50mm V 85mm article. Portraits

Interesting read, thx all.

I do love both the 50L and the 85Lii.

It's an amazing tool, however, I'm moving away from my 85Lii.

Dj R wrote in post #16955588
Interesting read, thx all.

I do love both the 50L and the 85Lii.

It's an amazing tool, however, I'm moving away from my 85Lii.

Can I ask why your moving away from the 85mm focal length?

My guess is that he wants to use his amazing 24-70mm II on the 5dIII and 50mm on 70D (80mm).

It's not a guess Dj R. I saw your FT posting

Tigerkn wrote in post #16955624
My guess is that he wants to use his amazing 24-70mm II on the 5dIII and 50mm on 70D (80mm).

It's not a guess Dj R. I saw your FT posting

lol!

I'm very impressed with the new 24-70!
with the 50L on my crop 70d, I have 80mm
and the 135L was my first love. I know it can produce.
I don't want two $2000 lenses plus the 50L.
I like to limit my kit to 4 lenses.
so I'm selling the 85L and 200L
and replacing them both with a 135L.
cheers

Thanks for the reply, I have the 135mm and love it, but was thinking about the 85mm to add to my collection.

John27 wrote in post #16955658
Thanks for the reply, I have the 135mm and love it, but was thinking about the 85mm to add to my collection.

if you don't use macro often, maybe make a switch.
are you near me?

the 85L is a beast, heavy, lots of glass.
unmatched bokeh

Dj R wrote in post #16955665
if you don't use macro often, maybe make a switch.
are you near me?

the 85L is a beast, heavy, lots of glass.
unmatched bokeh

I don't think I am, I'm in Spain. The other thing about me thinking more than I usually do is I also have the 100mm 2.8L macro, so thinking I might be building my collection up too much around that focal length.

John27 wrote in post #16955674
I don't think I am, I'm in Spain. The other thing about me thinking more than I usually do is I also have the 100mm 2.8L macro, so thinking I might be building my collection up too much around that focal length.

That's what I was suggesting in my prior post. Sell the macro, if you're not using it for macro purposes.

Dj R wrote in post #16955887
That's what I was suggesting in my prior post. Sell the macro, if you're not using it for macro purposes.

My macro is funnily enough the lens I make most money from. I shoot some items for a jeweller near me.

It does a reasonable job of portraits, but is only 2.8 v 1.8 of the 85mm. Decisions decisions lol

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.

Ascribing perspective distortion to the absolute distance is as misleading I'm afraid. Perspective distortion is all about the angular size of the object. A toy house shot from 30cm will have dramatically less perspective distortion than a real house shot from the same 30cm, with the same framing. (Of course, in the latter case you'll need a much wider angle lens.) So distance per se does not affect perspective distortion.

John27 wrote in post #16955903
My macro is funnily enough the lens I make most money from. I shoot some items for a jeweller near me.

It does a reasonable job of portraits, but is only 2.8 v 1.8 of the 85mm. Decisions decisions lol

nice!
if you use it for macro, perfect.
it's does, I agree, double as a nice portrait lens.
if you shoot jewelry, you have to keep it!

cheers

It is pretty much the basic rule of thumb for portraits. However, for full body shots, the distortion is not as critical of a factor, however the background blur is. Sometimes I use the 85L or 200mm wide open to get greater background blur. And at other times, the 35mm and 50mm is more appropriate to get less background blur and giving the portraiture an more environmental or more story telling portrait.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16955933
Ascribing perspective distortion to the absolute distance is as misleading I'm afraid. Perspective distortion is all about the angular size of the object. A toy house shot from 30cm will have dramatically less perspective distortion than a real house shot from the same 30cm, with the same framing. (Of course, in the latter case you'll need a much wider angle lens.) So distance per se does not affect perspective distortion.

Perhaps you should expound a bit more in what you believe is 'perspective distortion' (technically, more correct is the terms are 'strong perspective' and 'weak perspective'. The eye is accustomed to the size of things from a 'typical distance' and when we intrude into a much smaller distance, the brain is unaccustomed to the relative relationships, and we have strong perspective. The opposite, commonly referred to as 'telephoto compression' is the use of longer subject distances and the 'weak perspective'.

If I look at my two thumbs at arm's length, everything is 'what I am accustomed to'. But if one thumb is 1" away while the other is arm's length away, the first looms HUGE while the other seems unusually small...perspective distortion at play, no lenses at all, only distance.
Similarly, if I stand a bit too close with a 24mm on FF camera, oblique to a full bodied lady, her nearer breast seems huge in the photo while the farther breast is tiny...she is no longer somewhat symmetric but assymetric. I know this happens, and it accounts for why I do not shoot groups of people with anything wider than 74 degree AOV (28mm) on FF camera when shooting weddings and receptions...84 degree AOV (24mm on FF) lets me get too close too easily.

You will find texts from respected photographic institutions of higher learning, like RIT, advise that your statment "So distance per se does not affect perspective distortion" is indeed incorrect, with regard to 'strong perspective' and 'weak perspective'.

Gorgeous pictures. Aside from the distortion

Wilt wrote in post #16522159
Classically, lenses within the range of 80mm - 105mm have merited the label 'portrait lens' for 135 format. ....

Errr... if you want to talk Classically then you have to include 135mm as well which was 'very' popular at one time and even special soft-focus versions were created.

More modern definitions include long telephotos.

Artistic photography tries not to use so many rules.