forjava Loc: Half Moon Bay, CA

You have highly valuable things to say about the topics you mention. Maybe you could open a new topic -- comparing the various 105s from the non-AI variants to the G. Or, the Leitz idea and your 60mm experience (and why not the 55mm variants).

Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA

About a month ago, I asked this forum if they thought that an 85mm (DX format} for my camera would be too much for head shot portraits. I was told that for the short distance I would have available, that a 50mm would fit the bill. In the room that I shot, I have at least 10 feet of distance between subject and camera. Well, I went out and bought a 50mm. Yesterday, I saw my 6 grandkids for father's day. Holding off tri-pod, I found myself shooting at a distance of less than 5 feet for a facial portrait. Needless to say, this is not what I expected. Now, I am sorry that I didn't go with the 85mm I had in mind originally.

Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA

About a month ago, I asked this forum if they thought that an 85mm (DX format} for my Nikon D7100 camera would be too long for head shot portraits. I was told that for the short distance I would have available, that a 50mm would fit the bill. In the room that I plan to shoot in, I have at least 10 feet of distance between subject and camera. Well, I went out and bought a 50mm. Yesterday, I saw my 6 grandkids for father's day. Holding off-hand, I found myself shooting at a distance of less than 5 feet for a facial portrait. Needless to say, this is not what I expected. That won't give me enough room for the speedlight/soft boxes I have purchased. Now, I am sorry that I didn't go with the 85mm I had in mind originally.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

Would you consider that situation to be shooting candid or portraits? How do you perceive the differences?

Also, I don't quite understand the math between a 10ft + distance with a 50mm on an APS-C camera, and how an 85mm at less than 5 ft works better for a portrait. What am I not understanding here?

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

On full frame, the traditional "short portrait" and "long portrait" lenses are 85mm and 135mm. Some like wider 50mm or even 35mm for "environmental portraits" that show some of the person's workplace or surroundings. Some like a longer 200mm for "fashion portraits", if they have a lot of work room. And some choose a 90mm or 100mm or 105mm, perhaps a macro that can serve dual purpose as a portrait lens.

On crop cameras, 50mm and 85mm serve as the short and long portrait lenses. 35mm, 30mm, 28mm and 24mm are environmental portrait lenses. 135mm works well for fashion photography. And a 50mm or 60mm macro lens might be used.

In other words, whatever constitutes a short telephoto on any given format is a traditional portrait lens and will give the most ideal perspective effects for the purpose. Standard to moderately wide lenses have to be used carefully for portraiture. Not too close, or they'll exaggerate size relationships... big noses and tiny ears. You also have to be careful not to position a subject too close to the edge, when using a moderately wide lens, due to inherent distortions. Conversely, a longer telephoto tends to compress perspective. That's a more subtle effect that can be useful for certain types of portraits, provided you have plenty of work space.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

It is exactly what should have been expected, given correct information. And the significance is that finding correct information is relatively easy.

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm

Scroll down to the "Dimensional Field of View Calculator", and then plug in a few numbers. With a 1.5x crop factor, a 50mm lens at just less that 5 feet (4.854 feet actually) produces an image that is 2' 4" by 1' 6.6". (The distance, 4.854 feet, was trimmed to get the nice round number of 2' 4" on the long side of the image size, in order to make further calculations easy.) The 2' 4" value is the horizontal dimension in landscape view, except for this purpose it would be the vertical dimension in a portrait orientation view. And we might consider that the image likely will be cropped to a 4:5 aspect ratio, so instead of 2' 4" it would provide more like 1' 10". But we'll use the 2' 4" value to calculate a few things...

With 10 feet of space rather than 5 feet, to get the same 2' 4" field of view requires a 103mm lens. An 85mm lens would produce a field that is 2' 10". All perfectly fine for a head and shoulders shot. A 135mm lens would yield 1' 9", which is easily enough for a head shot, but would be a bit tight for a head and shoulders if it will be cropped to a 4:5 aspect ratio.

So the problem was never actually difficult to solve. But listening to folks rattle off Rules Of Thumb without an understanding of what the Rule actually means leads to buying a 50mm lens when a 105mm would have been appropriate.

For the OP in this thread I would highly suggest looking specifically at what CaptainC had to say

http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-395556-1.html#6641367

It's the voice of experience and understanding, not a recital of Rules of Thumb read on the Internet.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Whatever is normal for your format, just double it and get the nearest prime. Now, there's some leeway in that. 43mm is true normal for full frame, so 85mm is the nearest and shortest portrait lens. I used a 105 or 135, most of the time, though.

Point is, 2x or greater than normal lens (format diagonal length) provides enough facial feature foreshortening to flatter most folks. Longer is better for those with long noses. Longer and faster also helps throw backgrounds out of focus. Lots of portrait pros use 200mm at f/2.8 on full frame.

kevin519 Loc: Aj, Az

and with a 50mm and a crop sensor AND a 1.4xiii we get 112mm, Im no pro, so Im not out to just spend spend spend on lens' I dont need, Soooo! Or am I really gettin outta wack now?

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

Can't use the extender with a 50mm I'm 99.8 percent sure...
And you don't get a focal length of 112mm you get the field of view of a 112mm lens on the crop body. But only if your extender scenario was valid.

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

You are correct - you cannot use the extender with the 50mm (without an extension tube). And even if you wanted to go that route (as opposed to using the 70-200), some extension tubes, such as the Vello for Canon, won't work with the Canon extender as the tube has a baffle that physically interferes with the extender (not sure about the Canon extension tubes).

Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA

An 85mm lens @ 5 feet??? What am "I" missing??

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

My Canon 85mm 1.8 has a min up focus of about 4 feet I believe. If you shot it from 5 feet away that would be a very tight head shot on a 1.6 crop body camera. Not quite sure what the issue is here between the 50 and the 85...

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC

Dziadzi Loc: Wilkes-Barre, PA

A month ago, I solicited advice as to using a 50mm f1.4 or an 85mm for portraits. I have limited room in which to use my gear, about 10' from sensor to subject. The majority suggested that I use the 50mm lens because of the short distance. I used the 50 the other day and found myself taking a candid headshot @ approx. 5 feet. I believe now that the 85mm would have been the better choice. I' talking crop factor of 1.5 btw.

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

10' is enough room to use the 85 but your subject might have to be nearly on the wall or background. You should be able to get a good feel for the 85 buy just setting your 70-200 to 85. If I had the lenses you list on your message I would use the 24-70 or the 70-200. Both should be very good lenses.

High key can be close or on the background. I find low key is much easier if you can get the subject off the background a few feet. The 50 might work better in that case.

Best,
Todd Ferguson
Harrisburg, NC

dandi Loc: near Seattle, WA

I own both 50mm 1.8G and 85mm 1.8G. I found myself using 85mm more often because I like to isolate the subject. This photo was shot with 85mm on D7000 which is DX body, the distance to the subject was around 10-12 feet.