Is 85mm really ideal for portraits?

[Soocom1]

I'm glad you agree with me. But the registration distance is not really to do with the size of the image circle - Nikon APS and FF SLRs have the same registration distance - most (but not all) DX lenses have a smaller image circle than is needed for FX, but with the same registration distance!

which is WHY they are called CROPPED sensors.

Mirrorless cameras have a shorter registration distance because there is no need for a mirror box. Crudely, Nikon could make a lens for a Z6 by taking a D850 lens and gluing a bit of aluminium to it, and it would work exactly as it did on the D850. Indeed, that what the FTZ is - a hollow aluminium tube with some electrical contacts. Fitting a native Z6 lens on to a D850 is just as easy in theory - all you need is a hacksaw. However, one big advantage of the mirrorless with its short register distance is that short focal-length lenses don't need as many compromises inherent in retrofocus designs. But yes, I could remove the mirror box from a D850 with a hacksaw and make a Z6 lens work on it - but it seems a rather expensive project.

OK...

But enough of theory - can it be done? Yes. I make very crude lenses, and my single-element 72mm lens works on ALL of my (IL) cameras - NEX, Z6, D5100, Petri - completely ignorant of which camera it was designed for (because in reality it's a magnifying glass and a variety of Pringles tubes).

I can place a magnifying glass on a camera and make it work..
That's not the point.

And if you want a really, really simple proof of what I say, make a pinhole, put it on a camera, and take a picture. Add some extension tubes, and take the same picture. The 'focal length' will have changed, but the two pictures will have exactly the same perspective, albeit that the first one will show a bit more of the image.

The dynamics of lens construction and camera design has specific advantages.
the reg. distance is based again on the image circle aspect. There are adapters to fit 35mm lenses on Med. Format mirrorless. It can create an image circle and work, but in most aspects has no infinity.

But the aspect here is back to the OP.
The portrait lens of 85mm in this argument is based on 35mm camera design. (mirrorless or not.)

85mm has specific design aspects that make it more favorable (as pointed out in another post) mostly to european and Western tastes.
This includes typ. (though not always) a larger and faster lens, a narrower FoVV and less distortion int he sweet spot but allowing for a larger amount of light.

Original 85mm lenses from the 1960's have smaller elements and in some cases not as a dynamic range effect. this is why they are preferred. it makes for a nice compromise.

Having discovered the 135mm by accident in the 1980's I came to find the overall image quality heads and tails above a standard 50 or even 58mm (Rokkor lens) that I had inherited from the ol' man.

The problem there is the distance needed to make a clean image. More distance, narrower FoV and a smaller sweet spot translated to a good portrait but alot of lighting adjustments.

Again, why I prefer Med. Format.

 

[Rickbb]

Back in my film days I’d shoot bust shots, (waist up), with a 105 or a zoom at about 120. It looked better and let me get back far enough to make the sitter more at ease.

I’m pretty much the same on my crop sensor D90, zoomed out to get some distance and flatten the perspective a bit. It just looks better, IMHO.

 

[adamhiram]

The focal length makes no difference to the distortion - it's the distance between the model and the sensor.

Perspective is a matter of distance from the camera. If you shot a "perfect" portrait with an 85mm lens, then switched to a 50mm lens and shot from the same distance, then cropped the image, you'd have exactly the same portrait.

This totally makes sense, and I'm a little embarrassed this wasn't obvious to me from the start. Of course two photos taken from the same distance with the same lens will have the same perspective; the crop sensor will just be a cropped image. It actually feels silly even typing this.

 

[adamhiram]

On a full frame, an 85mm give a pleasingly low amount of distortion. I tend to like something a little shorter (70mm) for my head shots. In the old days, some people used to shoot with 135mm, which to me can make the face look a little flat

Basically, what made the 85 to 105mm length good for portraiture was that at the distance needed for good framing, the perspective was such that facial features were neither exaggerated nor flattened.

With a longer lens placed more distant (again, to get the desired framing,) the subject seems flattened.

There's also a cultural dimension to consider. My 'model' is Asian and she much prefers portraits taken with a low cost 27mm lens on a crop sensor Fuji to ones taken with the 56mm 'portrait' lens that I bought specifically for portraits at a much higher cost! When I've taken portraits of her friends, they say the same .... 27mm best, 35mm OK, but they are not keen on the 56mm shots.

These are excellent points, which were echoed in some of the reading I did prior to typing this post. I guess I've gotten so used to the 135mm look (or rather the perspective it gives when standing at the appropriate distance to fill the frame), so the full frame 85mm perspective looked a bit different to me. It makes sense that the perspective from 12' away would different than 6-8'.

I also didn't think of the cultural preference aspect of it, which is absolutely something important to consider. You also made an excellent point about the subject appearing in a way that is familiar to them. I presume that applies to portraiture in general - we typically see people from 6-8' away, so seeing their image flattened from a more distant perspective might not be as familiar or pleasing. Thanks for sharing!

 

[adamhiram]

Twice the standard focal length of the camera is considered the "ideal" focal length for portraits. So a 105mm for your camera will do very well. This is because the perspective at this focal length makes people look "natural".

Back in the film era, we always considered 105mm to be the shortest lens for good portraiture, with longer (135mm and up) being preferential.

I am still very interested in trying out 105mm or 135mm on a full frame body. I've become accustomed to that perspective, and I've gotten used to shooting from that distance using 85mm on a crop sensor, so that's not a big deal either. The catch is there are no native Z-mount options other than a 70-200, and nothing on Nikon's roadmap. I am curious how I would like shooting with Sigma's F-mount lenses in this range, although they are quite large and heavy, especially the 105mm. As I mentioned in my original post, the visual of this monster lens on a small mirrorless body is a bit comical, and I'm not sure it's something I'd want to carry around all day, but for studio work or on a tripod it seems quite usable. Definitely some food for thought!

 

[JBPhotog]

I am still very interested in trying out 105mm or 135mm on a full frame body. I've become accustomed to that perspective, and I've gotten used to shooting from that distance using 85mm on a crop sensor, so that's not a big deal either. The catch is there are no native Z-mount options other than a 70-200, and nothing on Nikon's roadmap. I am curious how I would like shooting with Sigma's F-mount lenses in this range, although they are quite large and heavy, especially the 105mm. As I mentioned in my original post, the visual of this monster lens on a small mirrorless body is a bit comical, and I'm not sure it's something I'd want to carry around all day, but for studio work or on a tripod it seems quite usable. Definitely some food for thought!

I suggest you have a look and feel of the Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/1.4E ED as if performs better than the Sigma and isn't as bulky. Some would say it has the same qualities as the Nikkor AF-S 200mm f/2G ED VRII.

Regarding FL for portraits, personally I am a fan of the 105mm for head and shoulders shots as the perspective on facial features produces natural results. However, I have also shot many head and shoulders with my Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G VRII and even my Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G VRII. Don't let anyone tell you you can only use a specific FL, you are the creator do what serves your vision.

 

[photoflyer]

If you told nothing else but that I was to go shoot portraits I would take my 85 on full frame for three reasons:

1 I just like it

2 I don't like the 50 for portraits

3 I don't have a 105, 135 or 200 ( and my 70-200 2.8 is just to intrusive for candids but could be great in studio)

Oh, and the 24-105 f 4 is a bit slow

But, I think you will find others who would much prefer the shorter or longer lenses and have great results to back their preference. Yes, distortion is a factor but I think we see it because we're looking for it. Unless it is extreme, l think the average viewer is drawn to other elements of a good image.

Ultimately it is what you're comfortable with and what you have experience with.

 

[adamhiram]

I suggest you have a look and feel of the Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/1.4E ED as if performs better than the Sigma and isn't as bulky. Some would say it has the same qualities as the Nikkor AF-S 200mm f/2G ED VRII.

Regarding FL for portraits, personally I am a fan of the 105mm for head and shoulders shots as the perspective on facial features produces natural results. However, I have also shot many head and shoulders with my Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G VRII and even my Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G VRII. Don't let anyone tell you you can only use a specific FL, you are the creator do what serves your vision.

Thank you, I appreciate the insight. I've read that the Sigma 105mm is a bit sharper and costs about $500 less, so that's interesting that you mention that the Nikon version performs better. Then again the Sigma is also a lot heavier and the massive front element probably makes it more even intrusive than the 70-200 you commented on. Hopefully I can get my hands on one or both of these to try out in the next few months and see if it's something I want to pick up. While I am used to the working distance that comes with 135mm (85mm on 1.5x crop sensor), I never liked being that far away, and in most cases it created a challenge of finding a space that long outside of my home studio.

As a side note, I have always had zooms and they sat on the shelf most of the time anyway. With the price tag on the Z-mount f/2.8 zooms, I'm certainly in no rush to go that route.

 

[adamhiram]

Yes, distortion is a factor but I think we see it because we're looking for it. Unless it is extreme, l think the average viewer is drawn to other elements of a good image.

Ultimately it is what you're comfortable with and what you have experience with.

Thank you, this is very helpful. I figured the slight distortion couldn't be a big deal if it is so many people's go-to for portraiture. I am in the fortunate position of having just switched to full frame, and have the opportunity to reconsider my lens strategy. I still have my 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 primes, so there's no immediate need to go out and purchase anything, but I am definitely eager to try out some other focal lengths.

 

[smoke665]

As always I enjoyed the in depth approach you take when approaching a question. I dont really have a prefrence, for me it's more a matter of fitting the lens to the application. In studio I don't need fast glass as my aperture rarely drops below f/5.6. With sufficient floor space and FOV I can routinely shoot head and shoulders kids and adults at 105mm. When I get into the more elaborate "set" shots 50mm is my go to. Using a technique I learned from a Joel Grimes video, I'll sometimes use the perspective distortion of a 28mm to "enlarge" the arms, muscle on men. In studio bokeh isnt so much a concern, but sharpness is.

Outside, it depends on the application, if I'm shooting ambient the legacy f/1.8 135mm is a good choice because of its buttery OOF and smooth transition between zones, as are the FA 100m 2.8, the 77mm f/1.8, LTD, and the legacy 50mm f/1.2. Many times it comes down to a choice based on FOV and space between the subject/subjects.

 

[AlanKlein]

The problem with the right lens and distance has to do with converting a 3D image to 2D on paper or a screen. In our brain, these issues are compensated for naturally. Noses are still larger than ears closer up than they are far away. But our brain understand this issue and adjusts accordingly and "sees" the nose at the correct size.

It just like Keystoning effect on buildings. When we look up at a building, the top edges are closer to each other than at the bottom. But our brain sees in 3D and adjusts accordingly mentally. But once you record that image a a 2D surface, film, screen or print, the lengths look different and the lines seems to converge. Or the nose seems bigger. So with noses, you stand further back and zoom in with a longer lens. With Keystoning, we keep the lens and film or sensor surface parallel to the building's surface.

 

[adamhiram]

In studio I don't need fast glass as my aperture rarely drops below f/5.6. With sufficient floor space and FOV I can routinely shoot head and shoulders kids and adults at 105mm. When I get into the more elaborate "set" shots 50mm is my go to. Using a technique I learned from a Joel Grimes video, I'll sometimes use the perspective distortion of a 28mm to "enlarge" the arms, muscle on men. In studio bokeh isn't so much a concern, but sharpness is.

You raise a really good point - for studio work I typically live between f/5.6 and f/8 as well. For the test shots used in this post, I used my variable aperture 70-300 lens, which seems plenty sharp once stepped down. In fact a number of people still use headshots I took with it a few years ago before I decided to pickup an 85mm prime. For outdoor use though, I definitely have a use for a wide aperture tele/portrait lens.

 

[Destin]

Subjectively, I always much preferred working in the 135mm range on full frame for portrait work. First, I did this with a 70-200 and eventually with a sigma 135 ART.

Anything below 100mm or so never seemed to give me the results I enjoyed. I don’t have a scientific breakdown of the reasons, though I suspect it relates to longer focal lengths making it easier to obtain background separation. Obviously this doesn’t matter much in the studio, but that was never my domain so I don’t have experience there to speak of.

If I could only have one lens for portrait work these days, it would be a 70-200 2.8 for the raw versatility that it brings to the table.

Alas, I don’t shoot portraits any longer so it’s not something I spend much time worrying about.

 

[paigew]

Personally, I think it depends on the portrait type. If I am shooting on a typical backdrop 50 is my go-to. (sigma 50 art). I actually photographed a school today and brought both my 85 art and my 50 art....as much as I wanted to use the 85, it was too tight and I switched back to my trusty 50. I have used a 50 for school portraits for over 5 years and I think it's the best for headshot/background shots. I think for outdoor shots or sessions where you have more room to move around I might use my 85. I think its important as a portrait photographer to have a wide variety of focal lengths in your bag

 

[smoke665]

@adamhiram another consideration for you to think about is aspect ratio. You always hear "fill the frame" but what do you do when you've "filled the frame" on a sensor with its 3:2 aspect ratio, and Mom wants an 8x10 (5:4) or an 11x14 (14:11) Your beautiful image is going to be missing something, or you spend some quality time in PS adding length/width, so you can crop to the correct ratio. A better option for me is a little pre-planning (choice of focal length and required FOV) for the anticipated final image so I have room to crop.