50mm vs 105mm

[JBPhotog]

Even though the OP never mentioned their application was 'street' portraits, here's one from indoors one from the street with the 105mm.

 

[Dave Maciak]

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.

How about a Leica or XPRO3? I think you misunderstood mine.

 

[mjcmt]

My personal experience is a 105 flattens the image too much for my taste, while an 85mm gives that nice bokeh and portrait look in a more natural presentation. Back in the film day I had the 105mm but it didn't do it for me, and I sold it soon afterwards. This is my perception and others may feel deferentially.

 

[AlanKlein]

Even though the OP never mentioned their application was 'street' portraits, here's one from indoors one from the street with the 105mm.


View attachment 196032

James. You really need to get that flash fixed.

 

[JBPhotog]

Even though the OP never mentioned their application was 'street' portraits, here's one from indoors one from the street with the 105mm.


View attachment 196032

James. You really need to get that flash fixed.

Ha! Natural light in both cases.

 

[DanOstergren]

If you intend on taking portraits of people anywhere in the realm of headshots, you absolutely should be shooting with a lens that is longer than 50mm and no wider than 85mm, for the one simple fact that any focal length shorter than 85mm is going to distort facial features in close up shots. Just my opinion, but absolutely go for a 105mm if you want it for portraits. If not 105mm, get an 85mm. You will notice the visual difference in these lenses from your 50mm lens immediately.

 

[Derrel]

There is a reason that camera companies have made 85 mm, 90 mm, 100mm and 105 millimeter lenses for 24x36mm capture size cameras since roughly the late 1920s.

 

[SquarePeg]

The bokeh on the Nikon 105mm is gorgeous! That lens is the one and only thing I miss about Nikon.

 

[Derrel]

Here TPF member Andrew Dinardy uses a 105 mm f 2.5 AIS version on his Nikon d7100. (Shot with the 70-300 Afs-G VR)

 

[DeviantWolf]

I appreciate everyone's advice, it's greatly appreciated. I have been sitting on this for quite some time and thank you for the personal examples as well.

 

[Pixeldawg1]

Interesting question. Yes, some major differences. The 105 compresses perspective in comparison to the 50mm lens. It also has a more shallow depth of field. So, what this means for your photos is that things in foreground and background will appear closer together (i.e., more compressed), but those background objects will also be more out of focus at more open apertures. All of this though depends on the distance away the objects are, aperture used and even specific to the lens. Not all 105's act exactly alike in this respect. As far as shooting portraits, the "ideal lens" for portraits is double the standard focal length of the camera's "normal" lens. So for a FF/35mm camera, a 50 is the normal lens focal length, so 100 is ideal for portraits. In a medium format, an 80 is the normal focal length of the standard lens, so a 160 (or around 160, usually a 150) is good for portraits. This again comes down to perspective of the facial features within the face, and not making the nose look too big in comparison to the remainder of the face (because it is physically closer to the camera than say the ears in a forward facing shot). Now, many people mistakenly think that on a DX sensor (smaller than a 35mm FF sensor) that they are gaining millimetres when in fact it is simply cropping the image. You gain no perspective this way, which is the big consideration when making a facial portrait. So, my advice to you would be that if you are going to make a portrait, the 105 would be a much better choice for more closely cropped facial images. You won't go wrong. I didn't read which brand of camera you are using, but if it is a Nikon, the 105 that I use is bar-none the sharpest lens I own, and mine is about 35 years old. I refuse to part with it. Additionally, it is a magnificent macro lens, which for me, opened up a whole new world of photography. Good luck with your decision.