Best Studio Lens for Full Body shots?

[Robin Usagani]

http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image31.png

Thats not a full body shot, so whats the value of that ?AFAIK the recommented full frame lenses for face are 135mm and for full body 50mm. Or, much easier to memorize: the optimal distance to the person of which you want a portrait is about 5m.I certainly have no problem with people on my 35mm on DX (which, thanks to the 1.5 crop factor, is about 50mm for full frame). I just keep 5m distance to my subjects and they look natural.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Thats not a full body shot, so whats the value of that ?

AFAIK the recommented full frame lenses for face are 135mm and for full body 50mm. Or, much easier to memorize: the optimal distance to the person of which you want a portrait is about 5m.

I certainly have no problem with people on my 35mm on DX (which, thanks to the 1.5 crop factor, is about 50mm for full frame). I just keep 5m distance to my subjects and they look natural.

Are you just trying to be rude, or do you not understand the purpose of Robin's link was simply showing distortion caused by focal length? Distortion effects full body shots the same way as headshots, if not as obviously...

And the OP doesn't have 5m to step away from the subjects. SMH.

 

[Samerr9]

I think you're going to have a hard time using 85mm for a FULL BODY shot in a 15'x15' room. By the time you add a backdrop and some space between it and your model, you're gonna have 10-12' to work with with your back against the wall. On the 60D, your field of view at 12' away is only 3'2" x 2'1". Even if you had the full 15', you're only going to fit the full body of a 3'11" person in portrait orientation.

If you drop down to 50mm, you're going to be limited to 5'5" height (portrait orientation) at 12' and 6'9" for the 15' foot length of the room. You're going to either have to get a FF camera, a larger studio, use an abnormally short focal length, or forget about doing full body shots.

Sad to know but it is a good reason to move to FF

http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image31.png

I know a lot of models that would pay thousands for the 19mm shot. :lmao:

What is your secret ?

Hi all..

I have always wondered what is the best lens for full body shots in studio? if it should be long.. what is the minimum required for both full frame and crop bodies?

Thank you for you help.

On either crop body or full frame, the 85mm focal length is the shortest option with almost zero distortion. You can go longer than that, as many do, but if your space is limited for now, that's obviously not going to happen.

With the space limitations you listed, you won't be able to get a full body shot at a focal length that will provide zero distortion. You'll need to shoot in a different location, or adjust your expectations to waist up shots or headshots...

Now it is very clear to me, to avoid distortion I need a min of 85mm. I am sorry, but will I be able to fix distortion in post if using 50mm taking in consideration the space!

http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image31.png

Thats not a full body shot, so whats the value of that ?

AFAIK the recommented full frame lenses for face are 135mm and for full body 50mm. Or, much easier to memorize: the optimal distance to the person of which you want a portrait is about 5m.

I certainly have no problem with people on my 35mm on DX (which, thanks to the 1.5 crop factor, is about 50mm for full frame). I just keep 5m distance to my subjects and they look natural.

If using 35, good care has to be taken in regard of the hight and angle of the camera. right?

 

[Samerr9]

By the way, I have the 70-300 IS also.. So if by anychance the focal length worked, I will try shooting with this lens. But honestly I don't like it as I feel the images are soft.

 

[Solarflare]

Are you just trying to be rude, or do you not understand the purpose of Robin's link was simply showing distortion caused by focal length.

Which is my point.

There is no "distortion by focal length".

If you check the picture that got posted - the face is always about the same size. That means the photographer moved closer and closer and closer.

But if you keep 5m distance to your subject, you wont get distortion, no matter what focal length you use. The issue is simply how much of the person you photograph will be on the picture. At about 50mm, you get full body, while 135mm gives you the face.

 

[Robin Usagani]

Are you just trying to be rude, or do you not understand the purpose of Robin's link was simply showing distortion caused by focal length.

Which is my point.

There is no "distortion by focal length".

If you check the picture that got posted - the face is always about the same size. That means the photographer moved closer and closer and closer.

But if you keep 5m distance to your subject, you wont get distortion, no matter what focal length you use. The issue is simply how much of the person you photograph will be on the picture. At about 50mm, you get full body, while 135mm gives you the face.

OK.. just keep shooting with your 35mm man.

 

[jamesbjenkins]

Sad to know but it is a good reason to move to FF

There are a lot of reasons to move to full frame, assuming you can afford to. In my experience, the only reason to shoot a crop sensor body other than finances is if you're trying to get extra reach out of a tele lens. Apart from that, full frame is better in every case, IMO.

Now it is very clear to me, to avoid distortion I need a min of 85mm. I am sorry, but will I be able to fix distortion in post if using 50mm taking in consideration the space!

Unfortunately, it's just about impossible to fully fix distortion caused by the focal length of a lens and the distance to your subject. Image editors like Photoshop and Lightroom are capable of removing some distortion and vignetting via their built-in lens profiles. However, there's really no substitute for using the right tool for the right job.

By the way, I have the 70-300 IS also.. So if by anychance the focal length worked, I will try shooting with this lens. But honestly I don't like it as I feel the images are soft.

The softness issue is a problem for both the Nikon and Canon versions of the 70-300 IS / VR. It's an inexpensive, versatile lens, but it definitely has its weaknesses. The Nikon 28-300 is quite a bit sharper, but it has some wicked distortion and vignetting instead. There's always a give and take unless you're talking about the top of the line pro-grade lenses. They're pretty much perfect at what they're intended to do.

There is no "distortion by focal length".

I don't have time to explain to you the basic fundamentals of photography, but you are dead wrong. It's simple physics. Just because you don't perceive it in a particular image doesn't mean it's not there.

And regardless of that point, the OP doesn't have 5 meters to step off from his subject! Seriously, are you even reading these posts?

-

Hope that helps, OP. Post again if you want to continue this...

 

[Samerr9]

Hope that helps, OP. Post again if you want to continue this...

Thanks a million James for the detailed reply. Very helpful.

I will post again as soon as I move in, hopefully by next week. I will send photos of how the studio came out and what focal lenghtes I could reach.

 

[JClishe]

By the way, I have the 70-300 IS also.. So if by anychance the focal length worked, I will try shooting with this lens. But honestly I don't like it as I feel the images are soft.

I own that lens and wouldn't use it in the studio.

I own 50mm and 85mm primes and a 50D and 5D3, as well the 24-105L. Today I used all 3 lenses on my 5D3 for some glamour work, there is a time and place for everything. The 85 1.8 is usually too long on my 50D unless you have a lot of space to back up, but HANDS DOWN it is the sharpest of the bunch. The 85 on a full frame for glamour work is pure goodness. It's my go to lens and I only switch to the 50 or 24-105 if conditions necessitate it.

 

[Buckster]

By the way, I have the 70-300 IS also.. So if by anychance the focal length worked, I will try shooting with this lens. But honestly I don't like it as I feel the images are soft.

I own that lens and wouldn't use it in the studio.

I own 50mm and 85mm primes and a 50D and 5D3, as well the 24-105L. Today I used all 3 lenses on my 5D3 for some glamour work, there is a time and place for everything. The 85 1.8 is usually too long on my 50D unless you have a lot of space to back up, but HANDS DOWN it is the sharpest of the bunch. The 85 on a full frame for glamour work is pure goodness. It's my go to lens and I only switch to the 50 or 24-105 if conditions necessitate it.

Same here, except my bodies are 40D, 7D and 5DMKII. For portraits, my go-to is the 85mm on the 5DMKII, followed by the 24-105mm, then the 50mm.

 

[DiskoJoe]

You could use a 50mm. It would probably work best for your space limitation. Longer focal length is always better but work with what you have and Im sure it will be just fine.

I shot this with my 50mm from about 2-3 meters away.

ripped fishnets by DiskoJoe, on Flickr

 

[Helen B]

Are you just trying to be rude, or do you not understand the purpose of Robin's link was simply showing distortion caused by focal length.

Which is my point.

There is no "distortion by focal length".

If you check the picture that got posted - the face is always about the same size. That means the photographer moved closer and closer and closer.

But if you keep 5m distance to your subject, you wont get distortion, no matter what focal length you use. The issue is simply how much of the person you photograph will be on the picture. At about 50mm, you get full body, while 135mm gives you the face.

Thank goodness there's one person posting in this thread that has a good understanding of the subject.

 

[Helen B]

Thats not a full body shot, so whats the value of that ?

AFAIK the recommented full frame lenses for face are 135mm and for full body 50mm. Or, much easier to memorize: the optimal distance to the person of which you want a portrait is about 5m.

I certainly have no problem with people on my 35mm on DX (which, thanks to the 1.5 crop factor, is about 50mm for full frame). I just keep 5m distance to my subjects and they look natural.

Are you just trying to be rude, or do you not understand the purpose of Robin's link was simply showing distortion caused by focal length? Distortion effects full body shots the same way as headshots, if not as obviously...

And the OP doesn't have 5m to step away from the subjects. SMH.

We should be very clear about this: the composite image in the link does not show distortion caused by focal length per se - it shows 'distortion' caused by proximity to the subject, which is a consequence of the focal length if you keep the framing the same. Two very different effects. It's only a mismatch between the taking distance and the viewing distance/distance which we are accustomed to when looking into other people's faces.

 

[greybeard26]

Boy do people disagree on this one. It has been my experience shooting full body shots demands a lens with "normal" perspective. For a full frame that would be a 50mm and for a APC-C it would be a 35mm. Longer lenses can create an uncomfortable if not unworkable working distance.

Flame on.........lol

 

[Helen B]

If it was opinion-based I could understand 'disagreement', but it isn't. I'd love to hear any rational argument, or see any evidence, that supports the notion that lens focal length and not distance to subject affects this type of distortion. Take two images from the same postion, one with a 200 mm lens and one with a 28 mm lens (for example) and overlay them after changing the magnification. Apart from any pincushion/barrel distortion caused by lens defects (which are a feature of the particular lens design, not of all lenses of that focal length) they will be identical.