which focal length for nice portraits

[fwellers]

When I buy my first rangefinder, I will only be getting one lense, at least to start.
It will probably be either a 35mm or 50mm. Being it'll be my only lens, I'd like it to be able to take flattering head shots and other type portraits when it's asked to.

I've never shot with something as wide as a 35mm ( I have 35mm on my crop body, not the same thing ). So, I don't know if it would be good enough to do duty taking portraits also.

What think you guys ?

Thanks,
Floyd

 

[uhligfd]

You will need more than one lens: street at 28 or 35 mm; portraits at 75 to 90 mm on 35 mm film (full sensor size)

 

[bmattock]

Portraits are generally taken with lenses between 70mm and 90mm in focal length. 50mm lenses can be used, but 35mm lenses are generally considered too short for portrait work.

Technically, any focal length lens can be used for portraits, but the problem of perspective can become an issue with very short lenses.

http://www.digitalartform.com/archives/2009/03/portrait_lenses.html

 

[fwellers]

Not the news I was hoping to hear, but thanks anyway. 🙂
I'll probably get a 50mm then as my first lens. I currently use a 35mm for most everything on my D90, and it's ok, but I go to the 50mm for portrait shots.

I guess the best combo for me would be either 28 and 75 or 35 and 75. At least with the 75 vs the 90, I should have enough room for headshots indoors. 🙂

Thanks !

 

[f16sunshine]

Assuming your first RF will be a film camera. I would suggest that you take a quality 35 or 50mm lens for your "normal" lens.
There are a few different LTM lenses from the past you can take for under $100 for Portraits. The Canon 85mm f2 or Jupiter 9 85mm f2 are two good examples. The Canon is a improved Gauss scheme the Jupiter a Sonnar. Either are slightly soft open with a nice glow that is classic for Portraits. Both become quite sharp stopped down.

I suppose the point is. Don't base your first lens on Portrait use. The best lenses for Portraits are not appropriate for 90% of the rest of your shooting.

 

[mr_phillip]

Wideangle lenses aren't great for portraits due to the way the exaggerate depth within the frame (they distort faces by making noses look big, faces round, etc.) For that reason, unless you deliberately want to use the distortion of a wideangle for artistic reasons, longer lenses are better. Something in the region of 75-135mm, depending on how tight you want your portraits to be.

If it were me, instead of asking one lens to do it all, I'd go for a 35mm and a 90mm combo.

 

[Tuolumne]

My favorite portrait length on a 35mm slr: 105mm
My favorite portrait length on a RF: 90mm

/T

 

[Sparrow]

It depends how tight you want to frame it, for a flattering look to the face you need to be 2.5-3 metres from the subject regardless of the lenses’ focal length

PS My favourite is also 105 on a SLR

 

[KenD]

Funny how most photo questions have the same answer... it depends on what you want. Do you want a somewhat flattened look of a telephoto, or the rounder look of a normal lens? How close do you want to work - a 50 makes for a much more intimate distance to the sitter than a 90, 135, or (with an slr)200 or 300. How tight do you want to frame?

I generally pick an 85 for tight slr portraits, but prefer a 50 (vive le j-3) for rangefinder portraits, with lots of room (negative space as our artist pals would call it) around the head and shoulders person.

 

[peterm1]

I prefer shooting portraits with a 105 or even a 135 due to the flattering look they give to a face and their ability to throw the background out of focus. But a fast 50 is perfectly adequate, especially on a digital camera where the cropping factor makes it compose like a longer lens (although all else - depth of field etc remains the same .)

There is no doubt that wider angle lenses are unflattering to faces - they make the face rounder, the nose bigger and the ears look to be set further back on the head. None of these are attractive on their own and when they all happen together its diabolical.

 

[Matt(1pt4)]

A 35 is fine for portraits. Just shoot a bit wider, making environmental portraits instead of the more traditional head and shoulders shot.

 

[35mmdelux]

You can shoot some nice portraits with the 50mm but not head and shoulders. For tighter shots go with the 85/90mm lens. I have the 90mm ASPH just for this purpose.

 

[Bob Michaels]

When using a 35mm camera, I tend towards either a 50mm or 35mm lens. But I am one who always wants to have a bit of the environment in the photo. So I never do the typical head and shoulders shots.

But, I tend to prefer to do what portraits I do in MF. And this is the one time I go for my only SLR, a Bronica SQA. There I use the 110 macro. But it's level of sharpness is not for everyone's taste in portraits. I like soft lighting in this case but not soft prints.

No one mentioned the lighting being a more critical part of a portrait than the lens ever could be. So I will.

 

[35mmdelux]

For more formal portraits I go with my Hasselblad and 100CF lens. Nails it each time.

 

[Jay Decker]

Portraits and Perspective

Portraits and Perspective

When I buy my first rangefinder, I will only be getting one lense, at least to start.
It will probably be either a 35mm or 50mm. Being it'll be my only lens, I'd like it to be able to take flattering head shots and other type portraits when it's asked to.

I've never shot with something as wide as a 35mm ( I have 35mm on my crop body, not the same thing ). So, I don't know if it would be good enough to do duty taking portraits also.

What think you guys ?

Thanks,
Floyd

Floyd - you are going to have a ball with your first rangefinder! Congratulations!

Assuming the that you are going to getting a 35mm format RF, I would encourage you to get the longest focal length lens for yourcamera that you can, which for a number of camera system is 90mm - 135mm. The reason that I would encourage you to get the longest focal length lens is that for small image format like 35mm rangefinders, you want as much camera to subject distance as possible so that the visual perspective of the subject is more natural looking. Ken Rockwell wrote a pretty good summary article on the subject here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/portrait-lenses.htm

That said, I would also encourage you to shoot environmental portraits with you first lens... what ever it is. Be creative and have fun, you get some great photographs and learn a lot at the same time.

Best,

Jay

 

[SamC]

Lots of good advice so far. I generally prefer using 50mm on RF for nice half body portraits. 35mm would be great if you want to do environmental portraits, and 75 to 90mm for tight head and facial portraits. If just starting on RF, I think 50mm is a good starter.

 

[kazeonrff]

The 50mm is my do-it-all lens!

I think rangefinder shooting is more "special" than normal slr photography, and to me, i like to put alot of mood and ambience into my portraits.
I don't just take advantage of a rangefinder's ability to take pictures in low light - i ABUSE it! Alot of my photos have been shot in dark, shadowy indoor lighting, or soft nightlamp glows and wherever else i can get a lovely light source. Those are the photos i probably can't get with an slr.

The 50mm and it's speed definitely does it for me. Bokeh is great too, of course.

 

[noimmunity]

I think 75 is ideal for portraits, especially if you can afford to get a 75 with close focus up to 0.7meters.

I like to balance this with either a 35 or a 28 for environmental portraits. The 35 is easier to use. The 28 requires more care cuz of the perspective distortion near the frame edges.

To my mind, a 50 is neither here nor there for portraits. The only reason I'd use a 50 for portraits is either for the look of the C Sonnar or the speed of the 35/1.2 on the M8 or the new 50/1.1 on film. I think either the 35 or the 75 work better for people pictures.

Above 75, up through 135, it's all fine, but nothing captures like a 75, for me, the naturalness and immediacy of the person while allowing me the photog a close rapport (which I consider essential to taking portraits).

A Nikkor 85/2 is a fantastic portrait lens and can be had in chrome for cheap. It is not fast in use cause of the long throw, it is heavy, and it is less well-suited to general purpose photography.

Most of my photos are portraits, so the first lens on which I decided to spend an inordinate amount of money was a close focusing 75/2 cron. But the CV 75/2.5 is also a fantastic lens for portraits if you can live with the 1m focus distance.

Good luck with your choices.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Buy a silly-cheap Jupiter 85/2 along with a good 35. That'll give you an ideal portrait lens and another lens for doing most of the rest of your photography.

Tashi delek,

R.

 

[Spyderman]

I'd suggest a good 35 as your main lens and add a cheaper 90, but not Jupiter. For similar money you can find an elmar. Even though a little slower, you can be sure it will focus correctly (Jupiter-9 are famous for their incompatibility with Leica). Or if you have enough money, Tele-Elmarit, CV Apo Lanthar, CV 75 Heliar...