Family photos

[SamiJoSchwirtz]

Hello all! Which lens is better for family photos? I have a shoot coming up and I haven't done family pics before (first for everything!) a 50 1.4 or 85 1.8....? Thank you

 

[Derrel]

Well, both lenses are good lenses. On an APS-C format body (1.5 or 1.6x sensor) the 50mm performs as a short, fast telephoto lens, while the 85mm becomes more or less a 127mm or thereabouts medium telephoto lens. From closer ranges, the 50mm is the better option most of the time. From 35 to 100 feet, the 85mm lens would come into its strongest distance ranges.

On an FX body, the 85mm would be my go-to lens for a short telephoto prime.

 

[tirediron]

That's like asking "Which car is better for driving, a Ford or a Chev?" Both lenses have their uses, and if I were doing a family shoot, (depending on how large the family was), I'd probably use both of them. Typically, when shooting family/group shots I'll use my 24-70, 85, and mabye 70-200. It's going to depend on how many people are each group (typically family shoots consist both of the whole family as well as smaller groups, parents, siblings, males, females, etc), location (Do you have room to back from a group of six and shoot at 200mm), and lighting.

 

[SamiJoSchwirtz]

Well, both lenses are good lenses. On an APS-C format body (1.5 or 1.6x sensor) the 50mm performs as a short, fast telephoto lens, while the 85mm becomes more or less a 127mm or thereabouts medium telephoto lens. From closer ranges, the 50mm is the better option most of the time. From 35 to 100 feet, the 85mm lens would come into its strongest distance ranges. On an FX body, the 85mm would be my go-to lens for a short telephoto prime.

Thank you!!

 

[SamiJoSchwirtz]

That's like asking "Which car is better for driving, a Ford or a Chev?" Both lenses have their uses, and if I were doing a family shoot, (depending on how large the family was), I'd probably use both of them. Typically, when shooting family/group shots I'll use my 24-70, 85, and mabye 70-200. It's going to depend on how many people are each group (typically family shoots consist both of the whole family as well as smaller groups, parents, siblings, males, females, etc), location (Do you have room to back from a group of six and shoot at 200mm), and lighting.

Ford... haha! But yes she wants them outside of her home, so no studio needed. there is a total of 6 people. I feel like with the 85 some people will be tack sharp and some will be OOF. Am I doing something wrong? Up my stop?

 

[Patrice]

Your choice of lens hinges on the size of the family group, the space available and your sensor dimensions. If you have enough light your kit zoom might just be your best choice. Large apertures are not usually called for as the DOF is too shallow to have the whole group in focus. If however you mean individual photos of family members then do as you would for any other portrait.

 

[pixmedic]

for most of our family portraits we use a 17-50 f/2.8 or sometimes a 24-70 f/2.8 depending on how back we need to be.
we rarely shoot under f/4, and the zooms give us more versatility if we want to make subtle changes to the framing without having to move the tripod.

 

[tirediron]

...I feel like with the 85 some people will be tack sharp and some will be OOF. Am I doing something wrong? Up my stop?

That all depends on your aperture and camera-to-subject distance. Exactly the same can be true of the 50. If you don't already, get a DoF app for your smart-phone, or pint out the tables here. One essential piece of kit I have in my tool-box (Yes, it is literally a tool-box which holds all my odds & ends) is a 25' measuring tape. When DoF is critical, I'll measure the camera-to-subject distance and select an aperture based on that.

 

[Derrel]

If you have two "ranks" of people, meaning a front row and a back row, three people in each, or four and three, in a fame that includes the six heads and partial bodies, with either the 50mm lens or the 85mm lens, my experience would be that you'd need to stop the lens down to about f/7.1, in order to get enough depth of field to be safe. And at that f/stop, you can NOT allow people in the back row to be just standing back there, behind the people in the front; the group would need to be posed CLOSELY, with the heads of the people in the back close to those in the front.

If you move back, so that everybody is shown head-to-toe across the frame (a landscape-orientation framing), you will have lower magnification, because you will be farther away, so depth of field will not be so hyper-critical, but you cannot afford to allow the back row of people to just be lounging, 4 feet behind the front-most people.

Last weekend I did an impromptu 5-person, two rank informal group shot with a 90mm telephoto on an FX Nikon, from across the narrow width of an apartment living room. I shot at f/7.1, and here's the shot. I favored the front row a bit, focus wise, and told the two in the back to move up as close to the front row people as possible. This is just about enough DOF, but I really would liked to have had a bit more: the woman in the center is the host of the event, so I made SURE she was in good focus, but the woman lower left is a wee bit closer to the camera, and she looks ever-so-slightly out of the depth of field to me. http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/157011529 The people in the back are adequately sharp, but again, I think at this close a distance, a smaller f/stop is always the better choice for safety.

* By smaller f/stop I mean a physically smaller aperture, like f/8 or f9 or f/11, as opposed to say f/5.6.