50mm for full-body portraits?

what's everyone thought on using a 50mm lens for doing full body shot portrait?

for portraits, I only use 2 lens, Sigma 50 and 135L.
Now that I'm starting to play with full body shots I've been debating whether to move up to the 35L or not.

I'm aware that you can do full body shots with a 50mm and I've taken some, however I find that space and distance can be an issue at times.

I'm thinking of selling my Sigma 50 and going 35L + 135L but I love the look of 50mm shots.
Anyone else made the jump from 50mm to 35mm?

Have you tried setting your 17-40 or 24-105 to 35mm to see how you like that focal length for portraits?

If you have adequate working space, the 50mm is a better choice for portraits.

If you use anything wider in close, you'll see dramatic perspective distortions. Also if you position people near the edge of the frame, you'll see anamorphic "stretching". This simply can't be helped, even with a very well corrected lens such as the 35L. It will likely be even more prounounced if you experiement with the focal length on one of your zooms.

I use wider lenses for portraits mainly when I'm going for more of an environmental shot... showing a broader view of the person in their surroundings, at work or within their living space or similar. If that's what you are looking for, it might work.

But I generally think of "full length" portraits as something different.

bob_r wrote in post #14724523
Have you tried setting your 17-40 or 24-105 to 35mm to see how you like that focal length for portraits?

amfoto1 wrote in post #14724542
If you have adequate working space, the 50mm is a better choice for portraits.

If you use anything wider in close, you'll see dramatic perspective distortions. Also if you position people near the edge of the frame, you'll see anamorphic "stretching". This simply can't be helped, even with a very well corrected lens such as the 35L. It will likely be even more prounounced if you experiement with the focal length on one of your zooms.

I use wider lenses for portraits mainly when I'm going for more of an environmental shot... showing a broader view of the person in their surroundings, at work or within their living space or similar. If that's what you are looking for, it might work.

But I generally think of "full length" portraits as something different.

I used to own a 35 f2 but I was mainly using it for street before finally selling it and I didn't like it's performance for portraits.
Never used the 17-40 for portraits but the 24-105, funny enough I use it at 24mm then jump between 50-105

thanks for both inputs, I've decided to stick with the Sigma 50.
I just love the 50 FL for portraits and just use my 24-105 at 24 or 35 if needed.

here are the shots that made me start thinking if I should get a 35L or not.
it was drizzling rain and there were leaves and branches that from a distance were blocking the shots.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/itaemo/75806178​04/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/itaemo/75805981​52/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/itaemo/75805879​08/

The past practice for studio portraiture with film cameras was to use a 'normal' lens for full length standing shots. In portrait orientation with 135 format, 50mm lens frames 7.1' x 4.7' area at a distance of 10'

So for APS-C, about 31mm lens would frame the same 7.1' x 4.7' area at a distance of 10'. If you used 50mm on APS-C, you would have to put the camera at 16' from the subject, to frame 7.1' x 4.7'

Wilt wrote in post #14724844
The past practice for studio portraiture with film cameras was to use a 'normal' lens for full length standing shots. In portrait orientation with 135 format, 50mm lens frames 7.1' x 4.7' area at a distance of 10'

So for APS-C, about 31mm lens would frame the same 7.1' x 4.7' area at a distance of 10'. If you used 50mm on APS-C, you would have to put the camera at 16' from the subject, to frame 7.1' x 4.7'

Wilt, his signature shows that he's using a 5DII.

bob_r wrote in post #14724909
Wilt, his signature shows that he's using a 5DII.

Understood. But given the high number of APS-C shooters on POTN, I deliberately stated my reply in general terms (like 'normal lens' for the format). Especially since so many folks buy 50mm lenses because they carry the 'normal' label from Canon (but are not 'normal' for APS-C). Folks buy 100mm lenses as 'portrait' lenses, too, even though it is a medium telephoto for APS-C, and not truly for portraiture on that frame size.

taemo wrote in post #14724644
I used to own a 35 f2 but I was mainly using it for street before finally selling it and I didn't like it's performance for portraits.
Never used the 17-40 for portraits but the 24-105, funny enough I use it at 24mm then jump between 50-105

thanks for both inputs, I've decided to stick with the Sigma 50.
I just love the 50 FL for portraits and just use my 24-105 at 24 or 35 if needed.

here are the shots that made me start thinking if I should get a 35L or not.
it was drizzling rain and there were leaves and branches that from a distance were blocking the shots.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/itaemo/75806178​04/
IMG_2844-5Dii by earl.dieta, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/itaemo/75805981​52/
IMG_2853-5Dii by earl.dieta, on Flickr

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com/​photos/itaemo/75805879​08/
IMG_2869-5Dii-2 by earl.dieta, on Flickr

Temo,
These shots should help you understand why longer focal length lenses are preferred for portraits.
In the first shot the girl's knee is as big has her face. That's because of the perspective distortion a wider angle lens causes, even when farther away.
In the second the hands around the waist are quite large again, perspective distortion.

The last image has the people looking normal, primarily because they are standing and in a relatively narrow plane relative to the camera, thus minimizing distortion. A longer focal length, compared to image size also has this "flattening affect."

Generally, there are valid reasons for the guidelines about focal length relative to image size. Using a wider angle lens with people has to be approached carefully because of the distortion potential and people's perceptions about how they, and people in general look.

Listen to David. He is exactly on the money and knows of what he speaks.

In my taste portrait means good bokeh, even when talking about full body shots. I used to have the 35L and now have the sigma 50. In my opinion there is no comparison in bokeh between them (sigma being better) although the 35L is a little bit sharper wide open. So i made the opposite move (from 35 to 50) and no regrets at all

robert61 wrote in post #14725565
Listen to David. He is exactly on the money and knows of what he speaks.

Well, not quite.

dmward wrote in post #14725513
Temo,
These shots should help you understand why longer focal length lenses are preferred for portraits.
In the first shot the girl's knee is as big has her face. That's because of the perspective distortion a wider angle lens causes, even when farther away.
In the second the hands around the waist are quite large again, perspective distortion.

The last image has the people looking normal, primarily because they are standing and in a relatively narrow plane relative to the camera, thus minimizing distortion. A longer focal length, compared to image size also has this "flattening affect."

Generally, there are valid reasons for the guidelines about focal length relative to image size. Using a wider angle lens with people has to be approached carefully because of the distortion potential and people's perceptions about how they, and people in general look.

Wider angle lenses do not cause distortion. Longer lenses do not flatten images. The only factor at work here is the operation of perspective due to the distance from camera to subject. Focal length affects only framing (and depth of field) in this scenario.

That said, the essence of the comment is valid even if the logic is reversed. To get a pleasing perspective may require you to stand at a distance where a longer lens is required to achieve the desired framing (although cropping would have exactly the same effect as far as framing goes). For this reason, longer lenses may be preferable for portraiture.

As for 50 mm? If that gives you the framing you want from the optimal position, then that is the FL to use. Looking at it with the reverse logic, if you can frame your full body subject with 50 mm, you are probably far enough away that the "distortion" due to perspective will not be an issue.