Choice of Portrait lens. Why do we use what we use ?

[raid]

I find the 50mm lenses to be my favorite lenses for portraits. I also use a Leica Summilux 75mm 1.4 and Nikkor 105mm 2.5 quite often.

 

[peterm1]

I was brought up old school, with many reasons given for using a lens in the short telephoto range. Less distortion of the features hence more flattering, discrete distance from the sitter and not "in their face". I wonder if in these times, where we are used to the wide effect of smart phone cameras on our features, there is more of a case to be made for the Nifty Fifty? I have shot a good few portraits lately using a Nikkor 50mm f1.4 Ais and it is a joy to use. I also love lenses in the 85mm range but the 50 is handy where there is little room to move. Your thoughts please ?

Pretty much the same as you. But I would go even longer when I can. Certainly I enjoy 105mm lenses. Other than that I still favor 85mm, 75mm and occasionally 50mm lenses for portraits. And you are right the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 AIS is superb for portraits too (as I would add are the earlier versions of this lens).

 

[Pál_K]

For portraits my best results have been with the 135/2 DC Nikkor - and I do use the DC feature to adjust background bokeh.

 

[kyte]

My eyes are not so good these days (especially using my M6). I rarely get in focus if use anything longer than 50. My 75 is my longest M lens and I get about 50% in focus. I would love a 90 or 135 but afraid I would miss even more. So my choice for portrait is 50.

 

[pvdhaar]

I've shot portraits with lenses ranging from 20mm to 300mm, but have since re-discovered the charm of the 50mm. It's an easy focal length to work with, that allows taking in some environmental clues while still allowing some isolation..

 

[Doug]

Some of these perspective problems are related to subject to camera distance. Someone with a big nose does not look good with a head and shoulder (or even tighter) portrait with a wider lens.

Also, profile portraits reduce subject to camera perspective problems. I've seen 28mm (35mm camera) close portraits that look fine, but turn the subject 90 degrees and it looks like you are looking into a Christmas tree ball ornament.

I agree... It's more of a distance issue that argues for a particular focal length. Choose your distance first, then use the lens that gives you the framing you want. Head'n'shoulders wants a longer lens than waist-up which is better with a longer lens than full-length. Then there's the matter of context, and how much is wanted, maybe calling for a 28mm even at the "usual" distance of 6 feet or so.
For that facial perspective, I'd use a longer subject distance (longer lens) for a subject with a narrow face, correspondingly closer (wider lens) for a wider face.

 

[John Bragg]

I agree... It's more of a distance issue that argues for a particular focal length. Choose your distance first, then use the lens that gives you the framing you want. Head'n'shoulders wants a longer lens than waist-up which is better with a longer lens than full-length. Then there's the matter of context, and how much is wanted, maybe calling for a 28mm even at the "usual" distance of 6 feet or so.
For that facial perspective, I'd use a longer subject distance (longer lens) for a subject with a narrow face, correspondingly closer (wider lens) for a wider face.

Sometimes the choice is made for you, by constraints of available light and space. Less room = shorter lens. Also, when working without additional lighting, the pool of available light is usually by a window and forces you to work a certain way.

 

[David Hughes]

A couple of points, thanks to the lockdown and so on I've seen too many wide angle shots of people sitting in front of a laptop and so I have had my opinion of anything less than 70mm reinforced.

Secondly, we tend to think of it as a cast iron rule that's not to be broken but really it's a suggestion to help beginners on their way. Like most suggestions it can be ignored but there's also a lot of truth in the reasoning behind it.


Regards, David

 

[Nitroplait]

Those headshot portraits with pleasing perspective and neutral background is what my grandmother would enjoy having on her mantelpiece.

I find it much more interesting to get contextual information rather than seeing the person in their most presentable manner. Anything from 20mm to 35mm will work - sometimes 50mm.

My 85-90mm only comes out if I have to shoot a passport photo for someone.

 

[John Bragg]

A couple of points, thanks to the lockdown and so on I've seen too many wide angle shots of people sitting in front of a laptop and so I have had my opinion of anything less than 70mm reinforced.

Secondly, we tend to think of it as a cast iron rule that's not to be broken but really it's a suggestion to help beginners on their way. Like most suggestions it can be ignored but there's also a lot of truth in the reasoning behind it.

Regards, David

An awful lot can be achieved with a standard lens and good available light. One of my favorite portraits is that by an un-named and possibly unknown photographer of Sir Hugh Dowding, Air Chief Marshall during the Battle of Britain. Great light and a wafer thin depth of focus, expertly applied.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&s...YQFnoECAsQAg&usg=AOvVaw3TNV5O09PJkzHPEQxUcAMD

 

[d__b]

I like to include environmental cues in portraits as well. The choice of focal length is not just about that though but also about how far the background context is.

For example 35mm where the restaurant and its neon lights are close:

Valentines Day dinner by David B, on Flickr

Or 100mm in this case where the mountains in the background are far away and would look tiny with a wide lens:

Mount Cook portrait by David B, on Flickr

 

[Montag006]

I like to include environmental cues in portraits as well. The choice of focal length is not just about that though but also about how far the background context is.

For example 35mm where the restaurant and its neon lights are close:
Valentines Day dinner by David B, on Flickr

Or 100mm in this case where the mountains in the background are far away and would look tiny with a wide lens:
Mount Cook portrait by David B, on Flickr

d___B
those are excellent examples,

nicely done and I like your reasons/reasoning

David

 

[d__b]

d___B
those are excellent examples,

nicely done and I like your reasons/reasoning

David

Thank you so much!

 

[Bingley]

I’ve been shooting environmental portraits of my granddaughter and her parents for the last 16 months. Although I have short tele lenses (e.g. 75 and 85), I have used them very little for portraits. The vast majority of family portraits have been shot with a 50, and the remainder with a 35. A couple of examples, taken with 50s:
Pandemic Gothic by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr


EC & KC by Steve Macfarlane, on Flickr

 

[Archiver]

35mm is fine for environmental portraits, especially in landscape orientation, and with subjects fairly close to the middle. People with long faces do not fare well with 35mm in portrait orientation where their face is close to the edge, as it elongates their faces even more. For such people and orientation, I prefer 50mm, 75mm or 85/90mm.

As most of my general shooting is with a 28 or 35, a 50 feels like a short tele to me, and I prefer portraits with that focal length. There are some stunning uses of 35mm for portraits - Marat Safin on flickr shoots glamour and nude portraits almost exclusively with the Nikon D700 and 35mm f1.4 G.

Warning: definitely NSFW:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/maratsafin

Taiwanese cinematographer Chunyang Lin does some wonderful work with a Summicron 50 (safe for work):

https://www.flickr.com/photos/chunyang/tags/50mm/