Portraiture lenses (Page 2): Great discussion. That's what this forum is all about.... Thanks to all that participated. Good shooting...

portcragin Loc: Kirkland, WA

Great discussion. That's what this forum is all about....
Thanks to all that participated.

Good shooting

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

jhayden wrote:

hello all. i wanted to ask all you pros in the portrait world about lenses. For my head to shoulder shots, i normally use an 85mm lens (FX) and for my half body shots i use a 50mm. I have seen alot of pros use longer lenses like 120mm.. I don't own a lens that long so i was wondering if you could explain what advantages or artistic differences come with using a lens that long?

I wouldn't use the 50 for anything other than environmental portraits.

wilsondl2 Loc: Lincoln, Nebraska

One of the main reasons I use a longer lens - 135 - 200 on my outdoor portraits is that I can control the background better. I have severel areas in our yard and garden that I use. If I use a wider angle lens then things like cars or houses or garbage cans etc start showing up in the pictures. Even in the park I find that the narrower field of view makes background easyer and they are also better to get a nice blur in the background. I know that you flaten the subject some but I have never had anyone say "you made my nose to small" I think Capa would be ok getten closer with a longer lens not just physicaly closer. I have betterl luck with refelectors than with flash for fill. - Dave

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

wilsondl2 wrote:

I think Capa would be ok getten closer with a longer lens not just physicaly closer. I have betterl luck with refelectors than with flash for fill. - Dave

I also think that Capa's quote "if your pictures aren't good enough you aren't close enough..." is taken out of context.

I only think that he meant to "fill the frame" more effectively and not necessarily that we need to "get within 2 feet of our subject"

Hoosier in GA Loc: Milledgeville, GA

I am waiting on delivery of Nikon 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5 for my crop camera. Will be testing it on individuals later this week. Guess I didn't really add anything to the discussion, just excited about the new lens.

Grammieb1 Loc: New Orleans

I like my Cannon 100 f/2.8 is macro for portraits.

elie Loc: France

ole sarg wrote:

As was Robert Capa once said

HE was a reporter, not a portraitist,that's another way of working.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

ronz wrote:

... I shoot a lot of location shots so always use flash as well and about 8-10 ft with the flash. ...

Ronz has it right, distance is the key. If you keep it over 8 feet (and probably under 15 feet) any lens is a "portrait" lens.

The distance determines whether you will distort the features and the focal length will determine whether it is a head shot, body shot or more.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

selmslie wrote:

Ronz has it right, distance is the key. If you keep it over 8 feet (and probably under 15 feet) any lens is a "portrait" lens.

The distance determines whether you will distort the features and the focal length will determine whether it is a head shot, body shot or more.

True...but many times when people say "portrait" they aren't referring to "full body" shots or 3/4, or even "waist up"...they are (many times, not all the time) referring to "head shots" as in: "is the 50mm a good portrait lens?" and then they post a head shot.

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Using a lens like the 70-200 or longer lenses in general, affords more compression of facial features overall in my opinion. I have used a 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, and a 70-200. For primes I like using the 135 and 85 in that order over the 50 on a crop sensor. For zooms, I have to go with the 70-200.
Much depends on location, space, style, etc. Have read and seen wide-angles used with success also.
Labeling lenses for one specific purpose may limit opportunities to grab some great photos. If you are happy with results and the customer is satisfied, you must be doing it right. Best of luck to you.

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

For most people new to photography that want to take excellent head/body/full body shots I would recommend the 70-200.
That being said....
If you know what your doing you can take head shots/body shots/ down to around 24mm.

I have regularly taken head shots at 24mm. Why?
If you're in studio you can have a giant softbox basically sitting on top of the lense. You get very soft light from this. You can't get this type lighting at long focal lengths. Any lens distortion can be corrected in post.
Joel grimes regularly demonstrates this... He doesn't tell you about correcting barrel distortion in post.
Below is an example at 24mm

sirlensalot Loc: Arizona

Nice work. Thanks for sharing.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

rpavich wrote:

True...but many times when people say "portrait" ... they are (many times, not all the time) referring to "head shots" as in:....

I submit that a portrait (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait ) is, historically, more generally defined.

Since a portrait is often not just a head shot, the idea of a "portrait lens" may be misleading.

A 70-200 zoom (for full frame) will encourage you ro select an appropriate distance.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

selmslie wrote:

I submit that a portrait (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portrait ) is, historically, more generally defined.

Since a portrait is often not just a head shot, the idea of a "portrait lens" may be misleading.

A 70-200 zoom (for full frame) will encourage you ro select an appropriate distance.

True...but I'm not talking about the definition...I'm talking about what happens when someone gets a "nifty fifty" and does some head shots because they heard it was a "good portrait lens"....

THATS what I've been referring to.

TedPaul Loc: Madison, MS

Not nearly as good as some of you, but from film days I used Leica R 135 and will adapt it to a new M. If I can ever get the thing. Sold my M8, kept3 M lens and 4 R lens. I am really anxious. Am told I am #1 on the list.???