portrait lens

when i was starting out in the hobby/profession i always heard to use a slightly longer then 'standard' lenses i.e. the canon 85mm (an FD f1.8 in my case), yet i continue to see where people are using 35s and even 24s sometimes for portrait work...

doesnt that really introduce some unattractive distortions?

i picked up a 50 f1.4 (effective 80mm) for use with my 7D if i had any portraits that i might need to shoot. it was 5mm shorter than my 17-55 f2.8 but was planning on the extra 2 stops of aperture for better DOF...

am i missing something?

It does. Some people like the effect, and others only shoot skinny people who look okay with a wide lens. The difference between 55 and 50 is negligible. Keep in mind that its not the lens that creates the perspective distortion, but the shooting distance. The longer lens keeps you farther away given the same framing. So you can back up with the wider lens and not have the distortion, but you have to crop or live with looser framing.

Have you ever seen the eastwood tutorial image? http://stepheneastwood​.com …/lensdistortion​/index.htm

I've shot portraits with the 24mm TS-E and been pleased with the results. Just keep people away from the edges and you should be fine. Great for environmental portraiture and group shots. That being said, 24mm can be too wide; that's why I just purchased at 35mm prime.

Ltdave wrote in post #16734448
when i was starting out in the hobby/profession i always heard to use a slightly longer then 'standard' lenses i.e. the canon 85mm (an FD f1.8 in my case), yet i continue to see where people are using 35s and even 24s sometimes for portrait work...

doesnt that really introduce some unattractive distortions?

i picked up a 50 f1.4 (effective 80mm) for use with my 7D if i had any portraits that i might need to shoot. it was 5mm shorter than my 17-55 f2.8 but was planning on the extra 2 stops of aperture for better DOF...

am i missing something?

It sure does. I like the longer lenses for portraits, 100mm, 135mm and even 200mm.

I go with nightcat!
In fact it's a matter of preference.
Some like to creep up people for the portrait shot and others (like myself) tend to keep a distance
No kidding (this time), the choise of wide versus narrow has a lot to do with the background. When you prefer a lot of it you go wide.
Personally, whenever I can I switch to 300mm for portraits because of the creamy background and it adds to focus the subject (no disturbing backgrounds).
Last I went wild with a 400mm and it was a succes! Only, for full body shots you go far from the subject so one plans ahead because basically you lose communication.
My 85mm works a bit the same way but you need a lot more technique to master it.
Furthermore for me everything below 85mm is not flattering for portraits. Too mutch distortion for my taste (good for laughs dough).
Good luck out there

It really just depends on what you're trying to capture. I think there are lots of great examples on this site of portraits done at 35mm or wider, it gives you a unique perspective. Generally speaking though, longer FL lenses are definitely more flattering for a subject, they also give you the added bonus of better background compression.