50mm V 85mm article. Portraits

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

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

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.

Cheers for that Nick. Good reading.

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.

xarqi wrote in post #16518170
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
i guess, the unnatural thinking should be, step back, go large jpeg, and then crop the picture. <-direct opposite of more megapixels on the bird goal

xarqi wrote in post #16518170
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.

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.

riotshield wrote in post #16518485
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

Jerobean wrote in post #16518507
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

Are you kidding or being serious???

mike cabilangan wrote in post #16518181
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
i guess, the unnatural thinking should be, step back, go large jpeg, and then crop the picture. <-direct opposite of more megapixels on the bird goal

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.

Dj R wrote in post #16518346
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.

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.

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.
  

• 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.
  

xarqi wrote in post #16519325
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.