What is a portrait lens for FF or 135?

[Chris101]

Actually it's worse than that - if you scroll up and read the quote I placed in my post, this is not even to do with what a "classic portrait focal length is" and whether or not that includes a 135mm. The direct quote which I questioned from the OP is his advise to somebody that:

a 135mm (equivalent) lens is "well beyond a portrait FOV".

Not whether it is a classic portrait length or not (although it clearly is), but rather whether his advice that a 135mm equivalent lens is actually "WELL BEYOND" a portrait length (clearly ridiculous and wrong, but unable to be admitted by OP), which is just ... well, I think we can say that's just plain wrong.

So. That's his opinion. We all know what an 85mm looks like and we know what 135 looks like. We get it. Some of us think that's classic and some don't.

Good. I myself, like 35mm portraits.

 

[uhoh7]

LOL - be a REAL man, and use a Nikon SLR with the 200mm f2.

Nice way to reverse your argument though in order to attempt a "cheat" win - YOU were the one who claimed anything longer than a 105mm equivalent was unacceptable.

I don't remember using the term "unacceptable". I think I implied 135mm was beyond the classic portrait FOV---in the sense one might use FOV when discussing normal lenses.

I do think 90 is really long for every day portraits on APS-C, but apparently there are a number of dedicated portrait 135s for digital now, and when i read up I see that the range 80-135mm is commonly refered to as "classic portrait" FL.

I think most photographers would consider 135 long for a primary portrait lens. But not all--I have learned. Which is in fact why I started this thread and this one:

http://forum.mflenses.com/what-is-a-portrait-lens-t46518.html

to learn.

I'm not taking the rest of that bait 😉 but I am curious:

"portrait lens" now does not imply any FL?

PS (I'm happy to see that at least 7 others are as mislead as me) 🙂

You do sound a bit vitriolic there, in particular the bit where Canon being or not being idiots labeling their 85s "portrait" lenses but also elsewhere.

Sry- over defensive there---did not expect S-storm--I'm calming down now.

 

[DamenS]

So. That's his opinion. We all know what an 85mm looks like and we know what 135 looks like. We get it. Some of us think that's classic and some don't.

Good. I myself, like 35mm portraits.

I agree. It's probably a bit about (and I should be clever enough to get beyond minutia like this) the difference between saying you believe something is not suitable and saying something is categorically not suitable - between an opinion couched as such and a regal pronouncement. This is especially important when we are responding to advice being asked by people who may be relatively inexperienced and may view our advice as being unassailably accurate if it is couched in definitive terms. It seems to be a Duty of Care thing ... to me ... in my opinion ... 😉

 

[DamenS]

I don't remember using the term "unacceptable". I think I implied 135mm was beyond the classic portrait FOV---in the sense one might use FOV when discussing normal lenses.

I do think 90 is really long for every day portraits on APS-C, but apparently there are a number of dedicated portrait 135s for digital now, and when i read up I see that the range 80-135mm is commonly refered to as "classic portrait" FL.

I think most photographers would consider 135 long for a primary portrait lens. But not all--I have learned. Which is in fact why I started this thread and this one:

http://forum.mflenses.com/what-is-a-portrait-lens-t46518.html

to learn.

I'm not taking the rest of that bait 😉 but I am curious:

"portrait lens" now does not imply any FL?

PS (I'm happy to see that at least 7 others are as mislead as me) 🙂

A portrait lens is anything with which you have taken a portrait - this seems clear, simple and right. I just wouldn't say that anything beyond 105mm is "too long" to be a portrait lens, a point upon which you have differed (and I've quoted you enough now for you to know exactly what you said - hint: it wasn't about "classic portrait focal lengths", but I've seen you back-pedal, and (mis)appropriate my own arguments, enough thus far that I know what you are willing to offer and what you are unable to confess). You suggest that you have now performed some research which has allowed you to come to a new understanding that a 135mm lens may be considered a "portrait" focal length and not "well beyond a portrait FOV".

We give thanks for what we get.

I didn't "bait you" in the previous email - I simply said that you were taking my argument as your own and conferring your own faulty logic upon me - which is not only disingenuous it is demonstrably wrong to anyone who reads what you said (unless you go back and edit).

PS how IS a portrait lens being any focal length (my argument, augmented with the suggestion 75mm-135mm are "classic" portrait lengths, with which you argued mercilessly) compatible with your belief that:

It's a funny discussion, since as noted, the GXR has a 1.5x crop an hence 85s and esp 90s are well beyond a portrait FOV.

 

[Chris101]

This thread largely seems to be about a dispute between two people.

Yeah, but we don't have to give them that. When you release a photo to the world, it's meaning and intent becomes the property of your critics. Same thing with threads. We (the denizens of RFF) own this thread now. And the topic is interesting to me, and apparently you:

I didn't see the discussion in the other thread before it was pointed out here - my guess is that the discussion started more from the label "classic" and whether it extends to 135mm or not. I guess that's more of a question of style to begin with - maybe the "classic" portrait lenses are those that were and are used for "classic" portraits, which suggest 85mm for a torso shot, and 105-135 for a head shot (all relative to full frame).

After all these conventions all developed when photography was more formalized visually than it is now, with less grungy/punk/drunken master style works.

Indeed, I too interpret "classic" to connote "established in the past". If one is bound to the rules of established photography, then classic is the way to go. The posing, lighting and lens choices have been made long ago, so the actual artistic choices are more limited. And much like the limits of all of photography, these only add to the 'search-for-the-new' type of creativity that artistic limits induce. So I think there is still lots of life to the tried and true methods of classic portraiture.

Since they are old however, classic methods often get bypassed by the most enthusiastic and creative segment of our craft: young photographers. And it is no accident that happenstance photography is easier and less expensive than directed photography. And, because they are more likely to catch the action, wider lenses are more applicable to happenstance (ie, candid, g/p/d-m style) photography.

So, if we old guys like it or not, the definition of norms is changing. I like it, cause staying the same is boring.

 

[ruby.monkey]

Currently, for me, anywhere between 12mm and 200mm inclusive.

 

[Lss]

I would rather say a portrait lens is any lens you primarily use to shoot portraits. A cat lens is a lens with which you primarily shoot cat photos.

 

[f6andBthere]

I would have though that the OP's reference to 135mm was the 36 x 24mm negative (not a focal length) ... which we also call full frame around here!

Taken in that context the title makes perfect sense.

 

[rover]

I once thought the answer to this was simple

I think you are thinking too much.

 

[21-135 Apo All Good]

This entire thread was blown way out of proportion. Unless I missed something in all this banter, the term "Environmental Portrait" has yet to be used. As we all know (or should) people tend to look better when photographed at a traditional distance using a traditional objective (85mm & upwards, as 75 isn't really "traditional" per-se in 35mm cameras). That being said, I often use a 40mm distagon on my Hassy for an environmental portrait. By careful placement of the subject at or near the middle of the frame, the usual "egg-head" ultra-wide look disappears.

That being said, a friend of mine once had a 300mm F2.0 for his motorized F3 and did lots of fashion work with it. Great piece of glass with a 122mm filter in the front!

So while it is true that a real photographer can use almost any focal length, that doesn't make-up for lack of traditional training as well as knowing HOW & WHEN to break the rules effectively. It also doesn't make up for lazy one-lens wonders who shoot everything with a wide angle because they're either lazy, cheap, untrained or think that taking photos of a typical over-weight person with a wide angle makes them look their best.

So give me a break! This "poll" is more like someone throwing a hand grenade into a room full of people and waiting to see what happens next! I call BS!

Dave

 

[Sparrow]

I think you are thinking too much.

I think I do that too ...

 

[rover]

I think I do that too ...

I have found it gets in the way most of the time.

 

[sniki]

That depends.

 

[FPjohn]

Equivalent might have been a useful qualifier.

yours
FPJ

 

[DanOnRoute66]

The rule of thumb traditionally is a focal length that's twice that of the standard focal length. Where 50mm is considered the standard focal length for 35mm film cameras, somewhere around 100mm is considered a "portrait" lens because the perspective isn't too compressed as you might expect from longer focal lengths nor does it distort the perspective that you get from a wider angle lens. On that later point, shoot a head-and-shoulders image of a person with a 24mm or 28mm lens and you'll see those focal lengths generally aren't good for a head-and-shoulders shot.

 

[damien.murphy]

50mm on APS sensors works perfectly for me, at least for the type of available light indoor portraiture I'm fond of, so I guess that would be 75mm on 135 format cameras. 85mm on APS seems to be a very popular focal length on many of the internet forums I read, but personally I find that a little long for my tastes, and for me would be more a headshot/ outdoor lens.

in all though, I am of the opinion that portraits can be shot with any lens, and would use wider lenses if I shot more environmental portraiture, and longer lenses if I shot outdoors more or shot more headshots.

 

[thirtyfivefifty]

Since there was no mention on the specific type of portraiture being captured, I picked any.

 

[uhoh7]

I would have though that the OP's reference to 135mm was the 36 x 24mm negative (not a focal length) ... which we also call full frame around here!

Taken in that context the title makes perfect sense.

Yes, in the title 135 refers to the size of the film, not FL of lens.

Hand grenade? Really?

I was just asking a question, after being jumped over what I thought was a common term with roughly agreed general meanings.

But I was wrong to say 135 is outside the portrait FL---I'd never even heard of 135mm portrait lenses (though I do have a 135/2 soligor), but there are a number of them, especially apres 1985.

However the idea that a "portrait lens" is any lens you shoot somebodies face with is ridiculous, sorry.

 

[batterytypehah!]

Are you going to keep insulting us until we all agree with you? Good luck with that.

 

[Chris101]

Yes, in the title 135 refers to the size of the film, not FL of lens.

Hand grenade? Really?

I was just asking a question, after being jumped over what I thought was a common term with roughly agreed general meanings.

But I was wrong to say 135 is outside the portrait FL---I'd never even heard of 135mm portrait lenses (though I do have a 135/2 soligor), but there are a number of them, especially apres 1985.

However the idea that a "portrait lens" is any lens you shoot somebodies face with is ridiculous, sorry.

Don't be sorry. You are just wrong.