Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

In portrait photography, sharpness is not a positive. A sharp lens can show all the faults in the skin. Your lens yopu have now seems to be fine.

TylerDurdensReel Loc: Fresno Ca.

Rent before you buy?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

It depends...

If you are using an APS-C camera, get 50mm and 85mm primes for a nice set of portrait lenses. If you don't want to buy two lenses, look for something in between, but try to keep toward the 50mm end of that range. A longer focal length requires more working distance, which can sometimes be a problem depending upon the space where you're shooting. On the other hand, a longer focal length can make for more candid portraits, shooting from a greater distance.

If you are using a full frame camera, look for a set of 85mm and 135mm lenses instead. Or get a single lens around 90 or 100mm.

Other than a 50mm (if that meets your needs), don't overlook f/1.8 or even f/2 lenses. They can do very good job, too. The longer the focal length, the smaller the aperture can be.

Besides, do you really need a fast lens? Large apertures can be handy for "moody" effects or to blur down backgrounds that are out of your control, such as location shoots. f/1.2 lenses are popular with wedding photographers, for example. But a lot of portraits shot "in studio" or other highly controlled situations utilize middle apertures f/4, f/5.6. In fact some pros I know use f/4 or even f/3.5-5.6 zooms for a lot of their studio portrait work because they simply don't need the large apertures. Those "less fast" lenses can be smaller, lighter and more affordable... and may even be sharper and better corrected than a large aperture lens.

Whatever lenses you decide to consider, look for extensive reviews of them. In particular, look for lenses that avoid any barrel distortion that would make people look heavier. That's usually not a problem with short telephotos and many even have slight pincushion distortion, which will have a slimming effect that many subjects appreciate!

I partially agree that "sharpness" isn't necessarily a good thing for portraiture. It may be ideal for a masculine portrait, but make you less than popular among feminine subjects. HOWEVER, you can always reduce the sharpness either with an actual filter or in post-processing. It's much harder or even impossible to make a soft image sharp. As a result, I'd prefer a sharp a lens, though sharpness certainly can be overdone (and for this reason I don't care to use some macro lenses for portraiture... in addition most macro lenses are f/2.8 at best).

hrblaine

I think that this response pretty much ends this discussiom. Harry

daledo Loc: Billings, MT

I really like the sigma 85 1.4 art. great sharpness.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

It certainly ends many member's willingness to continue to 'watch' the discussion ...

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

I still do not understand why the OP feels that a faster lens will necessarily yeid sharper images. If autofocus is used properly and locked in on the point of interest, such as the eyes, a brighter image on the focusing screen is not an issue.

The focal length choice is important to avoid distortion and maintain a comfortable working distance. It shod be pointed out that perspective is not determined or controlled by the focal length in and of itself, but by distance but it is important to select a focal length that will provide good perspective control at a workable and practical distance.

If the focal length is too short and used too closely distortion of the facial features will result. If the lens is too long there can be two issues. Working from too far away can flatten the facial modelling thereby affecting dimensionality and modelling. I some cases it can "compress" the background giving the visual impression that it is too close to the subject and thereby negating the illusion of depth.

The OP does not mention if the headshots are being made in the studio or studio-like condition or out of doors. In a studio situation, especially if there is minimal space between the subject and the background, a longer than required focal length can visually compress the background distance and reduce the feeling of depth and space. If however, the subject's hands are included in the composition, a slightly longer focal length will prevent visual enlargement of the hand or hands due to distortion.

Bokeh is yet an outer issue. In a studio setting, unless there is some reflective materials or transillumination in the background there is no light source in the background to create the "blobs", streaks, or patterns to create the "bokeh" via out of focus illuminated or transilluminated matter such as foliage, tinsel, etc.

Also, the term "headshot" can be ambiguous. Is it gonna be a tight shot of the subject's face, a traditional head and shoulder or "bust" image or a generic term for any publicity, business, theatrical or any kind of portrait?

Suffice it to say that, with a full-frame camera, just about any focal length between 85 and 105mm will probably do the job. 135mm may be slightly long for certain shots under certain conditions. There is no law that says you can't make a headshot with a 200mm lens and fill the frame nicely, but aside from some of the aforementioned compression issues, the working distance may be too far away to maintain contact with the subject during the session and make it difficult to evoke expression, control eye direction and establish eye contact with a viewer of the final image.

As for sharpness in general. How SHARP do you want or need a PORTRAIT to be? How large is the final image be? Is it gonna be print, viewed on a screen, published in a book or other kind of publication or advertising piece?

Think about this. in a print or display portrait, a tight headshot in 16x20 would be larger than life- in 20x24 it would be kinda grotesque at normal viewing distances. A head and shoulders shot can get to 20x24 with some well-planned negative space. A headshot is seldom posted on a billboard unless you want to make it reminiscent of the banners of Chairman Mao often seen in documentaries.

MountainDave

The 135 2.0L also makes great wildlife shots if you are close enough. This one used an aperture of 2.2.

(Download)

James May

The 85mm 1.4

spaceylb Loc: Long Beach, N.Y.

jamesl Loc: Pennsylvania

--------
85mm f:1.4 or 90mm f:2.8

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Beautiful specimen ⭐⭐⭐⭐

spaceylb Loc: Long Beach, N.Y.

LOL

toptrainer Loc: Wellington

I think that is a great Idea.

hrblaine

S'why I got the f4, a lot lighter and nice and sharp. I like to shoot in what I call the mid range: f 5.6 and 8. Plus I don't shoot much at midnight and if I do, I have a couple of fast primes; my walkaround is a 35mm f2.0 plus, of course, I have an 85mm 1.8. Harry