Portrait

[fatrat]

is 50mm any good for portrait on a 20D or should i go 85mm or 135mm???

what are some good portrait lenses, dont mind what brand

[Andy_T]

You have to try out which focal length fits your shooting style best (using the lenses you have now).

50/1.8 is a great and cheap lens for portraits.
50/1.4 is even better, but much more expensive.
85/1.8 is also very nice if you want close portraits (or have more distance to your subject when shooting)
100/2.8 Macro is one of the sharpest lenses and also great for portraits
135/2.0 is incredible, quite expensive and maybe too long on a 1.6 crop camera.
135/2.8 should also be ok, though I haven't heard much about this one here on the forum. It has an additional 'soft focus' function that was mainly intended for portrait photography on film (full frame) cameras.

If you like zooms better...
70-200/4.0 should be a capable portrait lens, but of course
70-200/2.8 will give you even better bokeh (at a price).

These are all Canon lenses, but lenses from other manufacturers with the same length/aperture will also do nicely.
Most important for portrait usage IMO is a large aperture to get nice bokeh.
You can check out with the kit lens (or other lens you have) if 50 mm is the right length or if you would get closer, if you use any of the lenses I mentioned it will add wonderful sharpness and great bokeh.

Best regards,
Andy

[George Chew]

Greetings,
A 50mm lens will become 80mm, 85mm to 136mm and 135mm to 216mm, due to 1.6x factor of 20D. Get both 50mm 1.4 and 85mm 1.8 if you can, both from Canon. These are the 2 best value top portrait lens.

[snibbetsj]

I use the 24 f2.8,50 f1.8, and 85 f1.8 depending on what kind of shot. All are very good lenses for portraits.

[Mike H]

is 50mm any good for portrait on a 20D or should i go 85mm or 135mm???

what are some good portrait lenses, dont mind what brand

It's a matter of style. There are shooters that make a living taking portraits with wide angle lenses to show the subject's surroundings (the shots are called "environmental portraits") and others (like me) that prefer to shoot with the longest possible lens to get the best possible bokeh and isolate the subject. In other words, I'd go for the 135 for that camera.

You might want to look at the work of others that are using the 20D and other 1.6x crop cameras. When you see work that appeals to you, inquire about what lenses they are using.

Mike H

[PhotosGuy]

In other words, I'd go for the 135 for that camera. At 1.6X, that works out to 216mm, which is going to flatten the face, maybe more than you will want it to. For 35mm film, 75mm to 105mm was the most popular range for portraits without distortion at the wide end or compression at the long end of the scale.

[roanjohn]

85......or 50. 135 is too long unless you shoot full frame..........even 100 is too long for my XT.

Ro1

[Jim_T]

If you have a studio, size of your studio should be a consideration as well.. You may find you don't have room to get back far enough to use a longer focal length lens.

[nat869]

If you have a studio, size of your studio should be a consideration as well.. You may find you don't have room to get back far enough to use a longer focal length lens.

Good point, that is the issue I have to deal with. Even with the 50mm 1.8 it is not easy to get back far enough to fully frame someone's body, but the pics on my 10d come out great!!

[Kostyanych]

I was thinking that 24-70 2.8L is good enough for most portraits...

[roanjohn]

I was thinking that 24-70 2.8L is good enough for most portraits...

It's a versatile lens for full body and tight headshots.

Ro1

[blue_max]

But the 24-70 seems the one lens that attracts the most flak over it's quality control. I for one would like to pick one up for 'Disney' money if anyone is so appalled by their back/front/middle of next week focussing problems. :D

But somehow, I doubt people will be beating a path to my door. Maybe it's all relative. This does seem to be a very expensive piece of glass, doing what you would imagine was a not too remarkable task (24-70mm).

I like my 85 1.8 – it works well with kids where you don't want to be too close. Working within it's limitations is quite rewarding as you become a master of one length. Having to think about differing lengths all the time must make you always wonder if it would be better in or out (like having too many tv channels and hopping in case something better is on). That's my view now, but I'm buying an L zoom soon, so may eat humble pie.

So, buy a good quality lens that is not too extreme and you should be fine whatever happens. Just be prepared to work within it's limitations and make the best of it's attributes.

If there was one definitive lens we all used, then the world would be a boring place.
A photographic style may be born out of having to use something that is not your usual fodder. The grass is always greener though!

Graham

[Andy_T]

I was thinking that 24-70 2.8L is good enough for most portraits...

That's right.

If you still hesitate about getting the 75$ 50/1.8...
you could always go for the 1200$ 24-70/2.8 instead in the meantime :lol:

No, wait! Since yesterday we have been alerted to perceived quality control problems that have since reached epic dimensions as the thread in question proceeded ... maybe wait a bit :wink:

Best regards,
Andy

[Kennymc]

50mm f/1.4... Gives you great control over DOF... Gives a good perspective... Very sharp... ouch

[cactusclay]

Epic proportions, Andy, you kill me.......Wait let me die a little more..... Ok, that's better. For me on a 1.6 crop 50 mm, any of them are the best all around choice for portrats-for me.

[Mike H]

At 1.6X, that works out to 216mm, which is going to flatten the face, maybe more than you will want it to. For 35mm film, 75mm to 105mm was the most popular range for portraits without distortion at the wide end or compression at the long end of the scale.

I've shot quite a number of portraits at similar focal lengths and never noticed any "face flattening" effect. :-)

Mike H

[johnboy00]

At 1.6X, that works out to 216mm, which is going to flatten the face, maybe more than you will want it to. For 35mm film, 75mm to 105mm was the most popular range for portraits without distortion at the wide end or compression at the long end of the scale.

The crop factor doesn't change the angle of view. It's still a 135mm perspective (18-deg angle of view), but it's cropped to an *effective* 216mm, meaning the subject fills the frame the same as a 216mm lens would on the same shot. In other words, it won't "flatten the face." You just have to move farther back from your subject. It won't increase the need for steadiness on longer telephotos, either. I've seen many say they'll need a tripod when their 300mm (or whatever) lens suddenly becomes 480mm on a 1.6x digital. Not so. If you could handhold the 300, you can handhold the "480."

Here's a good explanation with comparison shots using the same lens and subject, film vs digital:

http://www.millhouse.nl/digitalcropfactorframe.html

[PhotosGuy]

OK, let me put this a different way. Have you noticed how the face can become distorted if you get close with a wide angle lens? The opposite happens when you shoot with a telephoto. You lose something which I call "flattening". That's why head shots on 35mm film are normally shot somewhere between 80mm & 105mm. At least they are when I do it.

[griff2]

johnbo00 wrote: The crop factor doesn't change the angle of view

from the digitalcropfactor site: The DSLR image is taken at 17 mm focal length, the 35 mm slide was taken at 25 mm focal length. Both images have roughly the same field of view.
In other words the crop factor does change the angle (or field) of view, since the author had to physically change the focal length of the lens from 17 mm on the smaller digital sensor to 25mm on the full-frame body to get the same fov. The crop factor has been discussed ad nausum on this site, but the you do need to take into account cropping factors when determining shutter speed.

[Kennymc]

The angle of view of the lens is the same... The crop factor is just like cropping the central part of a 35mm image... The viewfinder in a DSLR like the Canon 10D is corrected to view only the area covered by the sensor not the full 36x24 area of a 35mm camera... If you placed a viewfinder from a 35mm camera in a DSLR you would still see the same angle of view as the 35mm camera would... This is where most people make the mistake in thinking the DSLR magnifies the image (which would alter the angle of view) because they have not taken into account the correction made by the viewfinder...

[Andy_T]

***** X FACTOR ALERT *****

Griff,

angle of view, focal length used and crop factor do not directly influence perspective.
Perspective is what is responsible for distorting the features.

However, if you have a different angle of view, then you will move closer or farther from your subject to fill the frame.

Distance to the subject is what determines perspective!

Still, I find the 'face flattening' effect when shooting from too far away much less of a problem than the 'prominent nose feature' when you are too close to your subject.

Best regards,
Andy

[griff2]

***** X FACTOR ALERT *****
Agreed. Ok, maybe I should have said effective fov/aov not absolute fov/aov, although absolute should also be relative, since it is possible to mount an EF lens on a non 35mm format body, at which point absolute is thrown out the window. Just bear in mind that we are no longer dealing with the 35mm format - we're dealing with a different format that just happens to use a 35mm body. Anyway I'm not going to get dragged into this again. There are MANY posts on the X factor, and it just seems to keep cropping (:rolleyes: ) up.

[Mike H]

OK, let me put this a different way. Have you noticed how the face can become distorted if you get close with a wide angle lens? The opposite happens when you shoot with a telephoto. You lose something which I call "flattening". That's why head shots on 35mm film are normally shot somewhere between 80mm & 105mm. At least they are when I do it.

Can you post a picture showing this face flattening effect? Thanks.

Mike H

[Kennymc]

On 35mm a portrait lens is usually classed as a lens between 80mm and 135mm for head and shoulders shots... This is because wide angled lenses when used to fill the frame distort the face and longer telephoto lenses tend to compress the face unless you can get a good working distance from the subject... They can however be an advantage if a person has a long nose as it appears to shorten it...

[PhotosGuy]

Can you post a picture showing this face flattening effect? Thanks. Sorry. It's been a Looong time since I took one like that. ;)
They can however be an advantage if a person has a long nose as it appears to shorten it... That's right. Every person has a "sweet spot", which is one reason that there is no absolutly best focal length for a portrait. It depends on "film" format, the charistics of the face (& ears), whether it's a head shot, or head & shoulders, or head to waist, etc. Add a 2nd person, & you need to vary the focal length, too.
Then, if you add in the fact that everyone's image of themselves is the one they see in the mirror in the morning (reversed), is just another reason why most people don't like their pictures, but all their friends say they're great! :D

[Mike H]

Perspective comes from the relative distances from the viewer, not from the lens.

Think of it this way. Your subject is 10 feet in front of you, the Empire State Building (ESB) is miles away in the background. Your subject may appear the same size as the building in the frame because it's so far away. If you put the camera down and just look at the person and building, the same visual effect can be seen: the subject still looks as though they are the size of the much larger building. Hence, it's the relative distances of the objects from your position that establishes their relative sizes, not the characteristics of lenses, cameras, etc..

We tend to notice these things more in photos because pictures convert three dimensionals into two. Also, our brains adjust relative sizes internally, i.e., your brain tells you "of course the building is larger, it just looks smaller since it's farther away". The camera and lens make no such adjustment for the sensor (or film); it's just records what it sees.

Now for face flattening. The reason that shooting portraits with short lenses creates distortion is because the nose is closer to the camera than the plane of the face by an amount that's large enough to affect how the person looks. In other words, you're doing the Empire State Building thing on a smaller scale, this time with a nose and a face instead of a person and a building.

If your subject's nose is 10 inches from the camera, their face is about 12 inches further away (depending on the nose!), or about 20% further. You'll see some distortion. If your subject's nose is 100 inches from the camera, their face is about 102 inches away (depending on the nose!), or about 2% further away. That's enough to eliminate this relative distance effect. If their nose is 1000 inches away, their face is now 1002 inches away, or about .2% further away, and so on.

The first move back changed the relative position of the nose and face by much more than the second move did. The relative distance changes become more trivial as we go further out. Hence, using progressively longer lenses (keeping the subject size the same) has smaller effects on the appearance of the face as the lenses increase in length.

Of course, if someone can show me some flat face photos I'm willing to re-think all of this! :-)

Mike

[PhotosGuy]

If your subject's nose is 10 inches from the camera, their face is about 12 inches further away (depending on the nose!), You type like I do! What's his name again... Pinoccio ... Pinocchio? Well, you know who I mean. ;-)

[rdenney]

Here is The Truth:

Camera position determines perspective. Focal length determines magnification. Format determines field of view in the image. Print that out on a card and tape it to the back of your camera.

Perspective is the face-flattening effect. If you want that effect, move back. Too much scene in the picture when you move back? Use a longer lens to increase magnification and restore the field of view. Or choose a smaller format (i.e., by cropping). Both give the same result.

It ain't the focal length that affects perspective on the face (or on anything else). It's the camera position. People think it's the lens. They put a telephoto on the camera, and hold it up to their eye. They think, "Holy smoke! All I see is nose!" and they move back. When the whole face appears in the frame, they say, "Look how the face seems a bit flattened--that's nice!" Then, they attribute that effect to the wrong cause--the lens's focal length--when it was the moving back that had the effect. (The same is true with the big-nose effect from wide angle lenses. The nose is big because you are too close to it. The wide angle just allows you to get that close and still see the whole face.)

When comparing the field of view between formats, you have to scale the focal length by the same factor as you scaled the format. That's why a 1.6 crop factor (which is a comparison of formats) yields a 1.6 equivalency factor between focal legnths. A 50mm lens on a 10D has the same field of view as an 80mm lens on a 1Ds. If you stand in the same place with both, you'll get the same picture, with the same perspective.

Think of lenses in terms of their relationship to normal. A "normal" lens can be defined as the diameter of the format. That's 28mm for a 20D's 15x23 sensor, and 43mm for full-frame 35mm's 24x36 frame (and 80mm for 6x6, 160mm for 4x5 sheet film, and so on). Portrait lenses that allow camera positions that deliver pleasing perspective seem to range from a little less than twice normal to around three times normal, plus many portrait photographers like to have a lens that's four or five times normal for more specialized stuff. For 35mm, that's 80ish to 135 so so, plus a 200. (Guess why you see fast primes and soft-focus lenses at these focal lengths in the Canon lineup.) For the small sensor, it's 50 to 85 or so, plus a 135 for the special stuff. Thus, for a 20D or Digital Rebel, a 50 makes a dandy short portrait lens and an 85 makes a dandy long portrait lens, with the 135 doing nicely for when you need something longer. The good news is that this series overlaps nicely with the series for the full frame, so you only need to add a fast 50, and that's stunningly easy to do.

Rick "who uses 180mm as the perfect portrait length in medium format, but sometimes a 300" Denney

[PhotosGuy]

Well put, guys. I was almost sorry that I brought up the "flat thing", but now maybe people will actually read this. ;-)

[Mike H]

You type like I do! What's his name again... Pinoccio ... Pinocchio? Well, you know who I mean. ;-)

Yes, I meant 2 inches further away, not 12! Thanks.

Mike H

[Mike H]

Here is The Truth:

Camera position determines perspective. Focal length determines magnification. Format determines field of view in the image. Print that out on a card and tape it to the back of your camera.

I agree, though I would express what you've said a little differently. While camera position does determine perspective, it's because camera position affects the relative distances--with respect to the camera--of the various objects in the frame. I realize that's a subtle point, but I thought it was worth making.

Perspective is the face-flattening effect. If you want that effect, move back.

What you've said here makes me back track a little on my prior point. Since taking a close up position with a short lens makes a face less flat, then shooting from a greater distance with a long one must make one more flat by comparison, even if it becomes by amounts too small to detect at some point (and I'm saying that it does). What I was originally trying to get at is that I don't think that shooting a portrait with a lens that's longer than 135mm (effective focal length) introduces undesirable flattening of a face.

Perhaps we've beaten this to death ... :-)

Thanks for all of the responses.

Mike H

[rdenney]

Since taking a close up position with a short lens makes a face less flat, then shooting from a greater distance with a long one must make one more flat by comparison, even if it becomes by amounts to small to detect at some point (and I'm saying that it does). What I was originally trying to get at is that I don't think that shooting a portrait with a lens that's longer than 135mm (effective focal length) introduces undesirable flattening of a face.


Where there's breath, there's life, heh, heh.

I agree. The effect of perspective is related to the distance between objects with respect to camera position. The nose and ears are four inches apart, and it makes a difference whether that four inches is a foot from the camera or 100 feet from the camera. Going from a foot to five feet will make a MUCH bigger difference in perspective than going from 100 feet to 104 feet, even though both are a four-foot move.

And I agree that longer lenses are often used to good effect without seeming to flatten the subject too much. The very best example of that is the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue, which frequently shows nearly naked models standing in freezing water up to their knees, while the photographer is safely sequestered 100 feet or more away, on the edge of the sand and the grass, using a 600mm lens. Those results absolutely do not demonstrate excessive, um, flattening. And I've studied them carefully.

But what they do accomplish is magnifying the background with respect to the subject. Thus, the Sun on the horizon, which subtends an arc of only a half degree, can look large with respect to the model if the photographer is sufficiently far back (and is making that possible by using a really long lens). That's an extreme example, perhaps.

When we do portraits outdoors, it's really nice to be able to work from quite a distance, minimizing the amount of distant landscape in the picture. That lets us pick and choose small bits of the background to use in the picture.

The typical 50, 80, and 135 series for the 10D often causes me to be a little uncomfortable, because in magnification they fall between the lenses I use in medium format. I use 120, 180, and 300 lens in medium format, and they are more like 40, 60, and 100 on a 10D when cropped to the same proportions. So the 50, 80, and 135 lenses feel like in-betweeners. But I'm getting used to it. I say this to demonstrate an example of what focal lengths mean with respect to format and portraiture in practical application: If I shoot both medium-format film and digital at a session, and if I want my very best (in terms of bokeh) lenses for each, I can't use the same tripod location. So, I tend to go for a tighter composition with the digital.

What Canon needs is a 35-100 zoom lens for the 10D with a maximum aperture of about f/2 and really good bokeh. I think I've given technology a bit too much to do there, heh, heh. The bokeh on my cheapie 35-80 plastic kit lens that I bought out of the junk bin at a camera store is dreadful, and the Sigma 28-70/2.8 that I have is better (mostly because it's faster and makes the background more blurry when used wide open) but not by enough to be satisfying.

It would also be nice if Canon would produce a 50mm lens using a Sonnar formula rather than a double-gauss formula like the 1.8 and 1.4 50's--it would provide much better bokeh, even at f/2. It would probably not be quite as contrasty, so the MTF wouldn't be as good, and that's why they probably won't do it. But for people who have never been spoiled by Sonnar bokeh, the 50's make a great short portrait lens.

Rick "spoiled by Sonnars" Denney

[SuzanneCarey]

I have no long technical explanations, I am but a simple soul. :) I really like my 50mm 1.8. For the price, you just can't beat it. Here is a picture I took with it just yesterday. I also have the Tamron 28-75, which is a great lens, but I tend to use my 50mm much, much more. It is comfortable to use. I know exactly how far away I need to be. I like to zoom with my feet, if that makes sense. Happy lens hunting!

[rdenney]

I have no long technical explanations, I am but a simple soul. :) I really like my 50mm 1.8. For the price, you just can't beat it. Here is a picture I took with it just yesterday. I also have the Tamron 28-75, which is a great lens, but I tend to use my 50mm much, much more. It is comfortable to use. I know exactly how far away I need to be. I like to zoom with my feet, if that makes sense. Happy lens hunting!

Yes, you can hardly beat the 50/1.8 for pure portrait effectiveness in a light and cheap package.

But my wife, who could have said the very words you just spoke, can look through a stack of proofs and tell which ones were taken through the 180mm Sonnar on medium format and which ones were not. There's just something about the way they look, and that something is not technical but highly subjective (even if there is a technical reason for it).

That's a lovely picture of the baby, by the way. Children look at me start screaming, so the Sonnar bokeh doesn't do me any good. For that reason, I'm using longer lenses than the 50 most of the time, so that perhaps I can stay out of sight, heh, heh.

I shot this pic using a Jupiter 85mm f/2 lens that I mounted on the 10D with an adaptor. I was about 7 or 8 feet away, which is a little safer working distance for something as scary as me. My wife was distracting them.

Rick "who got better results on film in this session" Denney

[Mike H]

...
And I agree that longer lenses are often used to good effect without seeming to flatten the subject too much. ... But what they do accomplish is magnifying the background with respect to the subject. ... When we do portraits outdoors, it's really nice to be able to work from quite a distance, minimizing the amount of distant landscape in the picture. That lets us pick and choose small bits of the background to use in the picture.


Exactly. And that's why I shoot portraits now almost exclusively with the 70-200/4L, rather than my old mainstay, the 85/1.8. The latter still gets used a lot, just not for portraits.

Before anyone creams me for the last point, I'm not saying that the 85/1.8 is bad for portraits, just that it's not my style. :-)

Mike H

[rdenney]

Exactly. And that's why I shoot portraits now almost exclusively with the 70-200/4L, rather than my old mainstay, the 85/1.8. The latter still gets used a lot, just not for portraits.

I have the 70-200 also, and I've used it for people pictures quite a bit (well, as much as I do any people pictures, which isn't much). I just don't like its rendering as much, depending on the background, of course.

Rick "who hasn't found a zoom with really good bokeh" Denney