dadcowell Loc: Myrtle Beach SC

Yeah, the consensus has been to stay far away from the 10-22 wide angle for portraits.

Thanks much for the tip.

George Kravis

I agree with "Rabbit". I've used that same combination often with satisfactory results. At 55mm, you have the equivalent of 88mm in the 35mm format.For a chest high portrait, that'll let you stand close enough for good rapport and at the same time avoid distortion.

Wabbit Loc: Arizona Desert

Take a picture of someone slouched down on a couch with their legs straight out in front of them. Standing directly in front focus on their face using a wide angle lens.

View it on your monitor and you'll see how long their legs look. That effect is not as pronounced with a nose, it's not going to look like Pinocchio's, but it does affect facial features enough that you won't like the results.

On the other hand when you go up in magnification protrusions flatten out.

This is nothing new, that's why Nikon designs lenses especially for portraits in 105mm and 135mm. Some versions of Nikon's 105mm Ais f2.8 lenses are legendary portrait lenses.

marcomarks Loc: Ft. Myers, FL

I'm not Robert, but the answer is yes.

dadcowell Loc: Myrtle Beach SC

Sorry bout the name mistake and thanks for the response.

Bruce with a Canon Loc: Islip

you might consider sacrificing your family and or friends for the cause to set up test shots, look at the white balance to get that right, and try all 3 lenses . 18-55 for small groups, larger groups try the ultra wide and for couples or singles use the 55-250 at 75-85mm or so.
Examine the results, they will give you a great guideline.