Lens for portrait question

[tirediron]

One of the key reasons I use fast primes is because many wedding venues are very dim, and often flash isn't permitted. The extra stop-and-a-bit given by the 1.4.

Valid argument in the old days. Today, ISO has become a better tool.

Really? Care to a'splain how? Granted, compared to the days of push-processed Tri-X, today's cameras can practically see in the dark, but I would submit that getting more light on to the sensor when you can is still better than relying solely on ISO.

 

[KmH]

Yep! The SNR will be better by getting more light to the image sensor compared to cranking up the ISO.

 

[pixmedic]

there is really no "set" of lenses that are specifically designed for weddings. it really comes down to what you like to use, what you need, and budget.
some people shoot mostly zooms, and some people exclusively shoot primes. I prefer to have a few fast zooms that cover a good focal range as well as a few primes that do the same. it really depends too on the venue and what kind of lighting you have. There is NO digital substitute that is better than getting more light to your sensor, in camera OR in post.

 

[Derrel]

Many people who shoot full-frame digital cameras like the 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses from Nikon and Canon for wedding and event work. Those who shoot APS-C bodies usually would want a 17-50mm or 17-55mm f/2.8 zoom lens for a similar range of angles of view.

 

[Patrice]

I don't shoot for money anymore but when I did my FX 'event' kit was 28-70/2.8. 70-200/2.8, 85/1.4, SB800/Quantum power pack. In DX the 28-70 spot was held by the 17-55/2.8. Image quality was important but so was reliability and durability, therefore name brand pro stuff.

 

[LebronPhoto]

Most wedding photographers I know that shoot FX use a 24-70 2.8 and a longer lens like the 70-200 2.8. For DX they find equivalents like the 16-50 2.8. The zooms are preferred because you never know how much your mobility will be limited.

Weddings are serious events. Experience and skill are more important than the equipment.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kylecong]

50mm is too short for portrait.
Whenever condition allowed, I'll use 70-200 f2.8. Most my favorite portrait shots were taken by it. Shallow depth of field, good focal length for portrait and able to zoom make the this lens top choice for wedding photography.

 

[Gavjenks]

One of the key reasons I use fast primes is because many wedding venues are very dim, and often flash isn't permitted. The extra stop-and-a-bit given by the 1.4.

Valid argument in the old days. Today, ISO has become a better tool.

Irrelevant of how good iso is now, a fast lens still lets in more light than a slow one

It is not irrelevant, because the world has not gotten darker and human eyes have not gotten used to lower light. Events like weddings will typically have the same certain amount of lighting as they do now until the end of humanity/weddings/until we get bionic eye implants.

The better ISO performance gets, the less and less relevant fast apertures get for light collection (though still relevant if you want that DOF). Imagine a world where you can shoot at ISO 128,000 without noticeably bad noise, for example. You would NEVER be in any realistic wedding where the light was so low that you would need anything faster than a 2.8. Even candlelight would probably be enough with that kind of performance.

So yes, 1.4 is always more light than 1.8 regardless of ISO, but at some point, the difference becomes only important at light levels that are so low that you'll never actually encounter anything that dark commercially.



Have we gotten to the point of aperture not mattering for this purpose? No, not yet. It still helps. But it helps less and less with each passing new camera model. It's a continuum.

50mm is too short for portrait.

No, it's ideal for portraits... when you want just about the model's full body but not much else. Anything else would be too long and compressing for those situations.
And a 85mm is just right for torso or head and shoulders.
And a 200mm is just right for close crop headshots.
And a 24mm is just right for athletic magazine shots with the person only taking up 20% of the frame with a bunch of context and room for copy text.

Etc. etc.


The right focal length for portraits is the focal length that gives you the composition you want at a distance of 10-15 feet or so, no shorter no longer. That is the perspective we are used to seeing other people from most often. Unless you intentionally want to change the perspective body features to exaggerate stuff. Like if you were shooting a portrait for a goofy cartoonish kids book and you wanted the nose to be 4x larger than normal, you might use a 14mm lens at 4 inches away, or something. Or if you WANT artistically for a person to appear flatter (like if you're simulating pretend satellite surveillance stills for your spy film), then use a 300mm lens to take a full body shot from a 8 story parking garage. But otherwise, 10-15 feet.

 

[kylecong]

Yes, you can use any lens to shoot portrait and you can use any lens to get the whole body too. You can definitely be creative with any type of lens and get good result on your portrait photography. But if we're talking about ideal lens for portrait, don't think 50mm is one of them.

 

[Gavjenks]

Yes, you can use any lens to shoot portrait and you can use any lens to get the whole body too. You can definitely be creative with any type of lens and get good result on your portrait photography. But if we're talking about ideal lens for portrait, don't think 50mm is one of them.

I don't think you're understanding my point.
50mm is better than any other focal length if you want to take a portrait of an average sized person's whole body with about 2 comfortable feet of extra space around them in the frame (for full frame)
It's not just for "creative/fringe" shots or "oh you can make do if you have to." It is the ideal length for a standard, technically classically "perfect" portrait of that framing.

Trying to take the same shot with a 135mm lens will put you too far away, which changes the perspective to look weirdly flat, since you are not used to closely observing other human beings from a distance of 30-40 feet away.
Similarly, if you want to take a portrait where the person's height = about 20% of the frame up and down, then a 14mm lens is ideal. Anything longer than 14mm for such a portrait would be generally inferior in terms of weird looking perspective on their body parts.




Each framing of a person in your shot (full body vs. torso vs. bust vs. head shot) has it's own ideal focal length based on the desired perspective. Which for a standard no frills photo that you don't want to have any alternative feel to it = 10 to 15 feet away.

 

[robbins.photo]

there is really no "set" of lenses that are specifically designed for weddings.

Pix.. geez. You are a genius. Duh. OMG. Do you have any idea how much money there is to be made selling "Wedding Photographer Starting Kits?". I mean we buy the stuff, package it together.. 30% markup.. BAM! We are talking the Bahamas in no time. Maybe Hawaii. At the very least, Cleveland.

I'm telling you, genius!

 

[WayneF]

I agree 50mm is not a "portrait lens", but it does depend on the definition of "portrait". Head and shoulders? Full length? A group shot? It depends on DX or FX too.

The camera standing too close to the subject gives distorted perspective, which tends to enlarge near noses, etc. Ladies notice this result, and they don't like it.

No one ever wants to hear it, but the ONLY CORRECT rule for proper perspective of portraits is to use whatever lens that lets you stand back 6 feet (or more) from the subject, and then get the view that you want. That is easy, and the right attitude is to be damn glad you know this.

For 35 mm film (FX), 105mm was always considered the ideal "head and shoulders" lens.
Because, head and shoulders requires nearly a two feet height. The angle of view of 105mm is about 19.5 degrees (long dimension).

This combination (105mm, FX, 2 foot view height for head and shoulders) forced the camera to stand back about six feet, which was a good result for perspective (does not enlarge near noses, etc). Could do no wrong, so to speak. Many photographers favored more distance, like 135mm and eight feet (speaking FX) for a more natural undistorted view. But less than six feet is a no-no.

For DX, 70 mm is the equivalent view of 105 mm, so 70mm DX would also be appropriate for head and shoulders (forces standing back at least six feet).

For full length, a wider lens is necessary. For group shots, even wider.

But the ONE ABSOLUTE RULE for any situation is to first always stand back at least six feet. Then you are safe there (perspective-wise), use whatever lens that gives the view you want. Which lens is NOT important. What is important is standing back at least six feet, and then getting the view you want.

 

[robbins.photo]

I agree 50mm is not a "portrait lens", but it does depend on the definition of "portrait". Head and shoulders? Full length? A group shot? It depends on DX or FX too.

The camera standing too close to the subject gives incorrect perspective, which tends to enlarge near noses, etc. Ladies notice this result, and they don't like it.

No one ever wants to hear it, but the ONLY CORRECT rule for proper perspective of portraits is to use whatever lens that lets you stand back 6 feet (or more) from the subject, and then get the view that you want.

For 35 mm film (FX), 105mm was always considered the ideal "head and shoulders" lens.
Because, head and shoulders requires nearly a two feet height. The angle of view of 105mm is about 19.5 degrees (long dimension).

This combination (105mm, FX, 2 foot view height for head and shoulders) forced the camera to stand back about six feet, which was a good result for perspective (does not enlarge near noses, etc). Could do no wrong, so to speak. Many photographers liked more distance, like 135mm and eight feet (speaking FX) for a more natural undistorted view. But less than six feet is a no-no.

For DX, 70 mm is the equivalent view of 105 mm, so 70mm DX would also be appropriate for head and shoulders (forces standing back at least six feet).

For full length, a wider lens is necessary. For group shots, even wider.

But the ONE ABSOLUTE RULE for any situation is to first always stand back at least six feet. Then you are safe there (perspective-wise), use whatever lens that gives the view you want. Which lens is NOT important. What is important is standing back at least six feet, and then getting the view you want.

Argh.. there doing math and whipping out there.. um.. tape measures. Later Pix. We'll do lunch and talk over that whole wedding photographer in a box idea. Have your people call my people.. lol

 

[Gavjenks]

Argh.. there doing math and whipping out there.. um.. tape measures. Later Pix. We'll do lunch and talk over that whole wedding photographer in a box idea. Have your people call my people.. lol

My proposal for the kit:
* A lensbaby muse with single glass optic
* Some matte black construction paper and a filter thingie that holds it with some specialty heart shaped hole punches to make your own apertures
* This book: Instagram Power: Build Your Brand and Reach More Customers with the Power of Pictures: Jason G. Miles: 9780071827003: Amazon.com: Books
* A lomography diana

 

[Derrel]

Argh.. there doing math and whipping out there.. um.. tape measures. Later Pix. We'll do lunch and talk over that whole wedding photographer in a box idea. Have your people call my people.. lol

My proposal for the kit:
* A lensbaby muse with single glass optic
* Some matte black construction paper and a filter thingie that holds it with some specialty heart shaped hole punches to make your own apertures
* This book: Instagram Power: Build Your Brand and Reach More Customers with the Power of Pictures: Jason G. Miles: 9780071827003: Amazon.com: Books
* A lomography diana

Good start Gav, but you FORGOT the Canon T5i or Nikon D5200 body, both marked up, oh, I dunno, say 17.5% over average retail price...those wedding newbies need a kam-ruh, ya know....