Head shot with 16-35 lens?

With a D750 I have only the 16 - 35 (f4) lens at this point. Very good lens, but obviously not the best lens for portraits.
I will shoot about 20 individual head-shoulder shots of employees in an office. I'm thinking to be about 10 ft. away, with a dome on the SB-700 flash angled up 45 degrees. Lens F4, shutter 125.
BUT I'd appreciate any advice here.
The camera does great and gives some ability to fix things in LR, but I want a good setup.

Thanks

35 is pretty wide on a FF for a head-shot. No chance of borrowing/renting something longer?

Set to 35mm, stand back, keep them in center of frame, crop.

I don't want to come across as being harsh, but here goes anyway . . . 35mm is terribly unflattering for portraits.

Have a look at the image at this link:

http://www.lesjones.co​m …stepheneastwood​-tile1.jpg

Personally, I like to use 100mm or longer. But for people who have nice facial structure (and smallish noses) 50mm works okay. There is no way I would even consider using 35mm for serious headshots.

I think you really need a longer lens. I would strongly advise against doing this with the your 16-35. It probably isn't worth the embarrassment that will most likely ensue.

mike_d wrote in post #17871186
Set to 35mm, stand back, keep them in center of frame, crop.

How far would one have to stand back to make this work? I'm genuinely interested . . . as I didn't think there was anyway 35mm could ever work well.

neacail wrote in post #17871191
How far would one have to stand back to make this work? I'm genuinely interested . . . as I didn't think there was anyway 35mm could ever work well.

I'm not sure, exactly. What you're trying to avoid is filling the frame which will do two things: Exaggerate facial proportions (ie big nose) and stretch things toward the corners. Standing back and deliberately NOT trying to fill the frame will reduce these effects. The final output resolution needed will also be a factor. The lower the final resolution needed, the more you can crop. You're not going to replace an 85mm with this technique, just reduce the downsides of shooting people with a wide angle lens.

Hmmm. Check this out:

https://cdn.photograph​ylife.com …ength-Face-Distortion.jpg

I would like to see a sample where the subject was looking directly at the camera . . . but in the photo taken three metres away the subject's proportions are much, much better than the one metre shot.

I tried to convince my standard "experiment" model to let me take some shots of him to test this out, but he's more interested in his computer game at this moment.

My revised advice to the trailguy . . . following mike_d's advice might get you some good headshots.

If I were you, I'd take a lot of test shots before head shot day: to establish the best distance to use your 35mm lens at and to see how well your flash bounces at the different distances.

neacail wrote in post #17871191
How far would one have to stand back to make this work? I'm genuinely interested . . . as I didn't think there was anyway 35mm could ever work well.

Perspective distortion is based on distance, not the lens. Not that the lens doesn't have a practical effect for cropping a 35 to match an 85 would mean standing back amd wating pixels.

OK, the words and link pictures have scared me. Which should I borrow? Sounds like an 85mm would work ok.?

I've taken many various shots of people, using numerous lenses and never noticed noticeable distortion, but when asked to take a bunch of portrait types for a business use, it makes me a bit concerned about making them look well.

I love using a FF, but I do have a Canon 40D and an L series 70 - 200 F4, so perhaps I should simply charge it up and use it.


Thanks

I just dusted off my 40D a few days ago, after using my 5DIII exclusively for over a year. Still a very capable camera, especially with something like a 70-200L attached.

Might be better than going the 16-35 route. Experiment first, just to see what works better for you.

But, if you have the option of borrowing an 85 or a 100 and using your FF, that would be my personal preference if I was in your shoes.

trailguy wrote in post #17871317
OK, the words and link pictures have scared me. Which should I borrow? Sounds like an 85mm would work ok.?

I've taken many various shots of people, using numerous lenses and never noticed noticeable distortion, but when asked to take a bunch of portrait types for a business use, it makes me a bit concerned about making them look well.

I love using a FF, but I do have a Canon 40D and an L series 70 - 200 F4, so perhaps I should simply charge it up and use it.


Thanks

The 70-200 f4 makes a fine portrait lens, might be a little long on the 40D if you are working indoors. You might consider renting a portrait lens for your nikon, 85 is a great focal length no significant distortion although my preference is 135 on full frame as I like the longer lens but again inside it can be a bit long.

85 on a crop would be a great head shot FL.

I regularly use a 70D and a 70-200 2.8 II . . . I'm thinking that your 40D and 70-200 might be a nice option.

But, I'd still test everything first. If you can't find a model to work with, you could try doing self-portraits to see what gives you the results you're looking for.

This migjt be a good occasion to treat yourself to a 50 1.8 stm for the 40D.

gonzogolf wrote in post #17871334
This migjt be a good occasion to treat yourself to a 50 1.8 stm for the 40D.

Yup
Here's the perspective from 8 feet away. (this is an 85 on a 5dIII)