85mm Lens for portraits (Page 2): If you use 35mm format you have 1.263 sq. in. of sensor (FF) or film coverage. If you use 2.25/120 format you have 5 1/16 sq. in. sensor or film...

Carl D Loc: Albemarle, NC.

Kmgw9v wrote:

Please explain, you nay sayer you.

If you use 35mm format you have 1.263 sq. in. of sensor (FF) or film coverage.
If you use 2.25/120 format you have 5 1/16 sq. in. sensor or film coverage.
Therefore you must enlarge a 35mm negative roughly 63 times to make an 8"X 10" print
If you use medium format 2.25/120 you only have to enlarge it roughly 15 1/4 times to make the same print.
It's easy to see that med. format will yield a higher quality

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

Carl D wrote:

If you use 35mm format you have 1.263 sq. in. of sensor (FF) or film coverage.
If you use 2.25/120 format you have 5 1/16 sq. in. sensor or film coverage.
Therefore you must enlarge a 35mm negative roughly 63 times to make an 8"X 10" print
If you use medium format 2.25/120 you only have to enlarge it roughly 15 1/4 times to make the same print.
It's easy to see that med. format will yield a higher quality

as always - just one of the things digital users never think about.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Carl D wrote:

If you use 35mm format you have 1.263 sq. in. of sensor (FF) or film coverage.
If you use 2.25/120 format you have 5 1/16 sq. in. sensor or film coverage.
Therefore you must enlarge a 35mm negative roughly 63 times to make an 8"X 10" print
If you use medium format 2.25/120 you only have to enlarge it roughly 15 1/4 times to make the same print.
It's easy to see that med. format will yield a higher quality

The difference between 35mm and medium format is obvious.
But, to say that it is a waste of time to use an 85mm lens with a 35mm format is wrong.
Crap.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Carl D wrote:

If you use 35mm format you have 1.263 sq. in. of sensor (FF) or film coverage.
If you use 2.25/120 format you have 5 1/16 sq. in. sensor or film coverage.
Therefore you must enlarge a 35mm negative roughly 63 times to make an 8"X 10" print
If you use medium format 2.25/120 you only have to enlarge it roughly 15 1/4 times to make the same print.
It's easy to see that med. format will yield a higher quality

If we were sitting around in the lab I used to work in, about 1995, I would tend to agree, but your math is wrong. An 8x10 from a 35mm image is about a 7.5X enlargement. The customary measurement is made on the diagonal, not on the area of the print.

But I used to use this sort of example with photographers who complained that their large prints from 35mm Vericolor III were fuzzy. (Most of the time, it was them, not the format, but 120 film would have helped... some.)

These days, I have to question that it makes enough difference, enough of the time, for me to care. I'm using Micro Four Thirds for all my work, and have heard no comments from viewers about the quality of the video, the quality of Intranet-based PDF documents, or the quality of inkjet exhibition prints made from that tiny 16MP sensor.

Regarding the OP's question, 85mm is the shortest lens I would use for portraits on full frame. 100 to 105 would be better. On APS-C, I'd use a 50mm or longer, with 85 being on the long side. On Micro 4/3, I like a 42.5mm to 70mm focal length for portraits. (The Leica-by-Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.2 is legendary.)

The prime advantage of an 85 prime (or 50, or 42.5 on the smaller formats) is usually its speed and the great bokeh you get from wide apertures. There is little point to using one that cannot be used wide open, or one stop down. If you have to work at f/4 for sharpness, you might as well use a good f/2.8 zoom.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

CHG_CANON wrote:

Are you looking for a Canon EF mount? Look at a used copy of the EF 85 f/1.8. This lens is amazingly sharp with rich beautiful color.

Yes, and very little if any more expensive (if you have a Canon). I have this lens and have been very impressed with the performance, especially considering the cost - I bought mine as a refurb from Canon, and it was in perfect condition.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Nikon 105mm 1.4E.

ballsafire Loc: Lafayette, Louisiana

I have been using the Chinese lens called Opteka EF f/1.8 piece $99.95!! It is a manual lens (no af) it comes with a hood, a bag and a 5 yr. warranty. You might like that lens for portraits. I use it on my Canon T1i/500d and am satisfied.

Royce Moss wrote:

Hey Hoggers. I've been researching a lens for portraits and come upon a Samyang 85mm f/1.4 Aspherial lens new for $269. Anyone with experience using this lens? Is it any good? The price seems to be really cheap compared to any others I've found. Plan to use it mainly for portraits. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

Carl D Loc: Albemarle, NC.

burkphoto wrote:

If we were sitting around in the lab I used to wor... (show quote)

Thanks Bob,
I was always taught to use square inches to dramatically show the difference in the 2 and why 35mm gets grainy so quickly. I now shoot 4"X 5"and love it for the simple fact that you have to think before you shoot. No more quantity covering up for quality. For me to take 6 shots in a day of scenery is a full day. It used to be that 200-300 was easy only to get home and throw out 90% or more of them. I now use my RX10 iii to see if I'm going to like the LF shot.

royden Loc: Decatur, GA

http://shop.usa.canon.com/shop/en/catalog/ef-85mm-f-18-usm-refurbished

In case any one's looking.

Royce Moss Loc: Irvine, CA

Thanks guys for all your wisdom. I will stay with Nikon lenses. And yes, my homeowners insurance covered my gear less a $500 deductible so i'm good for now.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Carl D wrote:

....... For me to take 6 shots in a day of scenery is a full day. It used to be that 200-300 was easy only to get home and throw out 90% or more of them. I now use my RX10 iii to see if I'm going to like the LF shot.

http://petapixel.com/2015/06/11/evolution-of-photography-exposures-versus-keepers/
I've shot everything up to 8 x10 so I know what you're saying, but the 85 can be an awesome portrait lens on an APS-C or full frame digital camera.

Peekayoh Loc: UK

Carl D wrote:

I hate to be a nay sayer but f your not shooting at least medium format then your wasting your time with any 85mm lens in the 35mm range.

I disapprove of name calling when someone sticks his foot in his mouth so I won't start now but I will debunk this ridiculous statement.

A "Normal" lens on Medium Format is 80mm and whilst you may get away with a full length shot a tight head shot will give the subject a rather large nose and you the sack. Most Pro's would prefer a 150/180mm Medium Format lens for this sort of work.

Carl D wrote:

If you use 35mm format you have 1.263 sq. in. of sensor (FF) or film coverage.
If you use 2.25/120 format you have 5 1/16 sq. in. sensor or film coverage.
Therefore you must enlarge a 35mm negative roughly 63 times to make an 8"X 10" print
If you use medium format 2.25/120 you only have to enlarge it roughly 15 1/4 times to make the same print.
It's easy to see that med. format will yield a higher quality

I'm not sure you have your sums right but this might apply if you wanted an A1 or A0 enlargement otherwise my A7rII 42MPix FF camera will provide an A2 sized Portrait indistinguishable from a Medium Format camera.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

GoofyNewfie wrote:

http://petapixel.com/2015/06/11/evolution-of-photography-exposures-versus-keepers/
I've shot everything up to 8 x10 so I know what you're saying, but the 85 can be an awesome portrait lens on an APS-C or full frame digital camera.

Great illustration. I love that 1950s style 35mm canister...

It IS possible to improve the yield on 35mm and digital, but you have to change your mindset to push it up. I still get lots of keepers on digital.

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

burkphoto wrote:

Great illustration. I love that 1950s style 35mm canister....

Those were so handy!

burkphoto wrote:

It IS possible to improve the yield on 35mm and digital, but you have to change your mindset to push it up.

One just has to avoid the ready, fire, aim mindset.

Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

Carl D wrote:

Thanks Bob,
I was always taught to use square inches to dramatically show the difference in the 2 and why 35mm gets grainy so quickly. I now shoot 4"X 5"and love it for the simple fact that you have to think before you shoot. No more quantity covering up for quality. For me to take 6 shots in a day of scenery is a full day. It used to be that 200-300 was easy only to get home and throw out 90% or more of them. I now use my RX10 iii to see if I'm going to like the LF shot.

Wrong again. Digital shooters very often think before they shoot too.