35mm lens for portraits? I've been considering the Canon 35mm lens for tsking portraits. Mostly with a background involved. I already have a 50mm, 85mm, 100mm. I just thought a 35mm...

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

I've been considering the Canon 35mm lens for tsking portraits. Mostly with a background involved. I already have a 50mm, 85mm, 100mm. I just thought a 35mm might be a good choice. What do you think?

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Possibly not the best choice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTPCRMSZkh8
Do a search for portraits with various lenses. There are some very good examples of what works and what doesn't.
--Bob

Tracy B. wrote:

I've been considering the Canon 35mm lens for tsking portraits. Mostly with a background involved. I already have a 50mm, 85mm, 100mm. I just thought a 35mm might be a good choice. What do you think?

Jim Bob

Tracy B. wrote:

I've been considering the Canon 35mm lens for tsking portraits. Mostly with a background involved. I already have a 50mm, 85mm, 100mm. I just thought a 35mm might be a good choice. What do you think?

Full frame or crop sensor camera? Might make a difference.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

Jim Bob wrote:

Full frame or crop sensor camera? Might make a difference.

Oh yes. Full frame.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

rmalarz wrote:

Possibly not the best choice. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTPCRMSZkh8
Do a search for portraits with various lenses. There are some very good examples of what works and what doesn't.
--Bob

Thanks for the link. Earlier, I tagged that exact link to watch later.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Tracy, here's another article that will help.
https://petapixel.com/2016/01/04/selecting-a-portrait-lens-with-correct-focal-length/
--Bob

Tracy B. wrote:

I've been considering the Canon 35mm lens for tsking portraits. Mostly with a background involved. I already have a 50mm, 85mm, 100mm. I just thought a 35mm might be a good choice. What do you think?

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Tracy B. wrote:

I've been considering the Canon 35mm lens for tsking portraits. Mostly with a background involved. I already have a 50mm, 85mm, 100mm. I just thought a 35mm might be a good choice. What do you think?

For full frame, your 85 or 100mm lenses would be far better.

Jim Bob

Tracy B. wrote:

Oh yes. Full frame.

Less than ideal. I think you're covered with your other lenses.

boberic Loc: Quiet Corner, Connecticut. Ex long Islander

35mm is not the best choice. You would have to be too close and that would introduce all kinds of distortion. 100mm is uaually thought of as a "portrait" lens. That focal length allows the photographer to be at a comfortable distance from the subject.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

rmalarz wrote:

Tracy, here's another article that will help.
https://petapixel.com/2016/01/04/selecting-a-portrait-lens-with-correct-focal-length/
--Bob

Great article. I would not do head shots with a 35mm. I was thinking portraits with a backgroud, like against a brick wall, or maybe full body shot on a bike or holding an instrument, etc. I did a some band shots in a building. In some situations even with a 50mm I had to move back a lot. Not a problem, but I was just wondering if any of you fine photographers ever used a 35mm for these situations.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Tracy B. wrote:

Great article. I would not do head shots with a 35mm. I was thinking portraits with a backgroud, like against a brick wall, or maybe full body shot on a bike or holding an instrument, etc. I did a some band shots in a building. In some situations even with a 50mm I had to move back a lot. Not a problem, but I was just wondering if any of you fine photographers ever used a 35mm for these situations.

Remember that a 35mm lens will have one of two effects:

(1) makes subject smaller part of image - not what one normally wants for a portrait

(2) allows you to get closer to subject, which from your words above seems to be what you're thinking about. However, an effect of that is to exaggerate features, such as making noses seem longer. Usually people want the opposite effect, which is why longer lenses {such as 75mm} are more typically used in taking portraits.

Tracy B. Loc: Indiana

rehess wrote:

Remember that a 35mm lens will have one of two effects:

(1) makes subject smaller part of image - not what one normally wants for a portrait

(2) allows you to get closer to subject, which from your words above seems to be what you're thinking about. However, an effect of that is to exaggerate features, such as making noses seem longer. Usually people want the opposite effect, which is why longer lenses {such as 75mm} are more typically used in taking portraits.

Good points. No one wants exaggerated features. It talked about that in the article Bob posted. In my building that I like to take photographs in, I'm finding it hard to get far enough back from a brick wall I like to pose people on. I did finally get a group shot using my 70-200mm, using 70mm end but than I had a hard time leaving enough room on the sides for framing. Thanks for the advice. I will find another solution.

Jim Bob

Tracy B. wrote:

Good points. No one wants exaggerated features. It talked about that in the article Bob posted. In my building that I like to take photographs in, I'm finding it hard to get far enough back from a brick wall I like to pose people on. I did finally get a group shot using my 70-200mm, using 70mm end but than I had a hard time leaving enough room on the sides for framing. Thanks for the advice. I will find another solution.

Well some folks might appreciate "exaggerated features" if the enhancement is perceived as an improvement or viewed in a comedic way. But generally not.

whwiden

Tracy B. wrote:

I've been considering the Canon 35mm lens for tsking portraits. Mostly with a background involved. I already have a 50mm, 85mm, 100mm. I just thought a 35mm might be a good choice. What do you think?

Generally, no. However, I used a 35mm equivalent on a crop sensor camera recently in a church and got a nice photo of a boy turning around in a pew. In the confined space a longer lens would not have worked. For environmental portraits of a person and surrounding area a 50mm full frame can work. Conventional wisdom says 85mm or 105mm.

JPL

Tracy B. wrote:

I've been considering the Canon 35mm lens for tsking portraits. Mostly with a background involved. I already have a 50mm, 85mm, 100mm. I just thought a 35mm might be a good choice. What do you think?

It depends on what kind of results you are hoping for. If you want to show more background in the picture and use less of the frame for the person and if you want to keep both the person and the background in focus as much as possible then this could be a step forward. But if you are looking for more traditional results than the 85 or 100 mm would be your best bets.