Best lens for 12+ family portrait?

[o hey tyler]

You were within 5 feet of that dog, probably closer to 3. The amount of background separation you will get from a longer focal length on a group portrait will be a massive difference. Trust me. I've been there, with a 35mm f/1.4 and 135/2.

 

[sactown024]

i think ill try the 85mm, worst case ill break out the nifty fifty. thanks guys

 

[fjrabon]

You were within 5 feet of that dog, probably closer to 3. The amount of background separation you will get from a longer focal length on a group portrait will be a massive difference. Trust me. I've been there, with a 35mm f/1.4 and 135/2.

My greater point is this: your creaminess is going to be more dictated by the necessary DoF to have the entire group sharp and the distance of the background more so than the characteristics of the lens. A 35mm f/1.4 will give you much more creaminess than you'd need. In fact, it would give you much more than you could even use. Same for a 135mm f/2. You wouldn't even be able to use it for a 12 person group at f/2 without somebody being soft.

edit: and how close I was was sort of the point. That's what a wider FoV allows you to do, get closer, which, like I said, takes away some of the advantages of a longer focal length.

 

[o hey tyler]

135/2L



35/1.4L



Very different.

 

[fjrabon]

135/2L

View attachment 24677

35/1.4L

View attachment 24678

Very different.

It's not the same framing. In the first you're as close as you could get without cutting people out. In the second you've left substantially more empty space around the edges. Comparing apples to oranges.

 

[sactown024]

makes me want the 135 how far away from your subjects were you with the 135?

 

[fjrabon]

by the way tyler, I'm assuming these were shot FF? so for OP, that's like comparing roughly a 24mm and an 85mm.

 

[o hey tyler]

by the way tyler, I'm assuming these were shot FF? so for OP, that's like comparing roughly a 24mm and an 85mm.

Sensor size is irrelevant if its consistent throughout the shoot though. There's a large difference between a 24/1.4 and an 85/1.4 as well in terms of background distance.

The photo you posted was comparing an apple to nothing. There is no frame of reference for the dog photo. My shots are close enough for you to see the difference in background separation.

Not trying to be a dick, but I've been there/done that, etc. Its fine if you don't agree with me, we can agree to disagree. I know what I've shot and seen the differences first hand, so that's what I work from. No hard feelings.

Sactown, I was probably 20 or so feet away with a full frame camera.

 

[fjrabon]

Sensor size is irrelevant if its consistent throughout the shoot though. There's a large difference between a 24/1.4 and an 85/1.4 as well in terms of background distance.

The photo you posted was comparing an apple to nothing. There is no frame of reference for the dog photo. My shots are close enough for you to see the difference in background separation.

Not trying to be a dick, but I've been there/done that, etc. Its fine if you don't agree with me, we can agree to disagree. I know what I've shot and seen the differences first hand, so that's what I work from. No hard feelings.

Sactown, I was probably 20 or so feet away with a full frame camera.

My point in mentioning full frame was for the OP to realize 135 wouldn't look like that on his camera, not specifically in arguing the point at that time. Just clarifying for OP who may or may not have known you were shooting on FF.

Sure, I never debated that greater focal length gives more separation. My point was, for a 12 person group, your limitation is going to be that if you get too much separation with a 12 person group shot, people will be out of focus. Your separation is going to be dictated by the DoF you MUST HAVE and not the max separation the lens can give. OP's photo is going to be 8 adults and 4 kids. Not 5 people, he's going to need more DoF than you had. It's not going to matter if he has a 85 f/1.8 or a 35mm f/1.4. He's not going to be able to use either wide open most likely.

OP simply needs to pick a background and have them stand a few hundred feet in front of it and all the creamy background worries will be moot. That allows him to pick a focal length for purely compositional reasons, which are really more important anyway.

 

[MOREGONE]

Really glad I saw this thread. I have a similar shoot coming up with a large family. Probably 3 households of families and then one large group photo of all of them.

As it stands I am planning to use my 70-200 on the short side around F4. Might need to break out my 35 prime or 17-50 for the group photo.

 

[o hey tyler]

My point in mentioning full frame was for the OP to realize 135 wouldn't look like that on his camera, not specifically in arguing the point at that time. Just clarifying for OP who may or may not have known you were shooting on FF.

I agree, it would look totally different on a FF camera.

Sure, I never debated that greater focal length gives more separation. My point was, for a 12 person group, your limitation is going to be that if you get too much separation with a 12 person group shot, people will be out of focus.

That's dependent on your DoF and what you deem acceptable. You can still stop down a 135/f2 and get an acceptable DoF with a much SHORTER DoF than with a wider lens/same subject framing. There's not such thing as "too much separation." Yes, there is a difference in inadequate depth of field, and proper depth of field, but when it comes to portraiture, rarely do shots with an in focus background "work" unless it's a direct contributing factor to the shot at hand.

Your separation is going to be dictated by the DoF you MUST HAVE and not the max separation the lens can give. OP's photo is going to be 8 adults and 4 kids. Not 5 people, he's going to need more DoF than you had. It's not going to matter if he has a 85 f/1.8 or a 35mm f/1.4. He's not going to be able to use either wide open most likely.

8 Adults and 4 kids will fit comfortably within a frame when posed correctly, and not even at that crazy of a distance with a long lens. 30-40 feet with a 135/2L on a crop frame camera. Not that far of a distance. He shouldn't consider using any lens wide open IMO (and I think we're on the same page for that one.)

OP simply needs to pick a background and have them stand a few hundred feet in front of it and all the creamy background worries will be moot. That allows him to pick a focal length for purely compositional reasons, which are really more important anyway.

I also agree on the fact that there needs to be a good distance between subject and background. There does not, however, necessitate a UWA lens.

 

[fjrabon]

I agree, it would look totally different on a FF camera.

That's dependent on your DoF and what you deem acceptable. You can still stop down a 135/f2 and get an acceptable DoF with a much SHORTER DoF than with a wider lens/same subject framing. There's not such thing as "too much separation." Yes, there is a difference in inadequate depth of field, and proper depth of field, but when it comes to portraiture, rarely do shots with an in focus background "work" unless it's a direct contributing factor to the shot at hand.

8 Adults and 4 kids will fit comfortably within a frame when posed correctly, and not even at that crazy of a distance with a long lens. 30-40 feet with a 135/2L on a crop frame camera. Not that far of a distance. He shouldn't consider using any lens wide open IMO (and I think we're on the same page for that one.)

I also agree on the fact that there needs to be a good distance between subject and background. There does not, however, necessitate a UWA lens.

I think we're mostly on the same page. My point was that if he picks his background distance wisely he can pick his focal length based on how he wants his subjects to look, instead of how he wants his background to look. In my view starting with your background is sort of backwards. You start with how you want your subjects to look, and then pick your focal length and background based on that. That's all I was really trying to convey to the OP. if your background is 100 feet away, you can choose if you want the compositional effects and angle of view of a moderate wide angle or a telephoto or somewhere in between. Instead of having it dictated by DoF concerns.

 

[mjhoward]

This thread is full of win! Several recommendations to shoot portraiture with an UWA lens, really???

For the OP, aperture size is going to play less of a role in your DOF than the the distance from you to your subject and the subject to background distance. If you are actually talking about bokeh, the quality of the out of focus area, then look for a high number of rounded aperture blades.

16mm on a crop body isn't really UWA though. that's basically 24mm on a full frame, which has been a fairly standard length for large groups over the years.

16mm is on a crop body is not 'basically' 24mm on full frame. There can be big differences in barrel distortion, perspective, DoF, etc.

 

[Derrel]

A few lenses I know of would make that shot look great....105mm f/2, 135 f/2, 180mm f/2.8, 200mm f/2. At about 35 feet with the 105, and about up to 60 feet with the 200mm f/2. Stop down to f/3.2 to f/3.5, and on a FF sensor, ANY of those fine primes would make a beautiful shallow DOF 12-person group shot.

In terms of "sharpness", a modern 70-200/2.8 pro zoom is going to be quite amply sharp. A prime is NOT needed, really.