50mm vs 105mm

DeviantWolf

TPF Noob!
Joined
Aug 16, 2020
Messages
8
Reaction score
4
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I've been shooting with a 50mm for pretty much the beginning of my photography journey, but I hear people suggesting a 105mm lens as well. Is there really a big difference when it comes to portraits between the two lenses?
 
About 55mm:D (ASP-C sensor ratio's may differ);)
 
The 105mm compresses the depth of field so that the background falls out of focus better. (bokeh) It also allows you to stand back further. With 50mm if you stand too close, you could get distortion of front facial features like the nose that appears larger as compared to the rest of the face. That's particularly a distortion problem with wide angle lenses. Standing back further and using a 105mm, a great portrait focal length, will avoid that. Of course if you're using a ASP-C sensor, the 50mm is effectively a 75mm short zoom lens anyway which is a good range for portraits as well.
 
The field of view of the 105mm is pretty much half of a 50mm. A 50 is fine for 3/4 length portraits whereas using it for a tight headshot the perspective of nose to ears tends to distort the face, a 105 is much more pleasing.

There are plenty of examples on the web of using various FL framing the subject identically so one can see the perspective changing that may help you decide.

FWIW, I love the 105mm for people, the perfect sweet spot of working distance and optical quality.
 
Nothing that would force you to buy another lens. You can do what you need to with the 50. The longer focal length compresses the subject to eliminate distortion of facial features. However, it's all about your desired look.
 
On full frame my go to is an 85 mm. I have a 24-105 F 4 and 70-200 F 2.8 but one is too slow and the other gets too much attention from the subject. There is just something about the 85 F 1.8. I've heard others rave about 135 as well. I think part of it depends on the space and how far away you can, or want, to get from the subjects.
 
145231469.I7SKukSR.9076_PROOF_sRGB.jpg


13238181.DSC_7691_D1web.jpg


Two 105mm shots, the first from 2012, the second from 2001.
 
The background rendering of a 105 mm is quite versatile. If you shoot half body or less the 105 can throw the background pretty well out of focus as shown in my two photos above.

If you stand back a little bit farther and use a medium size aperture such as f 7.1 you can use the 105mm to show a bit of the shooting environment as we see in this photo of Jennifer, standing in front of a Columbia River Marina
D3X_4240_1600x.jpg
 
On full frame my go to is an 85 mm. I have a 24-105 F 4 and 70-200 F 2.8 but one is too slow and the other gets too much attention from the subject. There is just something about the 85 F 1.8. I've heard others rave about 135 as well. I think part of it depends on the space and how far away you can, or want, to get from the subjects.

Very good point about subject being too aware of lens and camera. Sensor size not withstanding, 85mm is right on the money for facial expressions that look normal. As a person still addicted to street photography I can tell you how much a long lens can be distracting at the very least. 135 is as high as I would go for a serious portrait.
 
Lens size can be a factor: in the 1980s I used to use the Nikon 85 mm / 2 which is almost the same exact size as a 35 mm f2. However when I bought the then class-leading Nikon 85 mm / 1.4, I noticed a marked decline in the spontaneity of my people pictures. Once we got to the era of auto focus,lenses suddenly became much larger in diameter and also in many cases, longer.The old 105mmn f / 2.5 manual focus was a fairly compact lens and used 52 mm filters. The 105 mm / 2 defocus was a much larger lens and used 72mm mm filters. I have long felt that except in the case of models and other camera people, that a smaller and less-obtrusive lens yields better results. For example the 24 to 70 f / 2.8 I think is a large and ostentatious lens that draws many disparaging looks. Instead of that lens I prefer the 28 to 80 mm-- a small,unobtrusive d-series lens from the 1990s
 
Last edited:
Perhaps lens size might make a difference in street photography but then again a 300mm F2.8 is huge and most people on the street would be oblivious to someone capturing a photo of them half a block away. LOL Virtually all of my clients know I am making a portrait of them so lens size is inconsequential, occasionally though I do have to wake them from time to time;)

I agree with @Derrel that most lenses of the current generation are much larger than the MF lenses of yesteryear due to the VR and AF space requirements. I would also suggest than fast aperture lenses back then were typically not the norm for most people, many were satisfied with F2-F2.8. As big as my Nikkor 105mm F1.4E is, it matches up beautifully with modern FX DSLR's.
 
Perhaps lens size might make a difference in street photography but then again a 300mm F2.8 is huge and most people on the street would be oblivious to someone capturing a photo of them half a block away. LOL Virtually all of my clients know I am making a portrait of them so lens size is inconsequential, occasionally though I do have to wake them from time to time;)

I agree with @Derrel that most lenses of the current generation are much larger than the MF lenses of yesteryear due to the VR and AF space requirements. I would also suggest tha streetn fast aperture lenses back then were typically not the norm for most people, many were satisfied with F2-F2.8. As big as my Nikkor 105mm F1.4E is, it matches up beautifully with modern FX DSLR's.

Half a block away? Unless you're working for a news agency for must get shot, get in there and get close. 35mm, 50mm is as big as I go for the street. Truthfully on 2 occasions I've used a long lens but normally, in the spirit of
street photos it's the short focals. Oh, by the way I use the older glass on the street, and generally, because as said--it is smaller.
 
Perhaps lens size might make a difference in street photography but then again a 300mm F2.8 is huge and most people on the street would be oblivious to someone capturing a photo of them half a block away. LOL Virtually all of my clients know I am making a portrait of them so lens size is inconsequential, occasionally though I do have to wake them from time to time;)

I agree with @Derrel that most lenses of the current generation are much larger than the MF lenses of yesteryear due to the VR and AF space requirements. I would also suggest tha streetn fast aperture lenses back then were typically not the norm for most people, many were satisfied with F2-F2.8. As big as my Nikkor 105mm F1.4E is, it matches up beautifully with modern FX DSLR's.

Half a block away? Unless you're working for a news agency for must get shot, get in there and get close. 35mm, 50mm is as big as I go for the street. Truthfully on 2 occasions I've used a long lens but normally, in the spirit of
street photos it's the short focals. Oh, by the way I use the older glass on the street, and generally, because as said--it is smaller.

You just made my point, a 50 or 105 are not ‘huge’ even the F1.4 variations and most doing street photography wouldn’t use a big lens like a 300 F2.8. If one is trying to be discrete there are smaller platforms than a modern DSLR like a rangefinder or the digital equivalent.
 
I think it would be helpful if several respondents shared street images and portraits (as Derrel did) at various focal lengths. I think, in the end, it depends on the look one wants. I don't claim street or portrait to be a strength but maybe later I can find something taken on the 85 and/or the 70-200.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top