35mm for portraits?

I currently have an 85mm 1.8 which I use for most of my portraits. Problem is that inside, it's a little too long most times and I don't have enough room. I'm considering getting the Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART and just selling my 85mm and another telephoto lens I have to put toward the cost (I hardly use the telephoto). Would you think this is a good decision? I seem to remember some caveats with shooting portraits with 35mm and distortion?

I'm not a pro and just enjoy taking photos of my kids and occasionally some portraits for family members, e.g., senior pics, maternity, etc.

What would you do?

Reducing your shooting distance will have a tendency to alter the facial perspective of your subject! For decades pros have shot head and shoulders portraits (with typical 85-100mm FL) at a shooting distance of 8-10'


Look at how this model's face is portrayed in 35mm and 50mm shots vs. in 70mm and 100mm shots. For those people who know what she looks like in everyday life, the 70-100mm portrayals more accurately match what they expect her to look like.
http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …/lensdistortion​/index.htm

...and look at how 'perspective distortion' makes her shoulders appear in the shot with 35mm FL

Absolutely nothing wrong with 35mm and portrait.

Distortion is from proximity to subject, not focal length. If you're concerned with distortion at all, which is really not a huge deal at 35mm unless you're literally filling the frame with just their head (at about 1.5 feet proximity?), you simply take a step or two back and keep their extremeties or ears/elbows/etc out of the corners of the frame. You have plenty of resolution to crop the edges and get a FOV consistent with 50mm or longer if you wish, and it will have minimal to no real distortion if you're not close to the subject. You can do a portrait full body with a 17mm on full frame, if you are not right up on the subject and your distance to subject is enough to prevent distortion. Focal length gives you an angle of view to generate your field of view, and from that you compose, which at a fixed focal length is a certain distance to subject that you choose; but you can simply take a few steps back and you're not close to the subject, so you're not going to be dealing with a bunch of distortion.

I do tons of portraits at 35mm, both head shots, full body, groups. Distance to subject is what matters, not focal length, with respect to distortion at this scale.

The reason a lot of "classic" portrait was done with a telephoto was because of the distance it pushes the camera away from the subject, that increase in distance is what reduces distortion. It's not because it's an 85mm, or anything else. 85mm on a huge large format at close range would distort like crazy. So again, distance is what you should consider, not just a random focal length relative to a random sensor size. Take a 17mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm and do portrait at the same distance you did at the 135mm with all those focal lengths, and inspect the distortion if there is any.

Sounds to me like a 35mm would be fine for your needs. However, why get a prime? You're inside. I assume you're not shooting at F1.4 or F2 and that you use lighting, and that you're probably stopping down a little, even F2.8 or more? If so, why not consider a 24-70 or similar mid-range zoom to have more flexibility from the one-lens-approach?

Also, you seem to have a 40mm F2.8 STM. Why not just use that? What makes you want a 35mm?

Very best,

Wilt wrote in post #18489225
Reducing your shooting distance will have a tendency to alter the facial perspective of your subject! For decades pros have shot head and shoulders portraits (with typical 85-100mm FL) at a shooting distance of 8-10'


Look at how this model's face is portrayed in 35mm and 50mm shots vs. in 70mm and 100mm shots. For those people who know what she looks like in everyday life, the 70-100mm portrayals more accurately match what they expect her to look like.
http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …/lensdistortion​/index.htm

...and look at how 'perspective distortion' makes her shoulders appear in the shot with 35mm FL

Thanks! That makes sense!

MalVeauX wrote in post #18489228
Absolutely nothing wrong with 35mm and portrait.

Distortion is from proximity to subject, not focal length. If you're concerned with distortion at all, which is really not a huge deal at 35mm unless you're literally filling the frame with just their head (at about 1.5 feet proximity?), you simply take a step or two back and keep their extremeties or ears/elbows/etc out of the corners of the frame. You have plenty of resolution to crop the edges and get a FOV consistent with 50mm or longer if you wish, and it will have minimal to no real distortion if you're not close to the subject. You can do a portrait full body with a 17mm on full frame, if you are not right up on the subject and your distance to subject is enough to prevent distortion. Focal length gives you an angle of view to generate your field of view, and from that you compose, which at a fixed focal length is a certain distance to subject that you choose; but you can simply take a few steps back and you're not close to the subject, so you're not going to be dealing with a bunch of distortion.

I do tons of portraits at 35mm, both head shots, full body, groups. Distance to subject is what matters, not focal length, with respect to distortion at this scale.

The reason a lot of "classic" portrait was done with a telephoto was because of the distance it pushes the camera away from the subject, that increase in distance is what reduces distortion. It's not because it's an 85mm, or anything else. 85mm on a huge large format at close range would distort like crazy. So again, distance is what you should consider, not just a random focal length relative to a random sensor size. Take a 17mm, 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm and do portrait at the same distance you did at the 135mm with all those focal lengths, and inspect the distortion if there is any.

Sounds to me like a 35mm would be fine for your needs. However, why get a prime? You're inside. I assume you're not shooting at F1.4 or F2 and that you use lighting, and that you're probably stopping down a little, even F2.8 or more? If so, why not consider a 24-70 or similar mid-range zoom to have more flexibility from the one-lens-approach?

Also, you seem to have a 40mm F2.8 STM. Why not just use that? What makes you want a 35mm?

Very best,

MalVeauX wrote in post #18489228
Sounds to me like a 35mm would be fine for your needs. However, why get a prime? You're inside. I assume you're not shooting at F1.4 or F2 and that you use lighting, and that you're probably stopping down a little, even F2.8 or more? If so, why not consider a 24-70 or similar mid-range zoom to have more flexibility from the one-lens-approach?

Also, you seem to have a 40mm F2.8 STM. Why not just use that? What makes you want a 35mm?

Very best,

Thanks for the info! Really helpful.

Why prime? A lot of times indoors when I'm just shooting some pics of the kids, I'm not using any lighting (just too lazy to break it out and set it up) so that's why I had my eye on a faster prime. But it's not totally necessary as my 40mm does fine at 2.8 if I bump the ISO a bit.

Why not consider the 24-70? Well, I did consider it but the cost is a factor. I can get a refurb Sigma 35mm 1.4 ART for $650 vs the Canon 24-70L f/2.8 is $1500 refurbished. I could go with the 24-70L f/4 but the maximum f/4 aperture kind of scares me for indoor shots. I know typically wide open, lens aren't their sharpest.

And yeah, I do have the 40mm pancake. I like it, but I guess I've seen so much talk about the ART lenses that it just makes me want one plus I'd get the 1.4 aperture too which I'm sure allows for some creamy bokeh (for when I am shooting portraits outdoors) vs the 40mm 2.8.

Also had my eye on a 50mm f/1.2 (refurb) but that's pushing the price range honestly.

Let me start by stating unambiguously: I do not do 'sitting' portraiture. That said, are you shooting inside a piano box? I regularly use a 6D/135L for indoor head & shoulders shots. For tighter shots I am 6'-8' from the subject with a 135. At 10' to 12' I can get a couple in the frame. Perhaps I frame too tightly, but I'd find an 85mm lens on a full frame body a bit short for H&S shots. In your face, uncomfortable short. Anything shorter than 85mm for a H&S shot is going to yield results the subject (especially female) is not happy with.

Let me dig out some examples. BRB.

EDIT:
8' to 10', individual,
8' to 10', couple

More...

6' or so, individual
12' or so, individual

can't get images up, crappy connection, will try later

Heya,

Makes sense.

Just some food for thought:

F1.4 sounds great, but it's really still not enough light usually in a dark house (or maybe it is for your needs?), so you're always at higher ISO, and the quality of the light plays into things a lot (tungsten is gross for example, window light is great, etc). The other issue with F1.4 is that if your subject is moving, etc, you can very often miss focus due to the shallow depth of field if you're closer to the subject (such as with a 35mm on full frame). Stopping down for a little depth of field is a good idea, but it puts you at F2, F2.8, etc. So then you have to wonder... well, why not just use a zoom or something? I'm just raising the question as I'm also a dad who photographs the family in the house all the time, and I do it with fast primes too. Family photojournalism is one of my favorite forms of photography (we have a great thread focused on it).

Lighting is way, way more important than some lens. If you're too lazy to get a flash going, you're also too lazy to use a heavy full frame and heavy F1.4 prime. The flash can sit on the camera a tall times in the hot shoe, and make it heavier, but it's no more extra work to go pick it up than without it, because it's one big device. Use a good ETTL flash, it's far more important, especially inside, and makes a world of difference.

A used 24-70 F2.8 MKI is only around $650 on the market. And the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC is around $700ish used/new if you look around.

Mean while, a decent ETTL flash is $100.

If you're concerned about sharpness, shooting at F1.4 (or even F1.2!) in a dark house at high ISO with the AF engine of a 5D2 probably isn't going to give you the results you're thinking you're going to get. A cheap lens like the 40 pancake and a flash will consistently perform better in a house for spontaneous snaps. And if you're not interesting in a big bulky flash (but you're interested in a big bulky heavy F1.4 lens like the ART), then look at the nice little 270EXII (great little ETTL flash that can bounce off the ceiling). I'd rather shoot F4 and an ETTL flash, any day in the house, than fast glass and no flash. But that's merely my preference, and we all do things differently.

Another thing to consider is a Canon 35mm F2 IS. IS helps a lot (4 stop IS) and it can be had pretty affordably too. I'd take F2 with IS over F1.4 for this purpose in every single situation with family.

If you want to goof around with a 35mm F2 for a while just to test things out before comitting to anything you can grab a Yongnuo 35mm F2 (Canon clone) for $80. Or you can just use the 40 STM of course, it's a very similar FOV, just F2.8.

Anyhow, for some inspiration, I really recommend this thread:

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=18489475

Very best,

Since you have the 40 pancake, I think selling the 85 to fund a 35 is probably going to be a decision you regret.

I really like my 35A but it is fairly limited for "candid portraits". I almost always prefer the 85 for posed and impromptu portraits. I like the 35 for events where I don't mind cropping if needed and don't have to have the option of large prints. This is something you might already have experienced.

Providing an example photo of where you think another lens would have made the shot might help us understand your position.

I wouldn't recommend selling your 85mm either. The 40mm Pancake is close enough to 35mm to be going on with, and in my experience a perfectly capable lens - it's been what I've used for most of my photography for the past two or three years and I'm happy with it. You don't get the wide aperture look from it, that much is true, but the focal length is similar.

You could rent a 35mm prime to see if it is what you want, and then start saving. Used or refurb prices look reasonable to save for in a few months and then you can complement your existing setup rather than losing anything, it's more tools in your bag. As MalVeaux has suggested there are other 35mm options that could be cheaper in the short-term too. 35mm f/2 is a good idea too.

I recently picked up a Rokinon 35mm F/1.4 for the purpose of trying to do more portraits for my family, especially in the house. I do not see the 'manual focus only' being a problem as I do not plan on chasing around the little ones. I hope however that it forces me to be more aware of my setup and positioning.

I also bought it for $170 with a stuck F/22 Aperture. It took me a whopping 10 minutes to pull three screws, tighten another, and realign the mechanism. Might be worth looking into. I will do a review on it soon with instructions on how to fix.

Bassat wrote in post #18489492
Let me start by stating unambiguously: I do not do 'sitting' portraiture. That said, are you shooting inside a piano box? I regularly use a 6D/135L for indoor head & shoulders shots. For tighter shots I am 6'-8' from the subject with a 135. At 10' to 12' I can get a couple in the frame. Perhaps I frame too tightly, but I'd find an 85mm lens on a full frame body a bit short for H&S shots. In your face, uncomfortable short. Anything shorter than 85mm for a H&S shot is going to yield results the subject (especially female) is not happy with.

LOL! No, no piano box. The 85mm is great for shots like you gave examples of. The problem I seem to face is that I'm usually taking photos of my kids birthday parties and things of that nature where I'm wanting more in the shot than simply head and shoulders. Like I've said before, I'm not a pro and the only "semi-pro" shoots (if you can call them that) that I've done for people have been outdoors where the 85 is perfect. If I were doing actual portraits indoors I think like you said the 85 would be fine as well as most portrait shots are a lot of head and shoulder type stuff anyway. But I'm generally looking to get kids opening gifts or multiple kids in a group or something of that nature and indoors in the living room that's just not always feasible.


[QUOTE=MalVeauX;184895​56]

Again, that's for all your input. This is exactly why I asked the question. You're bringing things up that I hadn't considered. Especially regarding the shooting indoors without flash and being disappointed with the 35mm ART especially given it's a larger lens. It's probably not something I want to lug around for my quick snapshot images around the house.

I actually have never seen the canon 35mm F2 IS. That looks like a fantastic alternative to me and at a nice price. Though, like has been mentioned, my 40mm will probably suffice for most any shot I'd using the 35mm for. The Tamron 24-70 seems like the most logical option for me to give me the most flexibility. I have the Tamron 70-300 now and it's a nice lens. I'm seeing a newer looking body style on that one which is around 1100 and then the old body style (international version) for around $650 on amazon. I'd have to look around to see if there's any better pricing out there. I tend to shy away from used lenses as I just never know how they've been treated.

I do have a basic Neewer flash that works well for what it is. I just need to break it out more consistently and use it and get more experience with shooting with it. Seems like a lot of my shots with TTL and the flash just don't quite turn out. I'm sure it's mostly my inexperience with flash. I'm just never sure if I use use TTL and AV mode and roll with it, or get everything set up in manual. Then there's the max shutter speed for the flash which seems to always throw me for a loop. But like I said, it's just lack of experience on my part. Need to sit down and read and experiment.

Thanks again.

Owain Shaw wrote in post #18489709
I wouldn't recommend selling your 85mm either. The 40mm Pancake is close enough to 35mm to be going on with, and in my experience a perfectly capable lens - it's been what I've used for most of my photography for the past two or three years and I'm happy with it. You don't get the wide aperture look from it, that much is true, but the focal length is similar.

You could rent a 35mm prime to see if it is what you want, and then start saving. Used or refurb prices look reasonable to save for in a few months and then you can complement your existing setup rather than losing anything, it's more tools in your bag. As MalVeaux has suggested there are other 35mm options that could be cheaper in the short-term too. 35mm f/2 is a good idea too.

Good points. You're right. I'm sure getting the 35 isn't going to dramatically improve my photos and the pancake is so small that its a breeze to travel with. Keeping the 85mm for when its needed and investing in something like a 24-70 (Tamron's looks nice) might be a good way to go.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18489598
Since you have the 40 pancake, I think selling the 85 to fund a 35 is probably going to be a decision you regret.

I really like my 35A but it is fairly limited for "candid portraits". I almost always prefer the 85 for posed and impromptu portraits. I like the 35 for events where I don't mind cropping if needed and don't have to have the option of large prints. This is something you might already have experienced.

Providing an example photo of where you think another lens would have made the shot might help us understand your position.

Thanks! Makes sense. I really don't have any example where having a different lens would have made a different and honestly it probably wouldn't make enough of a difference to warrant the cost. I just feel limited indoors with my 85 when I'm casually shooting say a kids birthday or something. It's great for head and shoulder type shots, but when you've got kids opening presents or something and need to get wider than head and shoulders, it's limiting (or in my house it is anyway). Outside my 85 is fantastic. So, inside I typically just use my 40 pancake which works very well for the price, but I guess I suffer from the "what if_______ is better?" thinking. lol

Thanks. I'm not sure I'd be good with a manual focus lens like that Rokinon. Not being a pro or someone that takes photos every single day and really works at the craft of photography, I just think it'd be too much of a headache to get consistent shots with a manual focus but maybe I'm wrong?

deronsizemore wrote in post #18490666
But I'm generally looking to get kids opening gifts or multiple kids in a group or something of that nature and indoors in the living room that's just not always feasible.

I actually have never seen the canon 35mm F2 IS. That looks like a fantastic alternative to me and at a nice price. Though, like has been mentioned, my 40mm will probably suffice for most any shot I'd using the 35mm for. The Tamron 24-70 seems like the most logical option for me to give me the most flexibility. I have the Tamron 70-300 now and it's a nice lens. I'm seeing a newer looking body style on that one which is around 1100 and then the old body style (international version) for around $650 on amazon. I'd have to look around to see if there's any better pricing out there. I tend to shy away from used lenses as I just never know how they've been treated.

I do have a basic Neewer flash that works well for what it is. I just need to break it out more consistently and use it and get more experience with shooting with it. Seems like a lot of my shots with TTL and the flash just don't quite turn out. I'm sure it's mostly my inexperience with flash. I'm just never sure if I use use TTL and AV mode and roll with it, or get everything set up in manual. Then there's the max shutter speed for the flash which seems to always throw me for a loop. But like I said, it's just lack of experience on my part. Need to sit down and read and experiment.

I use a much older camera, the 5D1, and I use the 35 F2 IS often for exactly this. Groups of family, kids, opening presents, etc. I very often use flash. I also do it with natural light. 35mm is a great way to get in and be part of the fun, and not have to hug a wall some where with a telephoto. You can still get fairly soft environment with fast focal-ratio. And with the wide angle, you can get away with slower shutter speeds. With image stabilization, you can get still moments at even lower shutter speeds.

I had the 40 F2.8 STM and the 35 F2 IS together and frankly, I sold the 40 STM. Several reasons: slow focus, noisy focus, only F2.8 (I expect more from a prime, but the pancake design has limits), and the 35 F2 IS was simply a little wider, faster focal-ratio, blazing fast silent AF, and had 4 stop image stabilization. Pancakes on big cameras don't save space or weight I found. The 35 F2 IS is twice the size and 4 times the price, but better in every way. Plus it has good manual focus for when its really, really dark (which for me is often and I use MF often with it). The only wide prime I'd consider for my purposes beyond the 35mm or would be a 28mm, but there is not an F2 IS for that, so I stay with the 35 F2 IS. 35 at F2 still gives you soft backgrounds without having to be within 1~2 feet of the subject, like you would at 24mm~28mm. I'd go as slow as F2.8 at wider focal length if I it were to gain a zoom (like a 24-70 F2.8 VC).

It certainly isn't about making a professional shoot out of the event. It's about capturing the memories, but perhaps in a more pleasing way than a cellphone shot. I totally get that. That's what a lot of us do. But one thing I find is that a bunch of headshots, like you pointed out, don't really capture the moment. Who knows when or where that was. And that's why you're seeking faster wider glass. 35mm and wider takes you there. Candid captures that are wide are a great way to capture memories. It's like family photojournalism.

Your 5D2 can handle higher ISO just fine. Don't be afraid to crank it up. A flash still does wonders though (bounced).

+++++++++++++++

Dirty example of a birthday with kids at a dark venue with games, playing, running, lots of weird lights, tight quarters, opening presents, etc, and wanting to get a little bit of everything, using a 5D1 and a 35 F2 IS. I went natural light on this one because of the weird blend of the flurescent lights, the game lights, window light, etc, it was all over the place. For me to correct all of it, I'd have to stop out all light, but I didn't want to do that, I wanted the weird mix, because that's what it's like in an arcade and wanted to keep the feel. Normally, I'd shoot with flash.

MalVeauX wrote in post #18490682
I use a much older camera, the 5D1, and I use the 35 F2 IS often for exactly this. Groups of family, kids, opening presents, etc. I very often use flash. I also do it with natural light. 35mm is a great way to get in and be part of the fun, and not have to hug a wall some where with a telephoto. You can still get fairly soft environment with fast focal-ratio. And with the wide angle, you can get away with slower shutter speeds. With image stabilization, you can get still moments at even lower shutter speeds.

I had the 40 F2.8 STM and the 35 F2 IS together and frankly, I sold the 40 STM. Several reasons: slow focus, noisy focus, only F2.8 (I expect more from a prime, but the pancake design has limits), and the 35 F2 IS was simply a little wider, faster focal-ratio, blazing fast silent AF, and had 4 stop image stabilization. Pancakes on big cameras don't save space or weight I found. The 35 F2 IS is twice the size and 4 times the price, but better in every way. Plus it has good manual focus for when its really, really dark (which for me is often and I use MF often with it). The only wide prime I'd consider for my purposes beyond the 35mm or would be a 28mm, but there is not an F2 IS for that, so I stay with the 35 F2 IS. 35 at F2 still gives you soft backgrounds without having to be within 1~2 feet of the subject, like you would at 24mm~28mm. I'd go as slow as F2.8 at wider focal length if I it were to gain a zoom (like a 24-70 F2.8 VC).

It certainly isn't about making a professional shoot out of the event. It's about capturing the memories, but perhaps in a more pleasing way than a cellphone shot. I totally get that. That's what a lot of us do. But one thing I find is that a bunch of headshots, like you pointed out, don't really capture the moment. Who knows when or where that was. And that's why you're seeking faster wider glass. 35mm and wider takes you there. Candid captures that are wide are a great way to capture memories. It's like family photojournalism.

Your 5D2 can handle higher ISO just fine. Don't be afraid to crank it up. A flash still does wonders though (bounced).

+++++++++++++++

Dirty example of a birthday with kids at a dark venue with games, playing, running, lots of weird lights, tight quarters, opening presents, etc, and wanting to get a little bit of everything, using a 5D1 and a 35 F2 IS. I went natural light on this one because of the weird blend of the flurescent lights, the game lights, window light, etc, it was all over the place. For me to correct all of it, I'd have to stop out all light, but I didn't want to do that, I wanted the weird mix, because that's what it's like in an arcade and wanted to keep the feel. Normally, I'd shoot with flash.

Hosted photo: posted by MalVeauX in
./showthread.php?p=184​90682&i=i61311189
forum: General Photography Talk

Hosted photo: posted by MalVeauX in
./showthread.php?p=184​90682&i=i143484180
forum: General Photography Talk

+++++++++++++++

My other mainstay for events with kids, family, etc, is to use an ultrawide like the 17-40L or similar. I'd be perfectly content with a 14mm or 15mm prime (on full frame) as a lot of it is done at really wide angles to capture everything involved. For this, I use flash. I'm already going to be around F5.6 because I want everything in focus, and then from there, I just provide the light with bounced ETTL flash off the ceiling or a wall. I don't even have to look through the camera, so I can hold it lower and just fire away, because at 17mm on full frame, everything is virtually in the FOV. The key is the flash.

I very common use these for family fuction, events, birthdays, celebration, etc. Don't want to hug a wall indoor. You want to be part of it all.

35mm F2 IS
17-40L
ETTL Flash

If I were to replace those two lenses, it would be with a 24-70 F2.8 VC (Tamron) to get stabilization, F2.8, and the ability to go 24mm and 35mm on one lens. But I'd still always have the flash as an option.

Very best,

Thanks. Makes a lot of sense. Great shots with the 35mm too. Thanks for those examples.

I really do think the Tamron 24-70mm would suit my needs best. I'm going to go tomorrow to the local camera store and take a few test shots with it so I can review them in Lighroom. That's likely what I'll end up going with.

For family? I used Tamron 28-75 2.8 on 5D and 5D ii. It is great portrait lens, known by some old members on POTN. This is how I get this lens and here is abutelly nothing wrong with this lens. I used it on 28, 75 and 35 for portraits. Not big or heavy lens for this type.
Because of the lens snob factor you could get one cheap and it was not expensive even new with warranty.

I like 28 for family pictures, it allows to be really close, which is very different from 85 perspective. And it is great indoors.