Comparison tool for portrait lenses with REAL images

[photo1x1.com]

Hey all,
I have been working on this for quite a while. I have created a comparison tool that helps people (particularly beginners) to see the difference, focal length and f-number make on different portraits.
You can compare 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm, and 200mm. Depending on the chosen lens you can then select f-numbers ranging from f/1.4 to f/16.
Another cool thing: you can also compare the lenses for APS-C size (1.5x) and full frame Sensors.
My goal is to help people understand how different aperture sizes and focal lengths change the look of portraits and how much background blur you can achieve with each.
A great example would be comparing a kit lens to the famous nifty fifty (50mm f/1.8) prime lens.
Edit: from the discussion so far I get that people think there was some kind of image manipulation going on. No, these are real images with real settings.

In case you have a discussion going on with someone about image compression in regard to portraits or someone says 200mm f/2.8 will create more background blur than 135mm f/1.8, you can even copy the specific comparison send people the link.

I hope it is useful for many people. Would be great to hear your thoughts on this.
Here is the Link: Portrait Lens Comparison Tool

 

[waday]

That’s pretty neat! Pretty smooth and easy to use on my phone.

One little thing I noticed is that the compare button is between the two options rather than at the end. I figured I had to put both sets of criteria in and then press compare, but just wanted to let you know.

 

[photo1x1.com]

That’s pretty neat! Pretty smooth and easy to use on my phone.

One little thing I noticed is that the compare button is between the two options rather than at the end. I figured I had to put both sets of criteria in and then press compare, but just wanted to let you know.

Thanks for your feedback. That is indeed a valid objection. I was going more for the optical thing. I need to play with it when I get some time.
Thanks again! Much appreciated!

 

[480sparky]

Interesting idea. Only thing missing is w/a distortion v. tele compression.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Interesting idea. Only thing missing is w/a distortion v. tele compression.

Thanks for your feedback!
I', not sure I understand. I didn't give the images a rating. So everyone can draw his own conclusion.

 

[Space Face]

That is quite amazing. Thanks for your efforts.

 

[480sparky]

Interesting idea. Only thing missing is w/a distortion v. tele compression.

Thanks for your feedback!
I', not sure I understand. I didn't give the images a rating. So everyone can draw his own conclusion.

The sample images are all taken with the same focal length. The comparisons on the site are more for just background blur. Taking a half-portrait with a 35mm will have terrible distortion of the subject when compared to a 135mm. And telephoto lenses 'compress' items in the FOV.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Interesting idea. Only thing missing is w/a distortion v. tele compression.

Thanks for your feedback!
I', not sure I understand. I didn't give the images a rating. So everyone can draw his own conclusion.

The sample images are all taken with the same focal length. The comparisons on the site are more for just background blur. Taking a half-portrait with a 35mm will have terrible distortion of the subject when compared to a 135mm. And telephoto lenses 'compress' items in the FOV.

You can select the focal length in the dropdown. 35mm and 135mm are both in the list.
I think this comparison is exactly what you have been talking about:
35mm vs 135mm comparison

 

[480sparky]

Interesting idea. Only thing missing is w/a distortion v. tele compression.

Thanks for your feedback!
I', not sure I understand. I didn't give the images a rating. So everyone can draw his own conclusion.

The sample images are all taken with the same focal length. The comparisons on the site are more for just background blur. Taking a half-portrait with a 35mm will have terrible distortion of the subject when compared to a 135mm. And telephoto lenses 'compress' items in the FOV.

You can select the focal length in the dropdown. 35mm and 135mm are both in the list.
I think this comparison is exactly what you have been talking about:
35mm vs 135mm comparison

You're not picking up what I'm laying down.

In order to have the same half-length portrait, one has to MOVE between shooting 35mm and 135mm. That changes the PERSPECTIVE. Using a 35mm for a half-length portrait will create a lot of distortion on the subject... enlarged nose, bubble-like head, looking up at the hairline and down on the waistline......

I'm not seeing that in the 35mm side.

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Interesting idea. Only thing missing is w/a distortion v. tele compression.

Thanks for your feedback!
I', not sure I understand. I didn't give the images a rating. So everyone can draw his own conclusion.

The sample images are all taken with the same focal length. The comparisons on the site are more for just background blur. Taking a half-portrait with a 35mm will have terrible distortion of the subject when compared to a 135mm. And telephoto lenses 'compress' items in the FOV.

You can select the focal length in the dropdown. 35mm and 135mm are both in the list.
I think this comparison is exactly what you have been talking about:
35mm vs 135mm comparison

You're not picking up what I'm laying down.

In order to have the same half-length portrait, one has to MOVE between shooting 35mm and 135mm. That changes the PERSPECTIVE. Using a 35mm for a half-length portrait will create a lot of distortion on the subject... enlarged nose, bubble-like head, looking up at the hairline and down on the waistline......

I'm not seeing that in the 35mm side.

Right, I don’t see any difference in the subject with any change in the variables. At 200 mm f2.8 the DoF should only be inches making part of the subject out of focus. These are nit picks though. I think the tool is still pretty valuable to show the differences.

 

[480sparky]

Another glaring error:

A half-portrait with a 35mm would be about 5 feet from the subject. The same half-portrait with a 135mm would be at about 17 feet. If both lenses were at f/1.8, the would have (and a lot of people don't understand this) the exact same DOF.

 

[photo1x1.com]

I'm afraid I still don't understand, people. These are real photos - no cropping or anything, just real photos with real lenses.
No manipulating done other than adjusting the brightness and white balance to make the lenses match and make up for the change of the lighting.
I went closer as the focal length got shorter and went further away when I used the crop sensor.
This is also something I wanted to proof with this tool. I often shoot 35mm. The distortion is not as bad as some people say. It is there though.

 

[480sparky]

Try using a FOV and DOF calculator. Assuming a 3 foot head-to-waist subject:

35MM on a full frame camera, you need to be 5 feet away to get 3.43 feet of subject height in frame.
135MM on a full frame camera, you need to be 17 feet away to get 3.02 feet of subject height in frame.

Now run the numbers through a DOF calculator:

35mm, f/1.8, focused at 5 feet, DOF is 4.69 to 5.45 feet.... 0.66 feet total.
135mm, f/1.8 focused at 17 feet, DOF is 16.75 to 17.26 feet... 0.51 feet total.

DOF of both images should be the same.

 

[photo1x1.com]

Sparky, I have no idea what you are trying to tell me (honestly, not trying to play dumb here).
These are photos I took. Are you saying they are wrong because they don't match FOV and DOF calculators?

 

[480sparky]

Here's what I'm telling you:

35mm at 5 feet will have the SAME DOF as a 135mm at 17 feet.

I don't know how I can make it any clearer.