At least 130mm lenses for glamour shots?

[Sensographer]

Several times now I heard the argument that Head / shoulder shots at 50mm or 85mm on a full frame sensor have a distortion at that field-of-view and focal length is considered unflattering. Also it's said that this makes the nose more prominent and overall facial features appear proportionally larger than normal ("the camera always puts on 10 pounds") - so that way you don't get the classic beauty shots like for example the ones of Stephen Eastwood oder Philippe Salomomn.
It's recommended to use anything from 130mm to 200mm

What is your experience with that?
I ask because I was planning to buy a 85mm lens and now I start thinking if I better get a 70-200mm zoom or a 135mm lens.

[Kagemaru]

I shoot all my beauty shots with a 200mm Prime. Really sharp and less distortion. The 135 is great especially on a crop body.

[Sensographer]

I shoot all my beauty shots with a 200mm Prime. Really sharp and less distortion. The 135 is great especially on a crop body.

So on a full format sensor camera a 200mm prime would make better beauty/glamour shots than the 135mm prime?

[Mark_Cohran]

I'd agree about 50mm, but 85mm and longer is perfectly acceptable to me. My two favorite lenses for G&N are the 85mm f/1.2L and the 135 f/2 L. The 200mm f/2.8 is a great lens for that as well, but I don't tend to use that one as much as the other two.

[Sensographer]

I'd agree about 50mm, but 85mm and longer is perfectly acceptable to me. My two favorite lenses for G&N are the 85mm f/1.2L and the 135 f/2 L. The 200mm f/2.8 is a great lens for that as well, but I don't tend to use that one as much as the other two.

Ok thanks Mark. Seems I also will focus on the 85mm f/1.2L and the 135 f/2L as I originally planed it ... I will skip 50mm and 200mm ...

[Kagemaru]

So on a full format sensor camera a 200mm prime would make better beauty/glamour shots than the 135mm prime?

Yes that has been my experience. I like the 85 but I wouldn't use it for beauty.

[Perry Ge]

I really, really love 200mm on my 5D, but now that the MKIII is here I think I'm gonna swap it for the 135L. The 85L is my all time favourite lens though - great for head and shoulders and more, but a tighter lens is nicer for headshots, not least because the minimum focusing distance on the 85L sometimes makes it impossible to fill the frame with someone's head on a full frame body.

[Gentleman Villain]

Yes, the longer lenses will appear less distorted. However, my experience is that even 85mm on a FF camera can distort a little too much...My personal preference has been for 135mm and longer on FF cameras if I'm trying to prevent distortion.

But, everything in life is give and take. Telephoto lenses render perspective that is very unnatural and not similar to the way that they eye sees the world. This results in an un-touchable or intangible quality to the photographs. If you're trying to make somebody look distant and untouchable then long lenses are the way to go.

Moderate focal lengths and only slightly long lenses give a more intimate perspective to the subject. If you'll notice, many of hte most iconic fashion and beauty/glamour photographers worked with moderate focal lengths.

It's just a judgment call. Personally, I try and work with 35-70ish on full frame for most subjects. But, I will pop on a 135mm or more to prevent distortion if I'm photographing a headshot where the girl is looking over her shoulder...or maybe her hands on her face etc. I don't want the shoulder and the hands to loook too huge so I'll go longer on the lens.

Just some thoughts....figured it was worth sharing.

[Sensographer]

My personal preference has been for 135mm and longer on FF cameras if I'm trying to prevent distortion ...
Personally, I try and work with 35-70ish on full frame for most subjects. But, I will pop on a 135mm or more to prevent distortion

Thanks Gentlemen and the others.
Your answers didn't make it easier for me ;)
But at least they helped me to understand how complex this topic is.

Question for me now just is where to invest my money in. I can't buy all of these lenses now ;)
My plan was to start with the 85mm f/1.2 as my main lens because it produces incredible quality images and also has this wonderful bokeh at 1.2
The next lens might be the 135mm or the 200m - I am still not sure.
Regarding image quality I wanted to avoid a zoom for this type of shots.

Just started thinking about a combination of a 50mm and a 135mm, but fear that I will regret that I didn't buy the 80 f/1.2

[Perry Ge]

One thing to bear in mind is that if you are shooting at a sync speed of 1/200s or lower, there's a danger of camera shake with the 200. If you're gonna be shooting in studio or with strobes a lot without a tripod/monopod, the 135L and 85L are good bets. The 200 2.8L is a frickin' sweet lens though.

[airfrogusmc]

Several times now I heard the argument that Head / shoulder shots at 50mm or 85mm on a full frame sensor have a distortion at that field-of-view and focal length is considered unflattering. Also it's said that this makes the nose more prominent and overall facial features appear proportionally larger than normal ("the camera always puts on 10 pounds") - so that way you don't get the classic beauty shots like for example the ones of Stephen Eastwood oder Philippe Salomomn.
It's recommended to use anything from 130mm to 200mm

What is your experience with that?
I ask because I was planning to buy a 85mm lens and now I start thinking if I better get a 70-200mm zoom or a 135mm lens.

85 is almost the perfect F/L for head/shoulder shots on FF. I use my 85L almost exclusively for these shots and I do a fair amount of this type of work only (head and shoulders) for exec head shots not so much glamour anymore but I did do a fair amount of glamour type work years ago and the 85 aspherical was the one I reached for when shooting 35mm film.

[airfrogusmc]

One thing to bear in mind is that if you are shooting at a sync speed of 1/200s or lower, there's a danger of camera shake with the 200. If you're gonna be shooting in studio or with strobes a lot without a tripod/monopod, the 135L and 85L are good bets. The 200 2.8L is a frickin' sweet lens though.

Hey Perry ya gotta give the 200 2L a spin ;):D and then try and hang on to the wallet...:lol:

[Perry Ge]

Hey Perry ya gotta give the 200 2L a spin ;):D and then try and hang on to the wallet...:lol:

Why do you taunt me Allen :p?

[Kagemaru]

One thing to bear in mind is that if you are shooting at a sync speed of 1/200s or lower, there's a danger of camera shake with the 200. If you're gonna be shooting in studio or with strobes a lot without a tripod/monopod, the 135L and 85L are good bets. The 200 2.8L is a frickin' sweet lens though.

I shoot with the 200 in the studio at 1/160th (max sync of the 5D with pocket wizards) and I've never had a problem with camera shake. The reason being is the flash duration. I believe it's about 1/800th at full power on an AB1600. That essentially becomes your shutter speed.

[McBride61]

Could anyone post an example of the distortion you guys are talking about? Thanks

[Kagemaru]

Could anyone post an example of the distortion you guys are talking about? Thanks

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/Tutorials_Lens_Perspective.htm

[M Powered]

As a fan of Eastwood I quote the man quite often. He says anything less than 100mm the distortion is very evident. ~ 165-350 is the ideal range for beauty/ headshot.

I shot beauty with a 24-70, and 85 as well. While the results are pleasant, I wouldn't say they are ideal.

Ever since using the 135 for 3/4 body shots and beauty, using that lens has become 2nd nature for those typical 3/4 - beauty shots. In the past 4-5 shoots that I've done, My two primary lenses are the 24-70 and the 135... ironically I find more keepers with the 135 and ended up not using any of the 24-70 shots.

In situations where you are at an elevation shooting down, or up, wide angle lens will be more versitile.

[bsaber]

Don't mean to hijack the thread but what would be the ideal focal length for full body shots?

[Sensographer]

Ever since using the 135 for 3/4 body shots and beauty, using that lens has become 2nd nature for those typical 3/4 - beauty shots

Hello M - some people like the 100m macro lens for beauty shots a lot - how would that lens compare to the 135mm ?


Don't mean to hijack the thread but what would be the ideal focal length for full body shots?
Hi bsaber - no worries, I have the same question in mind. So great you ask ;)

[M Powered]

Don't mean to hijack the thread but what would be the ideal focal length for full body shots?

Depends on your angle. Keep in mind that long lenses pull the background in, so for a heavy set model it will make her look wide. So for them you might want to go with a wider lens, like 50mm. I prefer 50-70mm for full body shots.

Also watch out for models with big foreheads and wide angles. As wide angle lenses tend to exaggerate things a bit ;)

[M Powered]

Hello M - some people like the 100m macro lens for beauty shots a lot - how would that lens compare to the 135mm ?


Most people will be hard pressed to see the difference in distortion unless they do a side by side comparison.

Most people I know that use a 100mm Macro for beauty shoot with a 1.6 crop.

[bsaber]

Depends on your angle. Keep in mind that long lenses pull the background in, so for a heavy set model it will make her look wide. So for them you might want to go with a wider lens, like 50mm. I prefer 50-70mm for full body shots.

Also watch out for models with big foreheads and wide angles. As wide angle lenses tend to exaggerate things a bit ;)

Thanks

[Gentleman Villain]

Thanks Gentlemen and the others.
Your answers didn't make it easier for me ;)
But at least they helped me to understand how complex this topic is.

Question for me now just is where to invest my money in. I can't buy all of these lenses now ;)
My plan was to start with the 85mm f/1.2 as my main lens because it produces incredible quality images and also has this wonderful bokeh at 1.2
The next lens might be the 135mm or the 200m - I am still not sure.
Regarding image quality I wanted to avoid a zoom for this type of shots.

Just started thinking about a combination of a 50mm and a 135mm, but fear that I will regret that I didn't buy the 80 f/1.2

Sorry it took me a few days to respond...This kind of stuff is really personal it might take a bit of trial and error to develop a philosophy towards equipment based on the particular style and look that you want to pursue.

Try and think about what kind of lighting you wish to use the most....IF you plan to shoot mostly in the studio with Elinchrom lighting then you may be at apertures of F8 and F11. In that case, a good L zoom lens will work perfect. Zoom lenses tend to work very well when stopped down. Actually, a good non L lenses will work great too...The 50 1.4 comes to mind. It looks incredible stopped down.

On the contrary, fast lenses like the 85 1.2 are perfect for natural light and low light conditions. But they're not really necessary for studio lighting since the apertures you'd be working at are F8-11 which work just fine with other lenses.

I tend to prefer zoom lenses for studio strobe lighting and primes for natural and low light. That's just my style. Prime lenses slow me down in the studio because I like the ability to make small composition changes quickly using a zoom. But Zoom lenses aren't really sharp enough at wide open to handle low-light and natural light conditions so in those lighting conditions I prefer primes. That's just my experience...everybody has a different approach

I really like the Zeiss primes (especially the 85 1.4) because they're a bit sharper than Canon at wide open and manual focus comes in very handy at wide apertures. Canon's auto-focus isn't quite trustworthy when working with very shallow DOF, so manual focus can often be the most precise

Just some thoughts man... :)

[Gentleman Villain]

Don't mean to hijack the thread but what would be the ideal focal length for full body shots?

Just for reference

shooting in the studio with a standard sized 10ft-20ft muslin then you'd probably need about 75-85mm on a FF camera in order to shoot a full-length person and allow the background to fill the frame

If you were to shoot with a wider lens....then the person would have to be pretty close to the background and that makes lighting difficult.

If you were to shoot with a longer lens....then background wouldn't be a problem but you might have to back up really far and that could be a problem depending on the size of the space.

That's what I personally use as a reference when thinking of photographing people full-length and also controlling the background.

Controlling perspective is another matter entirely. There is a reason that a lot of full-length studio fashion is still done on 4x5 because that gives the photographer the ability to use rise/fall movements and control perspective.

[Old Fart]

I really like the Zeiss primes (especially the 85 1.4) because they're a bit sharper than Canon at wide open and manual focus comes in very handy at wide apertures. Canon's auto-focus isn't quite trustworthy when working with very shallow DOF, so manual focus can often be the most precise

The Canon mount Zeiss 85mm is manual focus only isn't it ?
Do you find this a hassle (even if only a minor one) ??