Can you use 24 mm for full-body portraits?

I'm debating between the Sigma ART 35 vs 24 mm. I'd like to use them for taking some cityscape and street photography, but also be able to use them for full-body portraits.

I have a Tamron 28-75 and I feel like the distortion on the Tamron on the wide-end is too much to be able to take portraits. But both the Sigma primes have very low distortion. I know the 35 mm is acceptable for full-body portraits, but will there be too much distortion when using the 24 mm for full-body portraits?

If I choose to go with the 35mm, is the Sigma ART superior to the first-gen Canon 35/1.4 MkI in every way? Does the Sigma have less barrel distortion?

I know this is a vague and user-dependent question, but in general, which focal length tends to be more versatile? I like to do portraits of humans and animals, and some street photography. I already own a Rokinon 14/2.8 and portrait telephotos (85/1.8, 70-200). I have a 50/1.8, but I've always felt like it was sort of an awkward middle ground focal length.

Heya,

You can use any focal length for full body portrait. Even 8mm. It all comes down to the look you want, and the distance you have to work with. Distortion is not inherent to the lens, it's relative to distance of you to the subject, the focal length influences that, but distance is what does the distortion, so the closer you are, no matter what, the more potential distortion--if you care about it, some embrace it.

28mm on your Tamron, having distortion, is actually due to your distance. If you back up to the same distance as you would at 75mm, and took the same photo and cropped, you'd see no distortion and it would look the same (just less resolution due to the cropping) and of course different depth of field.

You're not going to get less distortion from 24mm or 35mm, it will be the distance you are to your subject that will create or eliminate the distortion.

I hope that is clear. If it is, I just saved you a lot of money.

Versatile is relative to you. For me, the answer would be a 35mm prime. Someone else might claim 70-200. It's relative to the tasks. Your 28-75 is actually very versatile. There is no perfect answer here.

Very best,

If what you're wondering is whether you'd get something like this, or like this with a 24mm, then the answer is no. You'd need to be very close to the subject to fill the frame with them and that would introduce a rather heavy distortion. I've used my TS-E 24mm effectively for portraiture, but those have been environmental portraits or groups.

1. In a studio situation, you'll need a very wide background and a high ceiling if you're using a 24mm for full body portraits.
   
2. You'll also need to be very far away from the background, both in studio and environmental portraits, in order to isolate the subject by means of DOF, as wide angles by nature have a deep DOF, even at their largest apertures. You don't buy these lenses for the bokeh.
   

I just got my Sigma 35mm and its pretty great for full body portraits. You just need to be pretty close to your subject. I'd imagine with 24mm you need to be REALLY close.

Personally i found the perspective distortion from 35mm on full frame is very distracting on full body shot already, i wouldn't go lower than 35mm for sure, that's just me.

I'm reading about some of the front-focusing issues of the 24 and 35 that seem difficult to correct with even in-camera MFA or the USB dock, does anyone have a copy that doesn't have any AF problems?

What you can frame with 50mm at 10' would require you to stand a 4.7' with a 24mm lens.

At that distance you create perspective distortion with increased apparent size of nose, belly, bosom...whatever part of the body happens to be closest to the lens.

The Tamron AF 28-75mm f/2.8 SP XR Di LD has 2.6% barrel distortion at 28mm.

Perspective distortion shows objects of different distances from the lens having different apparent sizes. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the more exaggerated the apparent size difference between objects. If the person's body is parallel to the sensors, there won't be too much of an issue.

Barrel distortion is an optical aberration of a lens. It's less of an issue with primes, but this will affect corners. Not an issue much if the subject is in the center of the frame.

Rectilinear distortion is the transforming/stretchin​g of the curved image entering the lens into the flat image projected onto the sensors. Not a significant problem with long focal length lenses, but very much so with the shorter FLs.

I say 24mm is OK if the subject doesn't take up much of the frame. Otherwise, I use 40mm+.

Joel Grimes does almost all of his work with the 24L.

http://joelgrimes.com …istID=12191&Ake​y=P7FJP8B4

frugivore wrote in post #17927163
Perspective distortion shows objects of different distances from the lens having different apparent sizes. The shorter the focal length of the lens, the more exaggerated the apparent size difference between objects. If the person's body is parallel to the sensors, there won't be too much of an issue.

Barrel distortion is an optical aberration of a lens. It's less of an issue with primes, but this will affect corners. Not an issue much if the subject is in the center of the frame.

Rectilinear distortion is the transforming/stretchin​g of the curved image entering the lens into the flat image projected onto the sensors. Not a significant problem with long focal length lenses, but very much so with the shorter FLs.

I say 24mm is OK if the subject doesn't take up much of the frame. Otherwise, I use 40mm+.

The focal length of a lens has no direct contribution to perspective distortion. It's purely the distances between the various elements of the scene and the viewer's eye or the camera's lens that affect perspective distortion.

Please read our "sticky" (found in the General Photography Talk forum) tutorial titled Perspective Control in Images - Focal Length or Distance?.

FEChariot wrote in post #17928952
Joel Grimes does almost all of his work with the 24L.

http://joelgrimes.com …istID=12191&Ake​y=P7FJP8B4

Correction: Joel Grimes shoots his backgrounds with the TS-E 24mm f/3.5L. For the people he uses normal or telephoto lenses, not the 24mm focal length.

24mm through 35mm work great for enviromental portaits.

I do not do many portraits but here is one I took at 24mm. Probably most of mine are at the longer end of my 24-70 and sometimes with my 100mm. When I had my 70-200 I used it for portraits a lot but really the only portraits I do is for my family and maybe very close friends.

IMAGE LINK: https://photos.smugmug​.com …/O/i-9vQsnWn.jpg&lb=1&s=A

For me it's 35mm for environmental portraits and 85/135 for individual portraits depending on working distance/personal preference

timd35 wrote in post #17935718
I do not do many portraits but here is one I took at 24mm. Probably most of mine are at the longer end of my 24-70 and sometimes with my 100mm. When I had my 70-200 I used it for portraits a lot but really the only portraits I do is for my family and maybe very close friends.

I am certainly NOT picking on your photo as an example of objectionable perspective distortion, but it does provide an opportunity to discuss the phenomenon (imagine it being exaggerated even more):
Viewers note the size of the fingers/left hand vs. those on the visible part of the right hand...the nearer hand is exaggerated in size due to perspective (just like holdig one thumb a few inches from your eye, and the other at arm's distance away...the closer one seems 3-4x 'larger' than the farther thumb -- it is the DISTANCE, and not any FL of any lens here!).

Now imagine a bridesmaid who is not so slender as the girl in timed35's photo, but who more full figured (like the 35-36% statistic of women in four southern states), and her bare upper arm (you know, those ugly/gaudy bridal party gowns that look good only on the slender gals!) is looming in the photo because she is standing (rather than seated) at an oblique angle and your shot was taken at the typical eye level (of the standing photographer). The upper arm closer to the lens is exaggerated in its apparent size, compared to the rest of her body, (and a woman just loves to see her plump bare upper arm brought to attention of the viewer).