Toronto Photography Meetup Group

TPMG.CA
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 5:10 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

What lens do you use for portraits?
50mm 36%  36%  [ 18 ]
85mm 30%  30%  [ 15 ]
135mm 12%  12%  [ 6 ]
telephoto zoom (like an 80-200) 20%  20%  [ 10 ]
wideangle zoom (like a 16-35) 2%  2%  [ 1 ]
Total votes : 50
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2007 11:33 am
Posts: 132
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Hey folks. Years ago when I was shooting lots I recall there being a rule of thumb that 85 and 135mm prime lenses were good for shooting portraits, headshots, etc. If I remember correctly this was (at least in part) due to the slight compression of DOF that they give.

So today, I shoot w. a 40D (crop sensor), so would a 50 (x 1.6= 80) and 85 (x1.6 = 136) be good substitutes?

Seems reasonable to me, but wondering about other's experiences.

Rick...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 6:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:01 am
Posts: 211
Location: GTA - East
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Even though I have several portrait primes, I still tend to use my telephoto zooms for much of my portrait work. However, that might be partially due to my shooting conditions - I'm often covering stage work, and need to get as much reach from my lens as possible. Also, flexibility helps as I shoot from the crowd, and do not have much space to foot-zoom. In general though, I'm usually shooting near the long end ~200mm.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:20 pm 
Offline
TPMG Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2007 3:52 am
Posts: 4022
Location: Newmarket
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 2 times
Flickr: http://goo.gl/RJbMu
My interpretation is that a 50mm lens on a crop body is still too short to make an effective portrait lens. This is for two reasons.

1. Working distance (especially for a head shot) can fall beyond the subject's comfort zone.
2. The compressive effect of telephoto lenses is part of the reason why these focal lengths are preferred... it has a slimming effect, especially when the subject's nose doesn't stick out as much. By using a 50mm lens, this compressive effect is not achievable, as it is a property of the lens, and not the crop.

In terms of cost effective portrait lenses, I have heard raves of (and have good personal experience with) the Tamron 90mm macro. A 70-200/2.8 is more flexible while providing the same maximum aperture, but at the price of weight. If you need or desire a shallower dof, then going to an 85 or 135mm prime.

I find that a 135mm equivalent fov makes for good working distance (not excessive) coupled with that compressive effect of tele lenses. However, I expect to have more experience with a 135mm prime lens soon (200mm equiv on crop).


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:51 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Fri May 05, 2006 6:33 pm
Posts: 1216
Location: Toronto, ON
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Depends on your definition of "portraits". I try to use the Canon 135mm f/2L on a 40D for as much as I can get away with, from headshots to full-length shots. ;) About the only difference is how far back I can stand. :lol: The relatively long focal length and the big aperture give you a dreamy bokeh, and the lens is tack sharp even wide open at f/2.0, which just serves to enhance the selective focus effect even more.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:14 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 02, 2008 2:28 am
Posts: 728
Location: Mississauga
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
100mm F2.8 macro is also decent for portraits and you can stand alittle closer to the subject than the 135mm :P

usually the larger primes are used when space isnt a concern


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 17, 2008 9:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:08 am
Posts: 279
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
i prefer my 70-200 2.8, blurs out the background nicely..
if i'm tight on space i like the 85 1.8


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 20, 2006 3:25 am
Posts: 388
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
go for the 85 1.2L


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:34 pm 
It's only $2000.


Top
  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:42 pm 
Offline
Official TPMG Contributor
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 4:18 pm
Posts: 4691
Has thanked: 3 times
Have thanks: 19 times
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/metrix_feet/
The 100mm f2.0 is a great lens for portraits, maybe not as good as the more expensive 135mm L but pretty close amazingly sharp even wide open.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 9:52 am
Posts: 130
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
When I am shooting people in studio, my 85 is almost always on my camera.

Hotwire's explaination is why...a 50 doesn't "behave" properly.


Glenn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:02 pm 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:07 pm
Posts: 1787
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Tanner wrote:
It's only $2000.


Gummiebear bought mine for only $1700 :( I am missing it :(
But with the money I added a 16-35 2.8L MKI and a 85mm 1.8 and still have enough leftover for a 50mm 1.4 :)

I use a 5D and I shoot portrait with the 70-200 2.8 IS.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 3:55 pm
Posts: 444
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Tanner wrote:
It's only $2000.


$1700 for 0.6 is not something I'd get,personally.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 7:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Feb 02, 2007 12:58 am
Posts: 825
Location: Guelph
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Get the Nikon 85 1.4 and something to adapt it to EOS mount ;)

All kidding aside, I've had good results from my 85mm prime, a telephoto zoom, and a macro lens in the 100 range. And I've SEEN good results from just about every focal length in the 50-200 range. It all comes down to what traits you like in a lens, how far you need/want to be from your subject, and how much you want to spend


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: ...
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 1:05 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:55 pm
Posts: 212
Location: Oakville, ON
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
for studio shoots, my 85mm 1.4 is always mounted. for kid portraits where I need to move around or i have limited space, i use my 17-55.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 8:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 15, 2006 1:18 pm
Posts: 260
Location: Hamilton and Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
tough to beat 135L.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:16 am 
Offline
TPMG ADDICT

Joined: Mon Sep 25, 2006 5:07 pm
Posts: 1787
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
DmitriM wrote:
Tanner wrote:
It's only $2000.


$1700 for 0.6 is not something I'd get,personally.


What is 0.6?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 11:36 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 25, 2007 3:02 pm
Posts: 1383
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
He means the f-stop.

Is there even a perfect portrait lens? Sure, the legendary 10-300mm f/1.2 AF-S VR.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:10 pm 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:53 am
Posts: 1334
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Compression is entirely an aspect of perspective, and is controlled by subject/camera distance. So a 50 on a crop will give similar compression to an 85 on 35mm (Slightly less due to the shorter length). But longer is often better, if you have enough room.

As Brian notes, going even longer has its advantages, I love the 180 or 200's on FF for portraiture, and even 300's can be used well if you have enough space.

The 85 was a 'small studio' lens when used for headshots or head/shoulders. It's really more suited to half-body shots (same goes for the 50 on a crop) unless you want to get intimate. I prefer an 85 for general use on crop (135 on FF).

The key issue is space. The more, the better. If you've got space you can use a longer lens. Bumping up against the close-focus limit usually means you don't have enough space. if you have space and you're still hitting that limit, get a longer lens.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:37 am
Posts: 184
Location: Downtown Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
i'm using the tamron 90 macro, although i like the colors of the minolta 50 a bit more.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 4:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:08 am
Posts: 279
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
Taylor wrote:
He means the f-stop.

Is there even a perfect portrait lens? Sure, the legendary 10-300mm f/1.2 AF-S VR.


if anyone would have one Taylor, it'd be you..LOL


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:06 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 10:01 am
Posts: 211
Location: GTA - East
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
DmitriM wrote:
Tanner wrote:
It's only $2000.


$1700 for 0.6 is not something I'd get,personally.


Well, f/1.8 to f/1.2 is actually a full stop of difference. So, yes, there is a big change (two-fold) in light that can pass through the lens. It is very difficult and expensive to design a well-performing lens with so much glass. You're also paying for the optimized bokeh characteristics of the lens design.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Apr 21, 2008 9:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 1:35 am
Posts: 355
Location: Markham, Ontario
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
with all the portraits Taylor takes, I'm surprised he doesn't already :lol:


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:15 am 
Offline
I'm on TPMG way too much

Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 10:53 am
Posts: 1334
Location: Toronto
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
simon_says wrote:
DmitriM wrote:
Tanner wrote:
It's only $2000.


$1700 for 0.6 is not something I'd get,personally.


Well, f/1.8 to f/1.2 is actually a full stop of difference. So, yes, there is a big change (two-fold) in light that can pass through the lens. It is very difficult and expensive to design a well-performing lens with so much glass. You're also paying for the optimized bokeh characteristics of the lens design.


Slightly more than a stop actually (f1.7 is the half-stop between f1.4 and f2. Canon uses an odd stop progression on their cameras mixing half and third stops).

And the f1.2L is also sharper at wide apertures, with better colour, contrast and build than the f1.8. The f1.8 comes ahead in weight and AF speed though.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 25, 2008 10:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2007 5:05 pm
Posts: 373
Location: Woodbine Ave at Kingston Road
Has thanked: 0 time
Have thanks: 0 time
i use my 50, my 85, my 60mm macro, my 17-55, and my 70-200 for portraits on my crop.

They all work


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 29 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group