How many Portrait lenses do you have?

[KevC]

I only have a 50mm and I'm really interested in getting a 135mm. I'm wondering if I should pick up a 85mm just for fun. This is on a 1.6x crop body so the effective focal lengths would be 80, 136, 216. Do I really need that many portrait lenses? "no".

Hm... that's my favourite thing to shoot, people. I'm thinking of using the 50 mm for full body, the 85 for half body, and the 135 for head/shoulders. Or is 3 lenses for one application just overkill?

[tim]

Overkill, IMHO. You have legs, make use of them! Of course there's the "flatenning" effect of longer lenses (I forget the right word for it right now), but 2 lenses at most would do it.

Of course, you could get the 70-200 IS and have the best of all worlds, except for the small detail of "only" F2.8 ;)

[KevC]

Hehe. You're right.

I think I'm gonna pick up a normal zoom instead (24-70 sigma or 28-75 tamron) to fill the gap... hehe.

[roanjohn]

For portraiture, it'll be a sin to pass the 85 focal length (1.8 or 1.2). It's just the perfect focal length even on a 1.6 x body...........

Its good for tight headshots:

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/image/40972453.jpg

Quarter body:

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/image/40972456.jpg

Even full length!!!! (you gotta have lots of space though)

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/image/42534016.jpg

:D :D :D

There seem to be an 85 fad in this forum!!!

Ro1

[slin100]

Beautiful shots. An 85mm prime is on my wish list.

[Dante King]

I agree with RJ, 85mm is SWEET. I have the 50mm and 85mm Great for portraits. I also use my zooms for htis tyoe of work as well because framing is much simpler. Let me qualify this first. I use the zooms for impromptu portraits of the kids and in an informal setting. If I am with people planning for a portrait shoot. I use my primes as everything from area to shot angel is pretty much already in the playbook.

[cmM]

IMO 135 is a little too long for portraits, especially indoors or in a studio environment where you don't have a lot of space.

[mr.photoguy]

I used to use my 50mm 1.8, but I think it has dust on it now.
I have been using my 28-75 Tamron a lot, and also my 70-200 f4 at times also.

I would like to get my hands on a 85 1.8 to see how I like it.

[HMetal]

I have 4 portrait lenses. Well, 2 zooms and 2 primes in the "portrait" range..

50mm f/1.8
90mm 2/8
17-40mm f/4
24-70 f/2.8

The 17-40 isn't really a portrait range but it is good for close range portraits at the 40mm end.

[DocFrankenstein]

I think you need an 85... Very useful focal length for portraits.

The 50 is good for chest/shoulders and I find myself switching to 70-200 very often.

I'd get the jena prime too... or russian jupiter...

[karusel]

Um, anyone here with a 135 2.0 doing portraits with it? On a 1.6x crop? Results? I mean, due to somewhat longer effective focal length, since traditionally longest focal length is 135mm on a 35mm film. I want this lens speciffically because it is that good, but will it be also good focal-length-wise?

I want to buy this lens and for now skip the 85mm.

[MDJAK]

Am I missing something? (Besides a few screws, of course.) I have the 100mm macro which I love to use for portraiture. It is literally razor sharp.

[embdaw]

Okay now I need some advice...I was all ready to buy the Canon 50mm f1.4 but now the Canon 85mm f1.8 is lookin pretty darn good....AHH which is it!! (and please do not say both :lol:)

[DocFrankenstein]

Okay now I need some advice...I was all ready to buy the Canon 50mm f1.4 but now the Canon 85mm f1.8 is lookin pretty darn good....AHH which is it!! (and please do not say both :lol:)
Intended use?

[embdaw]

for portraits

[DocFrankenstein]

For studio... U need both... Sorry :lol:

[KevC]

I'd say the 85 is nicer than the 50... but then again I've never shot either of these so my point is m00t :) Just going by what I've seen I guess.....

[roanjohn]

The 50s are no slouch either...........both the 1.8 and 1.4 versions. Optically, these two lenses are almost similar........the only advantage the one has over the other is the build quality, USM and the fact that the other one opens up at 1.4. I would've been perfectly happy with my 1.8 if it didn't break in half........

To compare the 50 and 85.......I would say that the 85 prime will give you a BETTER background blur.......They also say that the 85 focal length is a bit different from our normal POV, so it'll give portraiture a certain something special..........The 50 OTOH, is our normal POV.........so I guess it gives ordinary results..............hmmmm...not so sure if I explained that correctly.

The 50 is a more versatile lens for me especially on a 1.6x body. I mainly use it for group shots outdoors.............this is helpful so that the tripod doesn't need to be as far back as possible.

Perfect for half body portraiture:

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/image/38244394.jpg

And group shots:


http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/image/38245644.jpg

It also does tight headshots:

http://www.pbase.com/roanjohn/image/38211632.jpg

So, the only reason to get the 85 over the 50 is the BOKEH........and the slightly special POV.

Ro1

[rdenney]

We've seen in another thread that depth of field is less with the shorter lenses necessitated by the smaller format. Portrait photographers often want razor-thin depth of field to enhance selective focus and to blend the background into a smooth blur. Thus, I'm changing my approach, and going with relatively longer lenses than what I use in other formats.

In medium format, I use lenses at 1.5 and 2.2 times normal for most portraiture. On a small sensor, that would be a 42 and a 62. Those would have to be f/1.0 lenses to provide the same narrow depth of field as in medium format.

Thus, though I used to think a 50/1.4 would be a good portrait length, I'm thinking that an 85/1.8 would be better.

It's a strategy for targeting a give depth of field rather than a given field of view at a particular distance. We'll get better results using longer lenses from farther away. Yes, they'll look a little different, but they'll still be better. At least that's my current thinking.

I have an 85/2 and, yes, it's a bit long for working indoors. The 135 is even longer. But without the space constraint, I'm still wanting good lenses at those focal lengths. I'm all set at 135 (even though I don't have the 2L), but I'm disappointed in that Russian 85/2, and I've got an 85/1.8 on my list. I'll get that before another 50.

To answer your question, I like a short portrait lens for groups and full-length shots, a longer lens for head-and-shoulders portraits, and one still longer for facial portraits and a very smooth background. I use the middle lens of those three most.

Rick "now looking to longer lenses for shallower depth of field" Denney

[rdenney]

The 50 OTOH, is our normal POV

Only with a full-frame sensor. You'll have to back up to get the same shot with a small sensor, and that will give you your improved perspective.

But it won't give you the narrower depth of field.

Beyond a certain point, the perspective is already improved. Going longer than that give you less perspective effect on the face, but more effect on the background. So a longer lens let's you be more selective about backgrounds, and it gives you less depth of field.

Rick "coming around to longer lenses with respect to normal than in larger formats" Denney

[Dante King]

Okay now I need some advice...I was all ready to buy the Canon 50mm f1.4 but now the Canon 85mm f1.8 is lookin pretty darn good....AHH which is it!! (and please do not say both :lol:)

Hell you could get the 85mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8 as the price on the 50mm is almost as overnight shipping on the 85mm LOL. I sold my 50mm 1.8 and upped to the 50 1.4 for usm and FTMF but on a budget, the 50mm 1.8 at $70 makes a whole lot of sense to get some more MMs with little out of pocket.

[DocFrankenstein]

Hassy does have it's advantages for portraits... besides mad quality of course...

My wishlist has grown to the point that I need around 30K to satisfy the basic minimum. :D

[karusel]

Rick "I know stuff" Denny: that was very cool! :)

[Huckaback Photo]

RoanJohn
those images were just wonderful, as a demo for how to shoot with 85mm , spot on i say.

Thankyou for sharing some of your work.

Martin (Huckaback Photo)

[Huckaback Photo]

Intended to say, 2 days ago went shopping to get a new 85mm f1.8 the shop loaned the lens to have a walk about outside and took some shots, they seemed great.
My problem was the shop in question also had a used mint condition 28mm to 70mm f2.8 L
tried this outside and had to have. my toy cupboard is nearly full ( I mean Lenses)

Cheers
Martin (Huckaback Photo)

[rg-tom]

Only with a full-frame sensor. You'll have to back up to get the same shot with a small sensor, and that will give you your improved perspective.

It's still our perspective though, just cropped....look through a 50mm on a FF and on a 1.6, things are still the size which is more or less the same as when the camera isnt there, just edges are cropped on the 1.6x ;)

[rdenney]

It's still our perspective though, just cropped....look through a 50mm on a FF and on a 1.6, things are still the size which is more or less the same as when the camera isnt there, just edges are cropped on the 1.6x ;)

You are correct, but that's not what people do and that's why this way of explaining it is so confusing. Nobody puts a 50 on their 10D and then stands in the same place, because what they want to photograph is cropped out of the picture. So, they move. When they move, they change the perspective.

Perspective is controlled by camera position, and camera position only. The lens controls magnification, and the format controls how much of the scene you see. If you see less of the scene because of the smaller format, you can correct it by going to less magnification. But if you move, it's a different picture.

Hold the camera up. All you see is nose (because the rest of the face is cropped off by the smaller format)? Then you have to move back. When you do that, you've changed the perspective. You are viewing the subject from farther away, and it's a different picture. Voila! You have your "telephoto" perspective.

Rick "it's our feet that control perspective" Denney