Portait Lens

[JeremyLangford]

Whats the best portrait lens to you guys?............Or just what mm is good for most face shots?

[remo]

Primes: 85 f1.8, 50 f1.4, 135 f2 (for crop body probably too long)

[richardho11]

The 85L is Canon's signature portature lens. It the best IMO.

[Amorous]

I'll second 85mm f/1.8. It's an excellent lens for head shots, and also for indoor sports. I took this shot using that lens. http://kaitcilla.smugmug.com/photos/86948677-L.jpg

[Wilt]

It depends upon what type of portraiture.

In the world of portraiture, the shooting distance from the subject defines the facial perspective that we generally find most pleasing and 'realistic'. The focal length for a given shooting distance (nominally 6-10' for studio portraiture) defines the 'framing' of the person and how fully they fill the frame area. Convention has found that in 35mm (FF dSLR) about:
70-90mm is good for waist-up portraits,
90-110mm is good for head and shoulder portraits, and
120-150 is good for headshots (a modelling and acting type of shot for sending out to casting people).

Of course, different photographers will tell you that THEY do not follow these conventions, but it is generally true that most professionals and amateurs in past decades with 35mm film have found these ranges to be valid ones -- until you discover your own style and preferences! Some people are quite uncomfortable shooting 6-10' away, and they are 'street portraitists' who shoot their subjects unknowingly from long distances.

For APS-C dSLR, divide the above by 1.6 in order to find the equivent for your camera.
So for portraiture for APS-C format camera, the numbers mentioned above would translate to:
about 50-60mm is good for waist-up portraits,
60-70mm is good for head and shoulder portraits, and
80-90 is good for headshots (a modelling and acting type of shot for sending out to casting people).

[Tee Why]

It depends on what length you shoot at, but 50mm f1.4, 85mm f1.8, 85mm f1.2, 100mmf2, and 135mm f2L are considered common portrait lenses.

[JMHPhotography]

What type of portrait? For head and shoulders, ANY of Canon's 85mm lenses are fantastic. I have the 85mm f/1.8, and I love it. If you can afford the 1.2 L go for it. It is a better lens, even if the 1.8 is fantastic too.

For full body, I think that depends on your camera. With a crop, the 50mm tends to be a little long if you don't have a whole lot of room to back up. I generally just use my 24-70 in the studio.

[redspyder]

I agree with forkball. I am usually all over the place in the studio and like a 24-70 for when I'm moving. When I sit them for a head shot I slap on the 50 1.4 for no other reason than I really like the images it produces with my setup.

[Stan43]

I like the 85 1.2L. The best I've used.

[sapearl]

Coming from that era I will strongly agree with Wilt. Having moved from film to a FF body I find these "rules" still hold good validity for the way I shoot. A 105mm lens would be quite good for head and shoulders shots. That's probably why I like my 24-105L so much.;)

Something longer than the normal FF focal length of around 50-55mm will usually give a more pleasant and flattering "look" to the subject, flattening perspective a little, and even subtracting a few pounds in the opinion of some. Anything in the wide angle range runs the danger of distorting facial features and making people look a bit overweight.

Some people use the latter lenses to good effect, but unless you really know what you're doing you can end up with some very unflattering shots.

............Convention has found that in 35mm (FF dSLR) about:
70-90mm is good for waist-up portraits,
90-110mm is good for head and shoulder portraits, and
120-150 is good for headshots (a modelling and acting type of shot for sending out to casting people).

Of course, different photographers will tell you that THEY do not follow these conventions, but it is generally true that most professionals and amateurs in past decades with 35mm film have found these ranges to be valid ones -- ..............about 50-60mm is good for waist-up portraits,
60-70mm is good for head and shoulder portraits, and
80-90 is good for headshots (a modelling and acting type of shot for sending out to casting people).

[DerekI]

For me , it is the EF-S60mm macro, I think this focal length is the best for portrait on my 1.6x crop cam.


the first pic was taken with my Tamron 17-50 at 50mm end, ISO400 , f2.8, SS1/125th.

the second one was taken with my Canon EF-S60mm macro , ISO400, F4,SS 1/80th.


I think for a 1.6 crop body , the EF85 f1.8 is too long and I will sell it, although it is a great lens.

I like the fact that I can use the EF-S60 for macro , cityscape and portrait.

This lens is very cool, when focuses it does not change its length , so it is a real compact lens.

[timnosenzo]

I use my 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8 or sometimes my 100mm f/2.8 macro.

[Justiner]

WILT, ON YOUR DISPLAY OF THE DIFFERENT LENS' USED FOR EACH DIFFERING PORTRAIT... COULD YOU GIVE THE PRICE RANGES??

[Wilt]

WILT, ON YOUR DISPLAY OF THE DIFFERENT LENS' USED FOR EACH DIFFERING PORTRAIT... COULD YOU GIVE THE PRICE RANGES??

Rather pointless...POTN is an international forum, and prices for the same lens are all over the place.

Besides I am trying to provide some technical pointers, not be an instant shopping service for people...unless you want to pay me for my shopping services! ;)

[sapearl]

I'm sure you don't really mean to be shouting at us :lol: .

WILT, ON YOUR DISPLAY OF THE DIFFERENT LENS' USED FOR EACH DIFFERING PORTRAIT... COULD YOU GIVE THE PRICE RANGES??

[Meatbarn]

For me , it is the EF-S60mm macro, I think this focal length is the best for portrait on my 1.6x crop cam.


the first pic was taken with my Tamron 17-50 at 50mm end, ISO400 , f2.8, SS1/125th.

the second one was taken with my Canon EF-S60mm macro , ISO400, F4,SS 1/80th.


I think for a 1.6 crop body , the EF85 f1.8 is too long and I will sell it, although it is a great lens.

I like the fact that I can use the EF-S60 for macro , cityscape and portrait.

This lens is very cool, when focuses it does not change its length , so it is a real compact lens.
Is it me or is the first photo sharper? Looking at the detail on his shirt I would say yes. Could be depth of field though.

[sapearl]

Looking at the "Vivitar" writing in the first photo, it appears sharper than what is shown in the second. I'd say the first has a slightly greater depth of field.

Is it me or is the first photo sharper? Looking at the detail on his shirt I would say yes. Could be depth of field though.