You often see where the 50mm is touted for this purpose as it is the closest in replicating the human eye as to focal length - waht you see is what you get. There are also several rather fast ones avaiable at a resonable price. Myself - I prefer a 80mm, or even around 100mm as you don't have to get so close but again a fast lens will run you more bucks. 35mm is just too wide except maybe for groups.
You often see where the 50mm is touted for this purpose as it is the closest in replicating the human eye as to focal length - waht you see is what you get. There are also several rather fast ones avaiable at a resonable price. Myself - I prefer a 80mm, or even around 100mm as you don't have to get so close but again a fast lens will run you more bucks. 35mm is just too wide except maybe for groups.
thanks for the feedback, I have heard many ideas, was jsut curious what others thought
The lens I love for Head shots is 135mm f2.8. Sorry but I am going to use a brand. I got a 135mm f2.8 preset t-mount lens for $19.95 in 1969. It is sharp and has great bokeh. It works great on my Nikon. You have to use it on M. I just got one for a friend on eBay. You can also get a t-mount for most cameras there. - Dave
50 for me, but, with the 4/3 setup in my Olympus gear this equals 100mm in film terms. I like it, but my next purchase will be the 25mm to even things out. I love the 50mm for macro, but I have to put too much distance between me and my subject for anything other than head and shoulder shots.
The lens I love for Head shots is 135mm f2.8. Sorry but I am going to use a brand. I got a 135mm f2.8 preset t-mount lens for $19.95 in 1969. It is sharp and has great bokeh. It works great on my Nikon. You have to use it on M. I just got one for a friend on eBay. You can also get a t-mount for most cameras there. - Dave
I also like to use my Takumar 135mm f/2.5 for head shots. I got it for $35. But I do rely on my 50mm f/1.2 as well.
You often see where the 50mm is touted for this purpose as it is the closest in replicating the human eye as to focal length - waht you see is what you get. There are also several rather fast ones avaiable at a resonable price. Myself - I prefer a 80mm, or even around 100mm as you don't have to get so close but again a fast lens will run you more bucks. 35mm is just too wide except maybe for groups.
That is certainly true if it is on an SLR film camera or a DSLR with an FX sensor, but with a DX sensor, a 50 mm becomes the equivelant of a 75 mm. A 35 mm lens on a DX will get you pretty close to a true 50 MM perspective. This is an important issue in evidence/crime scene photography when the image must be as close as reasonably possible to the perspective of the human eye - for example, accident scenes. I don't do much portraiture, but what I have have picked up is that there seems to be a consensus that a more flattering photo is produced using moderate telephoto.
Actually I have two favorites. I agree with a lot of folks here, I love my 50mm 1.8. Would love to have the 1.4 but on a fixed income here. I take a lot of photos of animals and the 50mm is great for close-ups with nice bokeh. For people, I prefer my 85mm. Nice portrait lens and I don't have to be as close. This is a good example of the 50mm. Just the face is in focus - eyes, nose, whiskers. Everything else is soft.
I have a 50 1.8 that I am going to try, is on my canon AE-1 35mm, but I was going to use that anyway in conjunction with my d50 18-50 mm, cannot remember the numbers on it right this instant though,,