Is 85mm really ideal for portraits?

[greybeard]

Like my signature says, shoot loose and crop. Many people don't realize that cropping a picture with from a 50mm will give you the same perspective as an un-cropped tele.

But you lose real estate so enlargements are grainier and not as clear.

That depends on your camera. With 20-24mp being the norm these days, that isn't as much of an issue as it use to be.

 

[AlanKlein]

Like my signature says, shoot loose and crop. Many people don't realize that cropping a picture with from a 50mm will give you the same perspective as an un-cropped tele.

But you lose real estate so enlargements are grainier and not as clear.

Like my signature says, shoot loose and crop. Many people don't realize that cropping a picture with from a 50mm will give you the same perspective as an un-cropped tele.

But you lose real estate so enlargements are grainier and not as clear.

That depends on your camera. With 20-24mp being the norm these days, that isn't as much of an issue as it use to be.

Sorry. I should have clarified I was referring to 35mm film.

 

[Space Face]

Judging by some of the cropped images I see, it's still a problem on digital camera's and often overdone, rendering on occasion, some quite horrendous IQ. Sometimes less is more.

 

[adamhiram]

Quick update - I decided to go with 135mm, specifically the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art lens for Nikon F-mount, adapted to Z-mount for use on a Z6II. 105mm probably would have been more useful for indoor shoots, but I already have an 85mm that I am happy with and I didn't feel like 105mm was enough of a difference in perspective to justify the cost. I think the longer focal length will be great for outdoor shoots, particularly when maintaining social distance is needed, and the large aperture should come in handy when I want a shallow depth of field. Thanks for the great discussion!

 

[mrca]

I recommend you take a look at the 135 2.o dc. Rockwell considers it the bokeh king. Angry photographer considers it only slightly second best to the 105 dc for portraits and he detests Sigma. This is a real art lens. Only 7 elements instead of 13 and it will render depth and a 3d look instead of flat and with way better micro contrast will captures more low energy shadow detail sucked out and reflected away by nearly twice as much glass. Color of skin is gorgeous based on how the reds are captured. Oh, and a used one can be had for less than $700. They are built like a tank and can be used on your film slrs as well. It is still made unchanged since 1994 for a reason, because folks that know a killer lens still buy new ones. I am teaching a class tomorrow and will be shooting outdoor natural light+reflector shots with the backgrounds in my back yard, a 200 yd long pond with docks and trees, an oak tree the size of the Keebler tree, shrubbery and a board fence with character. The lens is super sharp and renders backgrounds like budda. One of my favorite lenses. Don't listen to the folks who don't know how to use it with the CA issues. CA is minor and can be corrected in post. Can't add depth rendition, missing shadow detail and that bokeh in post.

 

[adamhiram]

I recommend you take a look at the 135 2.o dc. Rockwell considers it the bokeh king. Angry photographer considers it only slightly second best to the 105 dc for portraits and he detests Sigma. This is a real art lens.

I have been intrigued by the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC for years, and would have considered it for a DSLR. However it is manual focus only when adapted to work on a Nikon Z body, which made it a non-starter for me. The only film SLR I still have is a Minolta X-700 that just sits on a shelf looking pretty these days.

I had a chance to try the Sigma 135mm when I picked up my Z6II, and other than being quite heavy, I liked it a lot. It is incredibly sharp even wide open, albeit a bit clinical, and relatively fast autofocus for f/1.8.

 

[adamhiram]

I figured I would follow up with a sample shot after playing around with it for a few days.

Focus is tack sharp when I remember to stop it down enough to match the framing, AF speed is certainly fast enough, and the extreme shallow DoF is going to take some getting used to. The shot below was taken from about 6' away at f/1.8, giving a DoF of about 3/4". The eyes are in sharp focus, but as you can see, nothing else is, including the nose and mouth. I love how it renders and how quickly the background melts away. However at this distance, I think somewhere around f/5.6 to f/8 would have worked better. I'll have to keep that in mind for tighter portraits. Pretty clean for ISO 3200 though!

Nikon Z6II with Sigma 135mm f/1.8
135mm, f/1.8, 1/320s, ISO 3200


20201127-DSC_0306a by adamhiram, on Flickr

 

[govindvkumar]

I prefer to use the 85 mm over 135 mm for portraits. The 1.4 version prime lens really does a good job.

 

[greybeard]

The shorter the focal length, the bigger the nose and the smaller the ears. The longer the focal length, the smaller/flatter the nose and the bigger the ears. To me, 85mm portraits (FF) look the most natural. (opinions do vary).

My Wife shopping for shoes D850, 70-200 @ 85mm f/2.8

 

[mrca]

Compression is not controlled by lens length. Take a shot with a 24 and an 85 from 6 feet then crop the 24 to same size and the faces look the same. But fill the frame with the 24 at say 3 feet and the nose is huge. Perspective is set by subj/camera distance.

 

[Scott Murphy]

I use both my 85mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/1.8 AIS Nikkors for indoor portraiture but prefer to use my 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS or even my 200mm f/2 ED IF AIS Nikkors for outdoor photography if I have the room. For outdoor group photography I usually use the 105mm f/1.8.

 

[greybeard]

Compression is not controlled by lens length. Take a shot with a 24 and an 85 from 6 feet then crop the 24 to same size and the faces look the same. But fill the frame with the 24 at say 3 feet and the nose is huge. Perspective is set by subj/camera distance.

Compression is controlled by BOTH focal length and camera to subject distance. One of the reasons a 70-200 f/2.8 is so popular for portrait work because you can control the amount of compression at a variety of working distances.

 

[JBPhotog]

I think the correct terminology would be "perspective" when comparing portrait lens choices. The longer the focal length the further you need to be away from the subject in order to get the same subject framing in the viewfinder. The ratio in distance between the nose and the ears gets smaller and smaller the further you are away which changes the visual perspective of their size.

 

[mrca]

Greybeard, the only determinative of perspective is camera to subject distance. Lens choice is then made to achieve the desired framing but doesn't set perspective. Using zooms has taken people away from this principle, heck folks don't even think about it anymore, they just stand where they happen to be and twist the zoom.
White beards like me learned to because zooms were garbage for decades and even today with 22 pieces of glass, get dusted in image quality by an 8 element 180 2.8 D or 7 element 135 2.0 dc.both of which I can heavily crop with 46 mp. I don't need to have a 70-200 break my back all day, the 135 crops with plenty of pixels to spare.

 

[petrochemist]

Greybeard, the only determinative of perspective is camera to subject distance. Lens choice is then made to achieve the desired framing but doesn't set perspective. Using zooms has taken people away from this principle, heck folks don't even think about it anymore, they just stand where they happen to be and twist the zoom.
White beards like me learned to because zooms were garbage for decades and even today with 22 pieces of glass, get dusted in image quality by an 8 element 180 2.8 D or 7 element 135 2.0 dc.both of which I can heavily crop with 46 mp. I don't need to have a 70-200 break my back all day, the 135 crops with plenty of pixels to spare.

Zooms actually free up the option of adjusting distance to get the perspective you want. Before zooms photographers changed distance to fill the frame, now many of us pick the perspective & zoom to fill the frame. Yes there are those who only ever shoot from where they are, but their sort often did the same with primes.
The earliest zooms were indeed dire, but by the mid eighties many were quite reasonable. the best of today's zooms are excellent - even with loads of megapixels the longer end of a good 70-200mm will crop further than a 135mm and it lets you shoot wider right down to 70mm - increasing FOV is something I've never managed with cropping.