for a portrait? You should be stopping down anyway. For focal length I think 75 to 100 would be good.

Hibler Loc: Oklahoma

Thanks a lot

Hibler Loc: Oklahoma

Thanks

pterosonus Loc: Cincinnati, Ohio USA

The Oly 60mm 2.8 macro would make an excellent portrait lens and you would have a good true macro lens as well. 60mm equals 120mm on a m4/3 camera in equivalent 35mm film terms. I learned that the "sweet spot" of portrait focal lengths was 85mm to 100mm for normal head and shoulder portraits. I used a 135mm on my film SLR to get tight headshot portraits with pleasing results. You don't need the 75mm Oly or want its shallow DOF at 1.8. If money is a factor the Sigma 60mm 2.8 also makes a good portrait lens and is sharp corner to corner as it was designed for full frame and only uses the sharp center portion of the glass for m4/3. It sell for $209 at B&H, Amazon, etc.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

Our teachers must have been from the same school, in film days my favorite portrait set up was 50mm and 2x extender, 100mm and apx 3.5, Bob.

stan0301 Loc: Colorado

A macro will certainly work for head shots--but make it the 105 f2.8--with a 60 you are going to see the nose start to get bigger--and it just won't be what you want, There is a whole lot more to a head shot that simply a picture that happens to have someone's head in it.
Stan

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Stan, He's using a micro4/3 camera.
The 2x crop factor makes the 60mm equivalent to a 120mm on a full-frame camera, plenty long for good perspective.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

:thumbup:

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

the folks at e leitz (leica) always have considered the best focal length for portraits to be in the area of 60-65mm in the 35mm (fx) format. so the 60 2.8 would be the perfect lens for your needs.

Los-Angeles-Shooter Loc: Los Angeles

It would do a fine job on a crop sensor camera where it would equate to about an 84 mm. If you use it on a full frame camera you'll want to frame loosely or you'll get distortion.

Architect1776 Loc: In my mind

Yes