PeterdR Loc: Costa Rica

lol

PeterdR Loc: Costa Rica

Thank you, yes agreed 5.6 to 8 would be best.

PeterdR Loc: Costa Rica

Well yes, when I went the first time it was for most of the kids their first photo. My wife overheard a few girls saying they almost peed their pants being nervous. If they only had known I was just as nervous...

Leitz Loc: Solms

If you use the "Quote Reply" button, it won't sound like you're talking to yourself!

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

Important thing I notice from your examples, is, that your lighting gets 'Better' after the 70mm focal length. Too harsh in the earlier shots.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

That looks to be due to the quality and placement of the lighting - it has nothing to do with the focal length.

Pablo8 Loc: Nottingham UK.

That is why I commented in my posting. I thought it was a poor example of 'Focal-Length' choice.

RWR Loc: La Mesa, CA

Yes, they are poorly done.

leicajah Loc: Texas, grew up in Louisiana

I used to shoot for the USAF. The rule was 50 for aircraft crashes, and grip and grins. 90 for head and shoulders.

Poppy J

Hello Peter, I have used a Nikon 85-1.8 lens for portraits and many other subjects Professionally for well over 35 years. Does a very good job.

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

It's like the old story or joke; "what if you were marooned on a desert island and one could have only ONE book, musical recording, fishing rod, tool, camera or lens, what would you you choose"?

Well- if you or I were marooned on a desert island we wouldn't be making very many portraits unless the fish were interested in posing.

I know that sounds silly but after over 55 years in the business, and although lately most of my work is in the commercial field, I still do lots of corporate portraitures. Except for the last 15 years, I did a VERY LARGE volume of general portraiture and I can tell you unequivocally, you can't do it all with one lens, especially if your style is diversified. BUT...if, for whatever reason, you are confined to one focal length, I suggested the 105mm (for a full-frame camera system) as a happy medium. You can shoot a headshot, a head and shoulders, 3/4 or full-length portrait, even some smaller groups with that focal length and not worry about perspective issues or distortion. The OP asked about a "LENS", not a multiple of lenses of focal lengths, bit I overkilled!

If you have a complement of prime and/or zoom lenses, here are the traditional standards; lenses 85-105mm of headshots and head and shoulders, 85-105mm for 3/4, 50-85mm for a full length and 50mm for most groups. 35mm works well for wide-angle environmental portraits if you are familiar with that style and technique. This is a pretty standard operating procedure among experienced working professional portrait photographers, and of course, the equivalents for various other digital or film formats.

Of course, none of this is carved in stone and the rest of the alternatives are depending on your own creativity, style, or the need for special effects. When you get right down to it, unless you fully understand the effect of focal length on perspective, modeling, bokeh, depth of field, compression or extension of the illusion of space and distance, all of this only amount to arithmetic and a pile of numbers and rules of thumb. When I teach or train others, I advise that they start off with this "formula" and then feel free to change things up and observe the changes in aesthetics.

The basic formula stems for studio work where the background and lighting management is well controlled. Working out-of-doors or at other locations, presents other variables in terms of background management, "bokeh", distance, and issues if foreground framing and intentional vignetting with natural foliage, selective focus and more.

Notorious T.O.D. Loc: Harrisburg, North Carolina

Why I recommended his 70-200 out of the 3 choices the OP had...

Silverrails

A portrait lens with a good reputation is the 50mm 1.8g Nikon lens

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

But only if you change your position in order to fill the frame. The headshot taken at 135mm is at a far greater distance than the one taken at 24mm. If, after taking the shot at 135mm you were to stay at the same distance and simply swap the lens for the 24mm, you could crop the face to the same framing as the 135mm and the two images would look the same - except for noise and sharpness, which one would expect to be greater on the cropped image.

It's not the focal length that changes the look of the face, it's the distance.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

The 24-70 could work, as will the 70-300. I think the 50 will work for small group shots, or bigger than head shots. There is nothing wrong with a little experimentation and seeing what works for you. I have used everything from 24mm to 200mm for portraits.

The first shot below was using a 70-200 F2.8 at 200mm. Note the shallow depth of field, where the woman's face is ever-so-slightly out of focus, while his face is tack sharp. If I said I planned it that way to soften the woman's face I'd be lying. But she was more than thrilled iwth the picture.

The second was with the same lens at 80mm.

The last was with a 24-70 at 32mm.

I think these shots all fall within the focal length range that you currently have. The value of using a shorter lens is your proximity to your subject - using a longer lens results in a less intimate experience, and that could possibly affect the results. I tend towards shorter distances over longer ones.

(Download)


(Download)


(Download)