Is the 50 f/1.4 a good portrait lens? (Pic)

[dennykyser]

I have heard some people say that for the 10D that the 50 f/1.4 is not a good portrait lens, You tell me.

http://www.hunt101.com/img/113819-big.jpg


Took this of my son a few minutes ago

[dennykyser]

http://www.hunt101.com/img/113839.jpg

[leony]

SHORT: 50mm is NOT a good portrait lens, on any 35mm based camera.

LONG: 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. All the 10D does is crop the picture. It doesn't change the focal length.

Generally, a lens in the 80-135mm range is considered a classic portrait lens for 35mm - precisely for the compression that it produces.

50mm lens is just too wide and is not flattering for portraiture.

You get an "apparent" 80mm crop on 10D - so you need to step back as if you were shooting with an 80mm but the rendering of the image will not be the same.

If you're not convinced, take pictures with both (50mm and 80mm) making sure you get the same "crop" in the viewfinder - and then compare the two side by side on the screen.

If you don't believe that a 50mm lens a good portrait lens for 35mm, there is no reason to believe that it will be good for digital.

[dennykyser]

Short: With any longer lens I could not have taken these pictures. I was against the wall. It was snowing outside so going outside was not an option.


Long: Guess If I had used my 100mm could have waited for spring to get some portraits.

[Tom W]

SHORT: 50mm is NOT a good portrait lens, on any 35mm based camera.

LONG: 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. All the 10D does is crop the picture. It doesn't change the focal length.

Generally, a lens in the 80-135mm range is considered a classic portrait lens for 35mm - precisely for the compression that it produces.

50mm lens is just too wide and is not flattering for portraiture.

You get an "apparent" 80mm crop on 10D - so you need to step back as if you were shooting with an 80mm but the rendering of the image will not be the same.

If you're not convinced, take pictures with both (50mm and 80mm) making sure you get the same "crop" in the viewfinder - and then compare the two side by side on the screen.

If you don't believe that a 50mm lens a good portrait lens for 35mm, there is no reason to believe that it will be good for digital.

2 questions - What lens should I shoot portraits with on a medium format camera?

And, What focal length should I use on my S-400's 7.4-22.2 mm zoom lens for the ideal portrait?

The reason I ask is that it is the angle of view that is an important factor here. Granted, the small S-400 will never give the shallow DOF that one might want for some portraiture, but if one is using the type of background used in the original post, it won't matter. It is the angle of view that provides the various optical appearances that occur with wide-angle (the fisheye look) and telephoto lenses (appearance of a shorter distance dimension).

[GPR1]

While I agree a longer lens has nice portrait characteristics, there's nothing wrong with the images your 50mm produced. They're pleasing, and I don't think too wide for the situation. Plus, as you said, you could actually get the shot.

Greg

[dennykyser]

Thanks GPR1

:D

[G3]

SHORT: 50mm is NOT a good portrait lens, on any 35mm based camera.

LONG: 50mm lens is a 50mm lens. All the 10D does is crop the picture. It doesn't change the focal length.

Generally, a lens in the 80-135mm range is considered a classic portrait lens for 35mm - precisely for the compression that it produces.

50mm lens is just too wide and is not flattering for portraiture.

You get an "apparent" 80mm crop on 10D - so you need to step back as if you were shooting with an 80mm but the rendering of the image will not be the same.

If you're not convinced, take pictures with both (50mm and 80mm) making sure you get the same "crop" in the viewfinder - and then compare the two side by side on the screen.

If you don't believe that a 50mm lens a good portrait lens for 35mm, there is no reason to believe that it will be good for digital.


I disagree completely with the idea that a 50mm lens is not a good portrait lens on 35mm format. It all depends on what you want to do. The perspective that a 50mm lens offers can make outstanding portraits, especially full-length vertical format portraits. It depends entirely on the photographer. Composition IS the key. It works out to about 80mm on most digial SLRs, and even comes more into it's own as a portrait lens. The above portraits sort of disprove the idea that it's not a good portrait lens, don't they? A good portrait photographer can make a good portrait with almost any lens.

[maderito]

You get an "apparent" 80mm crop on 10D - so you need to step back as if you were shooting with an 80mm but the rendering of the image will not be the same.

If you're not convinced, take pictures with both (50mm and 80mm) making sure you get the same "crop" in the viewfinder - and then compare the two side by side on the screen.
What do you mean by "rendering."

For portraiture, the point in using a 50mm on a 10D is that you don't have to step back. You will get a tighter shot, as if your were using an 80 mm on a 35 mm SLR.

The 50mm works great for portraiture on the 10D (but not on a 35 mm SLR), especially for head and shoulder shots.

The 2 shots by dennykyser illustrate the point. What's wrong with his pics as examples of good portraits? I think they're fine.

Perspective - which is what I think you mean by "rendering" - is a complicated topic. See http://home.no.net/dmaurer/~dersch/perspective/Wide_Angle_Perspective.html for starters.

When you change the viewer's apparent distance from the subject (as the 10D does by cropping), the perspective is changed. A 50mm lens on a 10D has the perspective (or angle of view) of an 80mm lens. It thus has the more "pleasing" characteristic of the classic 85 mm portrait lens.

[jyrgen]

Nice portraits!

Regarding theory, I am pretty sure that perspective depends only on actual distance from the subject. To get the same framing, the cropping factor forces the users of a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor SLR to step back to exactly the same spot where one would stand with 80mm lens on a full-frame SLR. Which makes perspective in both portraits exactly the same, i.e. pleasing 8)

[Andy_T]

Nice portraits!

Regarding theory, I am pretty sure that perspective depends only on actual distance from the subject.

That makes a lot of sense!

You could also use a 28 mm as portrait lens.
Just keep the proper distance and be prepared to crop away more :)

Best regards,
Andy

[nosquare2003]

Nice portraits!

Regarding theory, I am pretty sure that perspective depends only on actual distance from the subject.

That makes a lot of sense!

You could also use a 28 mm as portrait lens.
Just keep the proper distance and be prepared to crop away more :)

Best regards,
Andy

Urrr...same perspective, different DOF for 28mm lens... :P

Hmm, I don't see why a 50/1.4 is not a good portrait lens 8)

[rodbunn]

I like this kind of discussion.... Can you share with us the type of lights and positions??? I'm currious about that part, also how did you meter the lights and what kind of ratio did you use? In the first one the shirt sleve looks a little overexposed BUT I really like both shots, very nice.....

Keep on shooting,

Rod
ps. It looks like two lights either side (from their eye's) ?

[dennykyser]

I was using 2 strobes, I just added my second one. I am metering the main light at f/4 and the fill at f/2.8 and they combine for a f/5.6 I do see the shirt washed out. I believe I had the main light too close ( I had it turned way down) I think if it had been back a little farther may have gotten a softer look. Both lights were bounced of umbreallas.

Lights are fill, Medialight XP600 set @ 1/2 with white umbrella and main alienbee B800 set @ 1/8 with silver unbrella. Again I am just learning to shoot with more than one light, used to just use a main light right above camera but want to more of a 3D portrait.

[rodbunn]

One thing I noticed if I put my camera in Manual mode.... Then I use
my hand meter to measure the light that "falls on the subject" and lets
say for example I'm using one light (for simplicity) and I set my light
to read F5.6 (falling on the subject, not reflected)... Ok, so if I set my
10D to 5.6, THAT's WRONG... THe 10D measures "reflected". So it's
not good to do it that way.

I don't know why I added this... I don't have a job so all I do is sit
around READING THIS BOARD :lol:
And shoot weddings on the weekends :shock:

Later everyone! Rod

[dennykyser]

But in manual it shouldnt matter how your camrea meters the subject, it is your handheld meter doing the reading and your just setting the camera to those settings. I could be wrong but this is how I think it works.

[samdring]

Was really enjoying this thread till denny and rod got technical - brain scambled :wink:

[dennykyser]

OK someone step in here and set the record straight.. I am not claiming to be right, just what I was thinking and we all know that is a job in its self.
:D

[rodbunn]

Only if your camera has control of the flash... Like in ETTL mode.
I was talking about if I set the strobes manually so my meter reads
ambient 5.6, then I set the 10D to 5.6 it's going to read reflected 5.6
which will be different depending on the subject.

Well now that I've talked about it, maybe I'm looking at it the wrong
way. I shouldn't have given it any thought :) Maybe you are right
Denny.....

I'll have to think about it LONGER.....

Everyone should probably ignore me anyway (I'm pretty sure most
of you do), I ramble and don't make much sense.....

[rodbunn]

I set my strobe to read 5.6 ambient on a person's face. Then I put my
10D in "P" mode and (while firing the flash through the PC connector so
there was NO ETTL) I took the shot and the 10D said 1/60 @ F4 . . . .


Figure that one out :)

[G3]

Only if your camera has control of the flash... Like in ETTL mode.
I was talking about if I set the strobes manually so my meter reads
ambient 5.6, then I set the 10D to 5.6 it's going to read reflected 5.6
which will be different depending on the subject.

Well now that I've talked about it, maybe I'm looking at it the wrong
way. I shouldn't have given it any thought :) Maybe you are right
Denny.....

I'll have to think about it LONGER.....

Everyone should probably ignore me anyway (I'm pretty sure most
of you do), I ramble and don't make much sense.....




Are you using the hand-held meter to try to read the flash as reflected off the subject? Or, are you metering the flash directly with a hand-held flash meter?

[rodbunn]

Yep, directly. Not reflected.

[G3]

Yep, directly. Not reflected.

Pointing the dome at the flash itself, right?

[karusel]

Nice portraits!

Regarding theory, I am pretty sure that perspective depends only on actual distance from the subject. To get the same framing, the cropping factor forces the users of a 50mm lens on a 1.6 crop factor SLR to step back to exactly the same spot where one would stand with 80mm lens on a full-frame SLR. Which makes perspective in both portraits exactly the same, i.e. pleasing 8)

This is EXACTLY what I wanted to say... :D it simply cannot be other than you've put it. It is the distance that decides the perspective the lens only 'crops' the subject out...

So here we are then, what is the perfect distance for a portrait? :lol:

[dennykyser]

I use the meter (Sekonic L358) with dome out and in ambient (flash) mode, meaning I am measuring the light as it falls on the subject.

I dont want to use reflected. then as each subject changed the reflected reading would also. I want to set the lights and camera then just concentrate on posing.

[rodbunn]

At the flash....

[dennykyser]

Boy is this post taking a SPIN :roll: :shock:

[rodbunn]

The more I think about it, if you read dome at the flash and
it's 5.6 then you do set the 10D to 5.6 . . . . . Makes sense,
why would the camera read reflected in the manual mode, it
should be 5.6 and that's it.

OK, I was wrong.....

Sorry about the TWIST !

[G3]

At the flash....

Cool. So does that meter for over or underexposure? What I mean is, if you set it up according to the flash meter readings, does it over or underexpose the shot?

Have you tried then measuring ambient also and averaging the two?

[IndyJeff]

Denny a buddy of mine who does weddings gave me a tip on doing portrait type shots with digital. It didn't cost a lot, it was called a diffuser filter. They also have a soft filter. The guy at Roberts in Indy that I consulted with said it was all a matter of preference and he happened to also like the diffuser better. So that's what I went with, a Hoya 52mm diffuser. I think it was about $10 or so.
I did notice that it makes it a little harder for the AF to work so, I went to MF.

Nothing terribly wrong with either of those images you posted, BTW.

[dennykyser]

I am sure if I had taken a little longer in Photoshop I could have fixed some of these problems. I am going to do some enlargements from the pictures I have taken this weekend and when I decide I will be at the raw and work with them. I did as my son what he thought about all this and this was his reply.

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/13/38/1173813-a0a393d7d2d13112.jpg

[Doug Rowan]

I use my 50mm/f1.8 for portraits all the time...
http://www.stampgroup.com/modules/gallery/albums/album17/KFac51W.jpg

[drisley]

Whoa!
Amazing shots!

Doug, was that shot outdoors with a fill flash?
Or more involved lighting?

[dennykyser]

Great Portrait Doug,

Wow for a bad portrait lens she sure makes it pleasing. :D

I am glad to see I am not alone using 50mm for portraits.

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Great Portrait Doug,

Wow for a bad portrait lens she sure makes it pleasing. :D

I am glad to see I am not alone using 50mm for portraits.

I like both your shots and Doug's. The two pictures of your son are really great.
I don't think that a good shot should have to be lens-dependent.

[Doug Rowan]

Doug, was that shot outdoors with a fill flash?
Or more involved lighting?

Existing light only. I had a reflector with me but it was too windy to use. It was a very blue-sky, sunny day & we were under an awning fairly close to the edge. Kelly's eyes just sucked up the sky color!

http://www.stampgroup.com/modules/gallery/albums/album17/KOne39OMP.jpg

[rodbunn]

I don't do many portraits but I do throw my $60 (new) Canon
50mm 1.8 and set it to F1.8 and shoot some candids... at weddings
I love that lense.
This turned out to be 1/45 for f1.8 but I took it anyway..

http://www.xposeu.com/guitar.jpg

[G3]

As can be plainly seen from all of the above photos, a 50mm is a terrible portrait lens. :)

[Hatem Eldoronki]

As can be plainly seen from all of the above photos, a 50mm is a terrible portrait lens. :)

Here's another..

http://home.comcast.net/~eldoronki/omar50mm.jpg

[G3]

Horrible, simply horrible. :)

Actually, all of the above photos are pretty impressive considering they were all taken with a lens that is NOT a good portrait lens. I think that it has been adequately proven that the idea that a 50mm is not a good portrait lens is quite flawed. It sounds to me like someone who has not had good results themselves using a particular lens, thus decides it must be a bad lens and no one else could possibly get better results than they did. As I said earlier, a good portrait photographer can make a good portrait from almost any lens. The key is understanding the perspective the lens presents, understanding composition and using them to your advantage to make the portrait work. All of the above photos are good example of that.

[jyrgen]

Here is one more with 50/1.4, wide open:

http://www.hot.ee/jyrgen/tiina2.jpg

[dennykyser]

One more awful picture with one of those 50mm lenses that shoudnt be used for portraits.

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/40/41/1174140-64ac949aa479bda0.jpg

[rodbunn]

10.0

[Hatem Eldoronki]

Actually, as far as I understand, a 50mm lens would make the facial features of a person more protruding and unflattering..in other words, it brings out the truth! A longer lens would lessen the ugliness, because it flattens the image.
I know this, and I still use my 50mm for protraits.
I like truth!

[evilenglishman]

Regarding the use of strobes and light meters. You should have your camera in manual when using strobes, and when in manual the camera's meter doesn't work

[Tom W]

Actually, as far as I understand, a 50mm lens would make the facial features of a person more protruding and unflattering..in other words, it brings out the truth! A longer lens would lessen the ugliness, because it flattens the image.
I know this, and I still use my 50mm for protraits.
I like truth!

Which brings out the point that I was trying to make (and I always have a terrible way of making points) - a 50 mm on a 10D is a telephoto lens, not a "normal" lens. It performs on a 1.6X sensor what an 80 (approx) mm lens does on a 35 mm camera, and what 18-or so mm does on my S-400 as far as emphasizing facial features. So, on the 10D, the 28 mm lens with its almost "normal" field of view would produce a similar emphasis or perspective to that of a 50 on a typical 35 mm. Likewise, an 18 mm lens on the tiny S-400 will act as a short telephoto just as a 50 does on the 10D and an 80 does on 35 (again, not an exact measurement, but I'm too lazy to do any math) and will give that slightly compressed type of perspective.

BTW, Denny and the rest, great pictures. Doug Rowan, yours are, as always, good. I think that Kelly needs to schedule a trip to Chattanooga. ;)

PS - Now I need to read the thread more thoroughly - there's some very good information on lighting here. I have yet to make the shoe flash work to my advantage.

[G3]

Regarding the use of strobes and light meters. You should have your camera in manual when using strobes, and when in manual the camera's meter doesn't work

But...but...it DOES work in manual mode. It's just that the camera does not select aperture and shutter speed for you. You have to do that. The meter still works in manual, though.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Regarding the use of strobes and light meters. You should have your camera in manual when using strobes, and when in manual the camera's meter doesn't work

But...but...it DOES work in manual mode. It's just that the camera does not select aperture and shutter speed for you. You have to do that. The meter still works in manual, though.

..and the little dot below the image in the veiwfinder tells you whether you are over or under exposing, and by how much.. :)

Yep the meter allway works,. even with manual lenses..

[kraterz]

Who cares? If you love using a 600/4 as a portrait lens, great. I've used everything from a 15mm fisheye to a 200/2.8 as portrait lenses. Each produces its own unique look. I really don't understand this straight jacket concept that only 85mm or 50mm or whatever makes a good portrait lens. Hell with the others. Shoot what you like.

[G3]

Who cares? If you love using a 600/4 as a portrait lens, great. I've used everything from a 15mm fisheye to a 200/2.8 as portrait lenses. Each produces its own unique look. I really don't understand this straight jacket concept that only 85mm or 50mm or whatever makes a good portrait lens. Hell with the others. Shoot what you like.

My sentiments exactly. If it works for you, use it.

[chris.bailey]

Actually, as far as I understand, a 50mm lens would make the facial features of a person more protruding and unflattering..in other words, it brings out the truth! A longer lens would lessen the ugliness, because it flattens the image.
I know this, and I still use my 50mm for protraits.
I like truth!

That is the whole point about focal length of a portrait lense. What is being forgotten is that not all facial features are the same distance from the lense. A wide angle lense will tend to make nose and lips look bigger (in a head and shoulders shot they are closer to the lense) whereas a telephoto will tend to play them down a little. The classical portrait lenses are those that are quite neutral for the sixe of film being used. I think the 50mm on a 1.6 crop 35 makes about 80mm and that this is fairly neutral.

ps Nice shot Doug, as always

[samdring]

I accept readily all your points that to get the same framed shot, one would have to be the same distance with 50mm (1.6) and 80mm (35) and that, therefore, perspective is the same but...are we also saying that the manipulation of the light by those two different lenses is identical? I suspect not but don't have the knowledge to understand the marginal effects.

[evilenglishman]

Regarding the use of strobes and light meters. You should have your camera in manual when using strobes, and when in manual the camera's meter doesn't work

But...but...it DOES work in manual mode. It's just that the camera does not select aperture and shutter speed for you. You have to do that. The meter still works in manual, though.

..and the little dot below the image in the veiwfinder tells you whether you are over or under exposing, and by how much.. :)

Yep the meter allway works,. even with manual lenses..

Okay, it still has "functionality" but it will never work as it cannot sync with the stobes to give an accurate reading, its obviously giving a reading at what its looking at without the flash heads firing

[evilenglishman]

I think that Kelly needs to schedule a trip to Chattanooga. ;)


Edited, my applogies

[martcol]

[quote="Doug Rowan"]I use my 50mm/f1.8 for portraits all the time...
[quote]

Hubba, Hubba!

She'd make any lens a good portrait lens!

I must use my 50mm 1.8 more.

Does a 50mm lens make a bad portrait photographer (or just bad photographer) take good portraits? I wish!

Martin

[randyk]

i think it works well but you have to consider where you are shooting. Indoors, you are talking pretty in your face unless you are in a big room. Outdoors, I like a longer lens for candids - 80mm or 70-200.

[G3]

Regarding the use of strobes and light meters. You should have your camera in manual when using strobes, and when in manual the camera's meter doesn't work

But...but...it DOES work in manual mode. It's just that the camera does not select aperture and shutter speed for you. You have to do that. The meter still works in manual, though.

..and the little dot below the image in the veiwfinder tells you whether you are over or under exposing, and by how much.. :)

Yep the meter allway works,. even with manual lenses..

Okay, it still has "functionality" but it will never work as it cannot sync with the stobes to give an accurate reading, its obviously giving a reading at what its looking at without the flash heads firing

Ahhh...now, that's true. However, if you are using a Canon dedicated Speedlight, such as a 550EX, the camera still defaults to fill-flash mode and fires a preflash and calculates the flash automatically, even using multiple Speedlights in wireless mode. The 10D switches to center-weighted mode in Manual mode for calculating fill-flash.

Here's a link that pretty well explains E-TTL in all of the modes for Canon EOS cameras:

http://www.photonotes.org/articles/eos-flash/index2.html#confusion

[evilenglishman]

G3 - yes thats tue but his post was about....

Only if your camera has control of the flash... Like in ETTL mode.
I was talking about if I set the strobes manually so my meter reads
ambient 5.6, then I set the 10D to 5.6 it's going to read reflected 5.6
which will be different depending on the subject....

:wink:

[G3]

G3 - yes thats tue but his post was about....

Only if your camera has control of the flash... Like in ETTL mode.
I was talking about if I set the strobes manually so my meter reads
ambient 5.6, then I set the 10D to 5.6 it's going to read reflected 5.6
which will be different depending on the subject....

:wink:

Ahh..yes..that's true. When using non-dedicated external flash, the camera can't possibly evaluate it. That's when you need to read the flash value directly with a hand-held. But you have to remember that when you are using flash, you are really using two light sources, the ambient (background light and natural reflected light on the subject) and the flash which is a supplement to the ambient light. You are using shutter speed and aperture in the camera to control the exposure of the background, and controlling the amount of flash to properly expose the subject. So, an incident reading of the subject is meaningless. The incident reading needs to be of the background.

[Doug Rowan]

Tom W wrote:

I think that Kelly needs to schedule a trip to Chattanooga.
..and get a nose job, or is that the lens j/k

j/k or not...

Kelly is the best & to have her see this would not be good for anyone. I won't post here again, as I refuse to lose great models over insensitive comments. It's a sad thing when you can't point a model to a thread with her mentioned in it without her getting shot down or having some low-life comment made about her. I couldn't care less if the comment was made about me, my lens, camera, height or skill...this crap won't fly & I won't feed the mill.

[evilenglishman]

Doug, I have removed the remark and mailed you.

[karusel]

Doug, chill... I understood that as 'this lens is not a perfect/good/suitable portrait lens, since it makes nose/whatever appear bigger than it is' and I do believe Tom had no intention of offending Kelly or you since it is apparent that photos are great and the model is... well, let me put it this way: nobody would mind having this girl for a girlfriend.

[Tom W]

Tom W wrote:

I think that Kelly needs to schedule a trip to Chattanooga.
..and get a nose job, or is that the lens j/k

j/k or not...

Kelly is the best & to have her see this would not be good for anyone. I won't post here again, as I refuse to lose great models over insensitive comments. It's a sad thing when you can't point a model to a thread with her mentioned in it without her getting shot down or having some low-life comment made about her. I couldn't care less if the comment was made about me, my lens, camera, height or skill...this crap won't fly & I won't feed the mill.

Doug, I don't know how it got attributed to me, but I did not make the second part of that comment. Yes, I jokingly suggested that she needed a trip to Chattanooga, but I don't know where the "nose" comment came from nor do I know how it got attached to my quote. I did not write it.

Kelly is a beautiful model, and I would not insult her even if she were not.

[evilenglishman]

tom,
I'm the guilty party :oops: , I've removed the remark and appologised to Doug via email.

[Tom W]

Thanks for stepping up. You're not as Evil as your name implies. :)

[CanonUser]

As I remember from the photo classes I took (in the early 80s), all lens have a certain distortion characteristic. The basic distortion being barelling for wide-angle lens and pincushioning for tele lens. If it's a prime, the distortion can be minized but it's still there to some degree. The lens in the range of 85mm-105mm have been the favorite among photographers who take portraiture photography due to the way they shape the facial features (cheeks and noses, in particular) plus their tendency to make the face looks slimmer and therefore more flattering. A portrait taken with a 28mm and a 85mm lens will have different look, assuming the shooting distances were adjusted to achieve the same cropping in both photos. The 10D/300D will apply an additional 1.6X cropping to the image a lens produces, howerver, the distortion is still there; Thus, a portrait taken with a 50mm lens will look different with one taken with a 85mm lens.
With that said, I don't believe in a "good portrait" lens. A good portrait is made up of elements including lighting, posing, the message to be conveyed, the subject, the subject's expression, and the intended mood. I'd use a fish-eye to for portrait of a clown, a 28mm for my 9 month-old's funny faces, and a tele for my wedding brides' portraits (since these portraits seem to be the favorites with my customers). So a 85mm can enhance a portrait under a certain condition, but not all photo will require a 85mm lens to be a good portrait.
The only absolute element that determines how good a portrait can be is the photographer's ability and knowledge.

It's lust my $.02

Regards,
Alan

[karusel]

Now that was helpful!

[Ferdinand]

These days with digital imaging and post processing you just need a good lens to get you the picture you want, and then you can post process it to your own liking. A good lens just makes things easier. There is no "bad" lens really, you just have to be a good photographer and like what Alan said, get the basics of lighting, composing etc. right.

Regards,
Ferdinand

[Tom W]

As I remember from the photo classes I took (in the early 80s), all lens have a certain distortion characteristic. The basic distortion being barelling for wide-angle lens and pincushioning for tele lens. If it's a prime, the distortion can be minized but it's still there to some degree. The lens in the range of 85mm-105mm have been the favorite among photographers who take portraiture photography due to the way they shape the facial features (cheeks and noses, in particular) plus their tendency to make the face looks slimmer and therefore more flattering. A portrait taken with a 28mm and a 85mm lens will have different look, assuming the shooting distances were adjusted to achieve the same cropping in both photos. The 10D/300D will apply an additional 1.6X cropping to the image a lens produces, howerver, the distortion is still there; Thus, a portrait taken with a 50mm lens will look different with one taken with a 85mm lens.
With that said, I don't believe in a "good portrait" lens. A good portrait is made up of elements including lighting, posing, the message to be conveyed, the subject, the subject's expression, and the intended mood. I'd use a fish-eye to for portrait of a clown, a 28mm for my 9 month-old's funny faces, and a tele for my wedding brides' portraits (since these portraits seem to be the favorites with my customers). So a 85mm can enhance a portrait under a certain condition, but not all photo will require a 85mm lens to be a good portrait.
The only absolute element that determines how good a portrait can be is the photographer's ability and knowledge.

It's lust my $.02

Regards,
Alan

You're partially right - lenses with barrel or pincushion distortion will exhibit those characteristics regardless of the camera they are placed upon. But, those distortions are relatively minor (unless its a bad lens) when compared to the percieved distortions (or more realistically varied perspective distortions) that occur when the field of view changes. Again, I ask, why does an S-400 with its zoom lens set at 20 mm look and act like a telephoto in terms of how the image is percieved? It isn't the absolute focal length of the lens but the length of lens in relation to the sensor size - IOW, the field of view.

[nosquare2003]

CanonUser:

1. I agree with TomW that the distortion is not significant for quality lens when compared to distortion caused by different perspective;
2. The barrell, pincushion distortion for a 50mm prime is usually minimal as I remember.
3. Yes in the 80s, prime lenses are the best because the glass is specially designed for the certain focal length. But now, the gap is very close with quality zoom lens. (MFT graphs may show it.)
4. Same to you, I don't believe in a "good portrait" lens either.

[Tom W]

4. Same to you, I don't believe in a "good portrait" lens either.

I forgot to add - I don't necessarily believe in a "good portrait lens" either, but do agree that moderate telephoto lenses do lead to a less distorted view of subjects than do shorter, wider lenses. In fact, I'd venture to say that very long telephoto lenses would create very natural-looking portraits, at least as far as the subject is concerned. Problem there is that most people don't have enough room to use such a lens.

But its all in the effect you're trying to acheive. Formal portraits are one thing - artistic renderings are another, and news photos are yet another. Different circumstances call for different approaches.

Good discussion here - its caused me to think this through a bit for myself.

[CanonUser]

Tom, NoSquare,
Life is full of compromise. Thus, lens distortion is an inherent part of a desired "angle of view." If there is a manufacturing or design process to circumvent this law-of-physics limitation, we'd have seen it by now. Digital photography is so exciting because for the first time, we have the chance to manipulate and correct an image to our liking. PS-CS RAW module, for instance, allows us to do some CA correction in post processing. A software company has come up with an alogrithm to correct lens distortion (barelling, pincushioning, CA) in camera before the file is written to the CF card. There will be a stand alone version of this SW for the desktop computer. Phillips recently announced a hydro morhing lens technology, where electrical signal would trigger fluid contained inside a lens to change the lens element's shape, and thus, the focus. Down the road, I can see that one day we'll set the portrait mode on the camera, and the lens'd adapt itself to the preferrence pre-programmed by the photographer.

Regards,
Alan

[Tom W]

Tom, NoSquare,
Life is full of compromise. Thus, lens distortion is an inherent part of a desired "angle of view." If there is a manufacturing or design process to circumvent this law-of-physics limitation, we'd have seen it by now. Digital photography is so exciting because for the first time, we have the chance to manipulate and correct an image to our liking. PS-CS RAW module, for instance, allows us to do some CA correction in post processing. A software company has come up with an alogrithm to correct lens distortion (barelling, pincushioning, CA) in camera before the file is written to the CF card. There will be a stand alone version of this SW for the desktop computer. Phillips recently announced a hydro morhing lens technology, where electrical signal would trigger fluid contained inside a lens to change the lens element's shape, and thus, the focus. Down the road, I can see that one day we'll set the portrait mode on the camera, and the lens'd adapt itself to the preferrence pre-programmed by the photographer.

Regards,
Alan

But again, Alan, I believe that you are substituting lens distortions for actual perceptions based on the field of view (or maybe I'm misunderstanding you here). Barrel and pincushion distortions are lens-based abberations that can be corrected to a great extent, though not perfectly. But the perspective characteristics that one gets from telephoto vs. normal vs. wide angle are not barrel or pincushion distortions. They are simply perceptions that occur when the field of view differs from that of the human eye (that's not to say, of course, that there cannot be a software algorithm that changes this perception as well).

When the field of view is wider than that of the human eye's field of vision, the relative closeness of objects in view is egaderated, causing the nose to look big and the hairline to look more distant (large forehead) when compared to the actual person. Close things look much larger and distant things look smaller and more distant.

A lens with the same FOV of the human eye (approx. 50 mm on a 35 mm camera, around 30 or so on a 10D) should provide the most natural-looking size/distance relationship. For portraiture, this isn't always the best perspective - people tend to want to be pictured at their best.

A telephoto lens tends to shorten the percieved distance relationships, making the distance between close and distant objects seem shorter than it really is. That lessens the prominence of features on human subjects and makes for a more flattering image (Its also useful for its shallow DOF capabilities, but that doesn't seem to be the argument here). That is why pros use them.

[CanonUser]

Is it possible to design a fish-eye lens to physically capture an image without the barel distortion? What do you see when a photo is taken with that lens? How does one see a wide angle-of -view with his/her own eyes, or we can only see the pictures representing such images taken with a camera? If one can some how select to see the world in a variable angle-of-view mode, then he can simply add or substract the visual data at the perimeter, and if he was looking at the nose of another person facing him, then the change of the angle-of-view wouldn't affect the size or shape of the nose because the distance between the 2 has not changed at all while the angle-of-view is being changed. If he walked up to the other person and looked at the nose at 6-inch away, then the nose would become enlarged and distorted while the angle-of-view remained constant. Another analogy would be a theater curtain being pulled open. The agle-of-view gets wider as the curtain separates apart while the view from both side of the curtain stayed the same. It's the distance relationship that dictates the degree of distortion in our vision. To take a picture with the same cropping, you would have to be much closer to your subject when using a 28mm lens than a 85mm lens, hence the distance and the lens distortion both contribute to the bareeling effect that we see.

Regards,
Alan

[nosquare2003]

CanonUser

1. Fish eye lens is not a good example as it has not been corrected for distortion.
2. This thread is related to 50/1.4. How serious the barrel distortion of this 50/1.4 to affect it as a portrait lens (as compared to a 85mm in a film camera with same perspective)?
3. Is the distortion the same from centre to peripheral of a lens? Will cropping be an issue?

[CanonUser]

CanonUser

1. Fish eye lens is not a good example as it has not been corrected for distortion.
2. This thread is related to 50/1.4. How serious the barrel distortion of this 50/1.4 to affect it as a portrait lens (as compared to a 85mm in a film camera with same perspective)?
3. Is the distortion the same from centre to peripheral of a lens? Will cropping be an issue?

1. Fish eye is just an extreme example.
2. Not very serious if you don't care much about it. I wouldn't sweat the last 10%.
3. I suspect not. If you swap the WA angle for the Tele and take the picture from the same spot, the subject size would be reduced. But if you enlarge the image to achieve the Tele's cropping, the subject's feature wouldn't be as distorted as if you walk up close to to the in camera cropping.

Like I said, a perfect lens contributes only a small part to a good portrait. What matter most is how the portrait appeals to the photographer. In my case, how they appeal to my customers. All I was trying do is contributing my opinion that distortion is a function of distance, and less so of field-of-view. I'm not out to prove that any other point of view is wrong at all. I'm here to learn as well.

Regards,
Alan

[Tom W]

Is it possible to design a fish-eye lens to physically capture an image without the barel distortion? What do you see when a photo is taken with that lens?

A fisheye lens is uncorrected - most lenses are corrected.

How does one see a wide angle-of -view with his/her own eyes, or we can only see the pictures representing such images taken with a camera?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that question. You see what you see - the eye's angle of view is pretty-much set within a small variance from person to person. And that angle of view is fairly closely represented by a 50 mm lens on a 35 mm film medium, or about 30 mm on a so-called APS-sized sensor such as found in the 10D.

If one can some how select to see the world in a variable angle-of-view mode, then he can simply add or substract the visual data at the perimeter, and if he was looking at the nose of another person facing him, then the change of the angle-of-view wouldn't affect the size or shape of the nose because the distance between the 2 has not changed at all while the angle-of-view is being changed. If he walked up to the other person and looked at the nose at 6-inch away, then the nose would become enlarged and distorted while the angle-of-view remained constant.

I think you're saying exactly what I was saying except that you pointed out what I thought was a reasonable assumption - that you'd walk towards or away from your subject depending on the lens to obtain a proper portrait framing. I think one would be stretching it a bit to call a wide-angle shot from across a large room a "portrait". Anyway, you're right - it is required that one adjust their distance from the subject to obtain the effects that I had described in my last post. But, one must also be cognizant of the angle of view - A telephoto from 6" away isn't going to show the relative closeness of anything much beyond the nose as it will not be able to include anything but the nose. :)

Another analogy would be a theater curtain being pulled open. The agle-of-view gets wider as the curtain separates apart while the view from both side of the curtain stayed the same. It's the distance relationship that dictates the degree of distortion in our vision. To take a picture with the same cropping, you would have to be much closer to your subject when using a 28mm lens than a 85mm lens, hence the distance and the lens distortion both contribute to the bareeling effect that we see.

Regards,
Alan

I'm not going to disagree about the distance, as I pointed out above. But I wish you'd quit calling a point-of-perception difference "barrel distortion". Its a separate, measureable issue. Also, I'll point out that a 28 mm lens on a 10D sized sensor will provide a similar view to that of a 50 mm lens on a 35 mm camera. Take a few identical pictures of the same object, from the same place. Use a 28 mm lens on the 10D or DigiReb, and a 50 mm lens on the 35 mm film camera. Compare the prints.

You'll not see any appreciable difference, other than a slight difference in coverage. There will be no "wide angle" look to the 28 mm lens on the 10D, at least no more than what the 50 has on a 35 mm camera.

[CanonUser]

How does one see a wide angle-of -view with his/her own eyes, or we can only see the pictures representing such images taken with a camera?

I'm not sure what you're getting at with that question. You see what you see - the eye's angle of view is pretty-much set within a small variance from person to person.

That's what I mean. You're born with a field of view and that's what you got. You can only see the image of a wider or narrower field of view through a camera lens.

Regardless of what a "good portrait" lens is, here are some "good portrait" to me. Both are snap shot from the 300D with the kit lens. The one in color was taken by my wife while I propped up the little guy by holding his coat on the back. He was actually leaning against my knee. I straighened, cropped, color corrected, and added the background in PS. It's not a technical masterpiece by any long shot, but it's a great portrait to me because his expression was just right for this particular photo, and I'll never be able to take the same photo with better equipment. BTW, my wife has zero knowlege about photography. I set up the exposure, handed her the camera, told her to keep snapping away as long as the little guy stayed still, and kept my finger crossed.

http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/ViewPhoto?u=4182937&a=31066994&p=66607844

Regards,
Alan

[nosquare2003]

Hi CanonUser

According to the Photodo, http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html, the barrel / pincushion distortion for a 50/1.4 is negligible...

(My question for lens peripheral / centre was a plot. I shouldn't have asked it. Anyway I think that our argument is nothing important, I will stop here.)

[Tom W]

Alan,

Very nice portrait in the first one. The second is more candid, still nice, though it does seem to show a little camera movement. Still, at the rate at which youngsters move about, it pretty difficult to get their picture at all, let alone get them to hold still for an instant.

Here's what I was trying to illustrate in words - and I'm not the best at using words sometimes:

This first photo was taken with my S-400 at full telephoto - 22.2 mm. Note that the sensor size is 1/1.8 inches or 0.55 inches though I'm not sure if they measure diagonally or what. Anyway, here it is with a very slight crop to match the 2/3 aspect ratio of the 10D (its a 4/3 sensor) and to match the picture's contents:

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/22mmS400.jpg

The second photo was taken with my 10D from the same vantage point. The zoom was at 80 mm, according to the EXIF data:

http://home.comcast.net/~trwilk3/Images/80mm10D.jpg

Other than the fact that my 10D picture is slightly tilted (my old tripod has poleo and will soon be replaced by something more sturdy), there doesn't appear to be any appreciable difference between the two as far as visible perspective is concerned.

BTW, according to Canon, the full zoom position on the S-400, 22.2 mm, is the "35 mm equivalent of 108 mm, while 80 mm on the 10D times 1.6 equals 128. I think I could have gotten things slightly closer had I spent a little more time (the S-400 picture did include a little wall on either side of the fireplace before I cropped it).

Anyway, my point was that a very short lens with a small sensor will exhibit the spacial qualities of a longer lens with a larger sensor. DOF, of course, is a different story. I could have opened up the 10D aperture quite a bit more and gotten some blurring in the photo which would have been a nice effect, though not as illustrative.

[CanonUser]

Hi CanonUser

According to the Photodo, http://www.photodo.com/nav/prodindex.html, the barrel / pincushion distortion for a 50/1.4 is negligible...

(My question for lens peripheral / centre was a plot. I shouldn't have asked it. Anyway I think that our argument is nothing important, I will stop here.)

I agree, this argument is a non issue. Some prefer the 85mm because the extra "squeeze" on the portrait, if you prefer the less distorted look of the 50mm, more power to you! Like I've been saying all along, the only thing counts is what makes you happy.

Regards,
Alan

[CanonUser]

Tom,
The DR actually caught the 2nd photo with the background in good focus. I added the motion blur in PS to connect the 2 subjects in the image plus the suggest the speed and plyfulness of the loittle guy. You're right though, a child and a NASCAR speed machine both are fast, only the car motion is predictable.
Regards,
Alan

[Mikesht]

I am not a pro in a sence that I do not make money by photographing people and such, but I have been around photography phorums and sites enough to be convinced: you can make a good portrait with almost any lens (witheen reasons). It all depends on your definition of "good".
I beleave that you can make a great portrait with 50mm on digital, although I agree that rendition is not the same as 75mm lens.
As far as this particular portraits, I do not especially like them, but it's not because 50mm lens. If you would like I can elaborate, if not- that's my 2 cents anyway. :-))

[Doug Rowan]

I am not a pro in a sence that I do not make money by photographing people and such, but I have been around photography phorums and sites enough to be convinced: you can make a good portrait with almost any lens (witheen reasons). It all depends on your definition of "good".
I beleave that you can make a great portrait with 50mm on digital, although I agree that rendition is not the same as 75mm lens.
As far as this particular portraits, I do not especially like them, but it's not because 50mm lens. If you would like I can elaborate, if not- that's my 2 cents anyway. :-))

Can you do it in Eeenglish?

[Mikesht]

I am not a pro in a sence that I do not make money by photographing people and such, but I have been around photography phorums and sites enough to be convinced: you can make a good portrait with almost any lens (witheen reasons). It all depends on your definition of "good".
I beleave that you can make a great portrait with 50mm on digital, although I agree that rendition is not the same as 75mm lens.
As far as this particular portraits, I do not especially like them, but it's not because 50mm lens. If you would like I can elaborate, if not- that's my 2 cents anyway. :-))

Can you do it in Eeenglish?


English is not my first language, as you keenly noticed. I speak Russian, know Ukrainian an can get buy in Polish. How manu languages can you communicate in?
If it bothers you that I do not particularly like these pictures, I am sorry. I offered my explanations (to an author that is) if needed.
Mikhail

[msvadi]

I wonder if any one could post two pictures of the same subject, both taken from the same distance, but one taken with a 50mm on a camera with 1.6x cropping factor and another one with 80mm focal length on a full frame camera. I would do that, but I only have a DRebel.

If you do that, please, don't tell us which picture is taken with what lens. let us guess ;)

[karusel]

Tom, no disrespect, but I don't think your shots are appropriate to judge perspective differences; I think it's obvious that the differences are very subtle, however they probably appear only in 3D space, rather than 2D (your scene however is too flat), hence it should be a portrait shot, or... umm.... maybe chess figures placed across the chessboard... I cannot explain how, but try to picture where I'm going with this... Anyhow it might be worth trying. :wink: I'd do it myself if I could...

[Tom W]

Tom, no disrespect, but I don't think your shots are appropriate to judge perspective differences; I think it's obvious that the differences are very subtle, however they probably appear only in 3D space, rather than 2D (your scene however is too flat), hence it should be a portrait shot, or... umm.... maybe chess figures placed across the chessboard... I cannot explain how, but try to picture where I'm going with this... Anyhow it might be worth trying. :wink: I'd do it myself if I could...

I agree after looking at it - there's no depth from which to judge. If I can find the old chess set (its in a box somewhere), maybe I'll fiddle around with it a little. Or something with some front-to-back depth.

Actually, I think a real human portrait would be best. I wonder where I can find one of those around here..... :)

[karusel]

A lifesize statue would be perfect. Or somebody sleeping. :D It would be easier to judge two photos that have as little differences as possible - except those who we are observing of course.

[drisley]

Look at the pictures here.
You will see virtually no difference (except background blur) between the 85mm, 100mm and 135mm shots.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/perspectest.htm

[karusel]

EXCELLENT link!

However the differences are visible. The 135mm seems to produce skinnier faces, the 85mm the opposite, and I find 135 more likable... A few times I mixed up the 85 and the 135 though. Perhaps this has something to do with differend apertures... I have not yet an idea how this correlates, if at all...

I'd still like to see the chessboard...

[Cadwell]

Look at the pictures here.
You will see virtually no difference (except background blur) between the 85mm, 100mm and 135mm shots.

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/perspectest.htm

Actually, I see quite a marked difference in the "shape" of the face, with the 85mm being consistently the most pleasing to me.

[LiquidDye]

Well the only other thing I think that has been missed from the complete threads is the factor of the F stops to the lenses letting in more / less light.
On the Canon 50mm it can go down to F1, on the L series, or F1.4 & F1.8 on the standard usm. The Canon 85mm can go to F1.2 L series and F1.8 on the standard usm. The more light the less need for flash and possibly a more natural result and less blur with a low F stop.
The fact the 50/85 L series lenses cost over £900/$1500 and the standard usm's cost less than a third comparitely, a cheap 50mm F1.4 in the uk is £269 the F1.8 II is only £85, the F1.0 L 50mm is £950. Is the extra .4 worth the extra £600? The .4 difference is the same for the 85mm as is the difference in cost. I know they are L series lenses your paying for but if you only use it in a studio safe from the elements how much better are they does the extra .4 make up for the £600 becuase Im not sure if the fact they are L series would.

[msvadi]

In my opnion 135 gives a more flattering perspective. But I mixed 85 and 100 many times. Anyway, the pictures taken with 100 and 85 are quite pleasant too ;)
Still, I think that the original question remains open: will a 50mm lens with 1.6x crop factor behave EXACTLY as a 80mm lens on a full frame camera?

[drisley]

EXCELLENT link!

However the differences are visible. The 135mm seems to produce skinnier faces, the 85mm the opposite, and I find 135 more likable... A few times I mixed up the 85 and the 135 though. Perhaps this has something to do with differend apertures... I have not yet an idea how this correlates, if at all...

I'd still like to see the chessboard...

The difference is still too small for most to notice.
And if you look at the images 25-27, image 26 is the skinniest looking, if only by a hair, and that is shot with the 85mm.

So, even if there is a differnce in perspective, it's soooo small it's really not worth worrying about.
As mentioned " Effects are generally overshadowed by posture, angle to the camera and lighting."

[CanonUser]

[quote="drisley

The difference is still too small for most to notice.
And if you look at the images 25-27, image 26 is the skinniest looking, if only by a hair, and that is shot with the 85mm.

So, even if there is a differnce in perspective, it's soooo small it's really not worth worrying about.
As mentioned " Effects are generally overshadowed by posture, angle to the camera and lighting."[/quote]

Unlike hired models or "best of the bunch" samples found in Internet galleries or porfolio, the majority of my clients have struggles with weight problems. I have one customer who has been delaying her scheduled engagement session a couple times despite this is one of the best time to take photo in the Bay Area. The reason, as I just found out, is she wants "just a little more time" to work on her diet. She is extremely self concious about her image and, in her own words, "love to see myself in photo and video".
Which of the lens would she choose? Of course, the one that makes her look thinner. Is there a difference? Not so much. Are they perceptible? Yes! Do the customer know the difference? Probably not. Can they see the difference? Yes. Which portrait will they purchase? Most likely the thinner one!
The lens cannot make a bad portrait any better. But, it can help a good portait by adding an extra measure of flattery to the look of the subject. Why do you think all major camera have a medium tele lens specifically designed as a "portrait lens"? I use all the tricks available to me so my customers can look like a star on their wedding day, in turn, that produces a steady stream of referrals, boosts my income, and gives me a good dose of self gratification.
Again, like I said before, there's no perfect "portrait lens". But a right lens can definitely help in selling a good portrait.

Regards,
Alan

[drisley]

True, but in some shots the 135mm makes the face appear skinnier, others the 85mm makes the face appear skinnier. So, it seems there is no clear answer as to which one will give the skinny effect.

[CanonUser]

True, but in some shots the 135mm makes the face appear skinnier, others the 85mm makes the face appear skinnier. So, it seems there is no clear answer as to which one will give the skinny effect.

That's why there's no perfect "portrait lens" and photographers have more than one lens in their arsenal.

Regards,
Alan

[drisley]

I absolutely agree.
8)