Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 10 Dec 2013 (Tuesday) 09:51
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

50mm V 85mm article. Portraits

 
Nick_Reading.UK
Senior Member
Avatar
836 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Reading, Berkshire, UK
     
Dec 10, 2013 09:51 |  #1

just found this..
http://www.sebstudios.​net …s/portrait-lens-50mm-85mm (external link)


EOS 5Dmk3 X2, 60D, EF24-70mm f2.8L mk2, EF70-200mm f2.8L IS mk2, EF85mm f1.8, EF50mm f1.4, EF50mm f1.8 mk1(350D with 18-55mm Sh"kit" lens).
Speedlite 600EX-RT, 430EX II Flash. manfrotto 190XDB tripod, Giottos GTMML 3290B Monopod, B+W 77mm 110 Single Coated filter, Hama 77mm Variable Neutral Density Filter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Jerobean
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Dec 10, 2013 10:50 |  #2

i hate when comparison photos are stacked instead of side by side. so much harder to find nuances.


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
eddie3dfx
Senior Member
486 posts
Likes: 3
Joined Sep 2009
     
Dec 10, 2013 19:11 as a reply to  @ Jerobean's post |  #3

Gorgeous pictures. Aside from the distortion, I am starting to notice that the bokeh on the 85mm is more blurry than the 50 and the 40mm at 2.8
It's as if it is 2.0-2.5

Thanks for posting this.


Canon 6D, Canon L 24-105, Zeiss Distagon 28mm 2.8, Planar 50mm 1.4, Planar 85mm 1.4, Sonnar 135mm 2.8 & Zeiss Mutar 2x, Canon 50mm 1.8
http://www.edwinraffph​otography.com/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CircuitR
Senior Member
Avatar
787 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Dec 2009
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Dec 11, 2013 01:15 |  #4

Cheers for that Nick. Good reading.


5D mkII | 35L | 16-35mm F4 L IS | 50mm f1.4 USM | 135L |
EOS-M | 22mm f2 STM |
flickr (external link)
Instagram (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Dec 11, 2013 03:25 |  #5

It behooves me to point out that nowhere is it stated, or even suggested, that the cause of the 'distortion' has nothing whatever to do with the focal length of the lens, and everything to do with the distance to the subject.

Shoot with 85 or 50 from the same distance, and the 'distortion' will be identical. Sure you have to change distance to achieve framing with different focal lengths, but it is NOT the change in focal length that is the cause, it is the change in distance.

On the whole then, a very poor exposition of the issue, in my opinion.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mike ­ cabilangan
Goldmember
Avatar
1,378 posts
Joined Apr 2010
Location: Metro Manila
     
Dec 11, 2013 03:39 |  #6

xarqi wrote in post #16518170 (external link)
It behooves me to point out that nowhere is it stated, or even suggested, that the cause of the 'distortion' has nothing whatever to do with the focal length of the lens, and everything to do with the distance to the subject.

Shoot with 85 or 50 from the same distance, and the 'distortion' will be identical. Sure you have to change distance to achieve framing with different focal lengths, but it is NOT the change in focal length that is the cause, it is the change in distance.

On the whole then, a very poor exposition of the issue, in my opinion.

i agree. but i think it's my first instinct to fill the frame with my subject, so it does have some sense.

i sold my 35L because i wanted shoulder up portraiture. but i've climbed the focal range ladder, and am now waiting for a 35 f/2 IS :D
i guess, the unnatural thinking should be, step back, go large jpeg, and then crop the picture. :D <-direct opposite of more megapixels on the bird goal :D


camera bag reviews (external link)
flickr (external link)gearLust

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dj ­ R
Goldmember
Avatar
2,988 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 133
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Philaburbia
     
Dec 11, 2013 07:11 |  #7

xarqi wrote in post #16518170 (external link)
It behooves me to point out that nowhere is it stated, or even suggested, that the cause of the 'distortion' has nothing whatever to do with the focal length of the lens, and everything to do with the distance to the subject.

Shoot with 85 or 50 from the same distance, and the 'distortion' will be identical. Sure you have to change distance to achieve framing with different focal lengths, but it is NOT the change in focal length that is the cause, it is the change in distance.

On the whole then, a very poor exposition of the issue, in my opinion.

That all goes without saying.


BAG Reviews, master list!
Tons of Sony gear
Some Canon gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
riotshield
Senior Member
425 posts
Joined Apr 2011
     
Dec 11, 2013 08:27 as a reply to  @ Dj R's post |  #8

For that first overhead shot, if you're going to use an 85 all the time to minimize perspective distortion, then better pack a ladder.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Jerobean
Senior Member
785 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Mar 2008
     
Dec 11, 2013 08:35 |  #9

riotshield wrote in post #16518485 (external link)
For that first overhead shot, if you're going to use an 85 all the time to minimize perspective distortion, then better pack a ladder.

I've found stilts more usable.

when I brought my ladder into the studio, I found I didn't have much room to have it opened up. however, on my stilts, I can recompose and my size profile is the same as without them.

these are the model I use. I find the jumping capability a plus as well, makes for some fun shots.

http://www.amazon.com …1&sr=8-16&keywords=stilts (external link)


_______________
6d, 24-105L, Tak SMC 50 1.4, 85 1.8, 135L

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Nick_Reading.UK
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
836 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2011
Location: Reading, Berkshire, UK
     
Dec 11, 2013 08:49 |  #10

Jerobean wrote in post #16518507 (external link)
I've found stilts more usable.

when I brought my ladder into the studio, I found I didn't have much room to have it opened up. however, on my stilts, I can recompose and my size profile is the same as without them.

these are the model I use. I find the jumping capability a plus as well, makes for some fun shots.

http://www.amazon.com …1&sr=8-16&keywords=stilts (external link)

Are you kidding or being serious???


EOS 5Dmk3 X2, 60D, EF24-70mm f2.8L mk2, EF70-200mm f2.8L IS mk2, EF85mm f1.8, EF50mm f1.4, EF50mm f1.8 mk1(350D with 18-55mm Sh"kit" lens).
Speedlite 600EX-RT, 430EX II Flash. manfrotto 190XDB tripod, Giottos GTMML 3290B Monopod, B+W 77mm 110 Single Coated filter, Hama 77mm Variable Neutral Density Filter.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,807 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2568
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 11, 2013 10:51 |  #11

mike cabilangan wrote in post #16518181 (external link)
i agree. but i think it's my first instinct to fill the frame with my subject, so it does have some sense.

i sold my 35L because i wanted shoulder up portraiture. but i've climbed the focal range ladder, and am now waiting for a 35 f/2 IS :D
i guess, the unnatural thinking should be, step back, go large jpeg, and then crop the picture. :D <-direct opposite of more megapixels on the bird goal :D

If you want to shoot head and shoulders portraits, absolutely DO NOT USE 35mm FL even on an APS-C body...you ought to be using about 60mm on APS-C (or 100mm on FF) to do head and shoulders portraiture, because anything less is inviting induced perspective distortion! Shooting with 35mm FL from 8-9' away, and then cropping off about 2/3 of the frame in each dimension is a very foolish way of accomplishing good perspective from a 35mm lens to get a head and shoulders shot!

85mm is fine for waist-up shots, but getting a bit close and inviting perspective distortion for head and shoulders...you have to be 7.5' with 85mm to frame a 36" x 24" area, 8.7' away with 100mm to frame same area.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
xarqi
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
10,435 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2005
Location: Aotearoa/New Zealand
     
Dec 11, 2013 13:46 as a reply to  @ Wilt's post |  #12

Dj R wrote in post #16518346 (external link)
That all goes without saying.

In that case it's surprising the number of people who erroneously DO ascribe this distortion to focal length. Perhaps it's a sloppy shorthand, but it is completely wrong, and quite misleading for those new to the field. I believe it is worth stating the actual cause explicitly where necessary.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,513 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
Dec 11, 2013 14:30 |  #13

That's a pretty good article. Over the years, I've seen so many posts where people say that 135mm, or even 100mm is too long for portraits. That's nonsense. Some of the best portraits I've even seen are from these focal lengths, not to mention longer lengths like 200mm or longer still.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,807 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2568
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
     
Dec 11, 2013 15:37 |  #14

A good amount of confusion in the FL discussion is caused entirely by the fact that Canon lenses are described (by Canon) in the context of usage on FF sized images, NOT in the context of APS-C sized images. Another problem is the very generic reference to 'portrait', which means so very differently to different folks, just like 'transportation' means very different vehicles to different people!

  • 50mm in FF is good 'full length standing portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  • 85mm in FF is good 'waist-up portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  • 100mm in FF is good 'head & shoulders portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  • 150mm in FF is good 'tight headshot' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio.


But...
  • 30mm in APS-C is good 'full length standing' portrait FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  • 50mm in APS-C is good 'waist-up portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  • 60mm in APS-C is good 'head & shoulders portrait' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio
  • 90mm in APS-C is good 'tight headshot' FL from about 8-10' subject distance in a studio.


So we see that 100mm lens is a good 'portraiture' lens ONLY in the context of FF cameras! And 135mm is 'good portrait' lens only in the context of shooting from farther away than 8-10' (which is quite common particularly among those too shy or reluctant to interact with their subject from 8-10' away!)

You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dj ­ R
Goldmember
Avatar
2,988 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 133
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Philaburbia
     
Dec 11, 2013 15:49 |  #15

xarqi wrote in post #16519325 (external link)
In that case it's surprising the number of people who erroneously DO ascribe this distortion to focal length. Perhaps it's a sloppy shorthand, but it is completely wrong, and quite misleading for those new to the field. I believe it is worth stating the actual cause explicitly where necessary.

I agree, it could have been laid out more carefully.
but it's all accurate.


BAG Reviews, master list!
Tons of Sony gear
Some Canon gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,970 views & 0 likes for this thread
50mm V 85mm article. Portraits
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is JenWorleyPhoto
1864 guests, 312 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.