Lens for portrait question

[Gavjenks]

The diana is a camera. I will provide an Xacto knife and duct tape to make the lensbaby fit onto it. It adds DIY light leaks and charm to your photos that way.

 

[Derrel]

The Diana is a camera, but it's a lomography camera, and most of them are pretty old...maybe substitute the newer, even-more-light-leaky Holga for the Diana, and throw in maybe a few wraps of black gaffers's tape wrapped around a "portable, on-location tape carrying system" (a short piece of wooden dowel). I still think this kit needs an overpriced entry level d-slr body. Maybe add an alternate kit or two with a couple Yongy flashes, and of course a Fong Dong option for that option, and perhaps also offer the Ultimate Fong Dong Package. Definitely go with a Good-Better-Best pricing structure. And maybe add a Best-of-the Best and a Supreme Best-of-the-Best-Bestest-Deluxe kit option as well.

 

[kylecong]

Effects of focal lens on portraits:
Effect of Lens Focal Length on Portraits - Personal View Talks

 

[WayneF]

Effects of focal lens on portraits:
Effect of Lens Focal Length on Portraits - Personal View Talks

That almost makes it seem like the lens must be important. (which is the reason no one understands it). But we use those same lenses, and normally don't have those problems. It is NOT the lens.

It is NOT the lens focal length that does that. Perspective is only about where the camera has to stand to get the desired view (same view every time in that - which of course required different distances).

The lens of course does affect where we have to stand, but the perspective effect is ONLY about where we stand.
The page does not mention distances, or even FX or DX, but what that page does show is WHY you always want to stand back at least six feet.

Just stand back six feet, and all will be well.

 

[Gavjenks]

Just stand back six feet, and all will be well.

1) Yes you should stand back (probably further than that)
2) You should also not stand FURTHER back than maybe 30 feet, or people will look too flat.
3) Just saying these things alone isn't really going to prepare people, though. If I show up to a photoshoot with my kit lens thinking "okay all I have to do is stand 6 feet back and not more than 30 feet to get perspective correct!" they will fail, because you can't physically do that and still get the head and shoulders portrait you wanted with that lens, etc.

You need to think these things through ahead of time--the types of portrait framing you want--when buying your lenses. Not when it's already time to decide where to stand. Then it might be far too late.

 

[WayneF]

Just stand back six feet, and all will be well.

1) Yes you should stand back (probably further than that)
2) You should also not stand FURTHER back than maybe 30 feet, or people will look too flat.
3) Just saying these things alone isn't really going to prepare people, though. If I show up to a photoshoot with my kit lens thinking "okay all I have to do is stand 6 feet back and not more than 30 feet to get perspective correct!" they will fail, because you can't physically do that and still get the head and shoulders portrait you wanted with that lens, etc.

If you show up with a 35mm lens and stand at 3 feet, it seems easy to predict you won't make many sales. It may work for groups though.

What we need is a zoom lens, so we have versatility to handle many situations (the idea is to stand back, and still get the view you want).
Ideally a good one, a f/2.8 zoom, not because we will use f/2.8, but because with flash, they are sharper at f/5 than a f/3.5 lens.
My experience is the good f/2.8 zoom is sharper than the f/1.8 lens too. And vastly more versatile.

Speaking of portraits, instead of buying a few mediocre lenses, get the one good f/2.8 zoom, like 24-70mm (70-200 for FX).

 

[Gavjenks]

Sorry, I can't resist a nitpick post, as there are a lot of nits in the above (The main stuff about where you stand and zooms being helpful for portraits sicne you want to stand in the same place anyway is true, though)

with flash, they are sharper

Flash doesn't make things sharper. It may make texture more visible, but even then only if you're using your lighting from the side and far away and small and harsh, which is usually bad (or intending something super dramatic like film noir or a cowboy's 5 o clock shadow which is rare). Regardless none of that = sharpness.

not because we will use f/2.8

Why would you not use f/2.8? All apertures have their uses, but 2.8 in my experience is not only useful but vastly more useful for most portraits than either 1.4 or 5.6. It has enough DOF to get a whole face easily and hassle-free usually, but still has attractive creamy non distracting backgrounds. I would rarely go significantly higher unless needing to get a whole group in focus, or wanting context to show, like a skater in a skate park.

24-70mm (70-200 for FX).

These are not equivalent lenses in the two formats. 24-70 in DX = equivalent 38-112 in FX, not 70-200.
They are usually used both at the same time for the same camera, not as substitutes by format.
So "the TWO good ones."

Also primes are usually better optically than even those zooms are. The drawback is inconvenience of switching constantly, not mediocrity of image quality. The sharpest lens I own is not my "L" glass zoom. It is a $35 JC Penney 135mm f/2.8 prime I got on ebay that was probably made in the 60s-70s.

 

[Derrel]

Just stand back six feet, and all will be well.

1) Yes you should stand back (probably further than that)
2) You should also not stand FURTHER back than maybe 30 feet, or people will look too flat.

The word you were looking for was FARTHER, Gavejenks, FARTHER...not further.

I trust that we need not further discuss this issue. ;-)

As to "people looking flat"...I have to disagree with your continued insistence that that is necessarily a bad thing. MANY photographers are totally enamored of the "flat" look obtained by using what your rigidly codified system would describe as, "The wrong lens, used from the wrong distance". Not everything needs to look perfectly normal and humdrum. Using a fast 180mm, fast 200, or a fast 300mm lens has been an acceptable practice since such lenses became common. It's all about the visual impression, the lens drawing style.

The use of apparent perspective distortion, wide-angle "looks", and "telephoto looks" is pretty well known among serious shooters.

 

[Gavjenks]

As to "people looking flat"...I have to disagree with your continued insistence that that is necessarily a bad thing. MANY photographers are totally enamored of the "flat" look obtained by using what your system would describe as "the wrong lens, used from the wrong distance". Not everything needs to look perfectly normal and humdrum. Using a fast 180mm, fast 200, or a fast 300mm lens has been an acceptable practice since such lenses became common. It's all about the visual impression, the lens drawing style.

Well sure, some people like noses to be 5x bigger too if that's your style. For example, I think this is a great portrait, taken from probably inches away:
http://us.123rf.com/450wm/rixie/rix...harles-spaniel-pup-taking-a-bath-wet-dog-.jpg

But for a newbie looking into starting out in portraiture, I think it's safest to suggest standard, central, "safe" tendency: which is just the vanilla capturing people from the perspective you normally see them at. If you decide that's boring later, and want to pursue a more distinct style, then great, but I think you should start with the basics and normalcy.

Also note that even if you follow my advice, a 200mm or even a 300mm still has a use. A 300mm at around a "normal" 10 feet covers about 2 feet of subject, i.e. a close cropped theatrical style head shot, without any "flattening." A 300mm would only flatten if you start to use it to take torso shots or full body shots from half a block away.



If you're really noticeably flattening your subject, you will KNOW that you're doing it. And you will probably be pretty committed to it, since it gets awkward quickly to yell instructions to your model at the top of your lungs. If you weren't doing that intentionally, you'd probably stop doing it fairly quickly just out of inconkvenience.

 

[robbins.photo]

As to "people looking flat"...I have to disagree with your continued insistence that that is necessarily a bad thing. MANY photographers are totally enamored of the "flat" look obtained by using what your rigidly codified system would describe as, "The wrong lens, used from the wrong distance".

Umm.. haven't been talking to the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit guys lately I take it.. lol

 

[WayneF]

Sorry, I can't resist a nitpick post, as there are a lot of nits in the above (The main stuff about where you stand and zooms being helpful for portraits sicne you want to stand in the same place anyway is true, though)

with flash, they are sharper

Flash doesn't make things sharper. It may make texture more visible, but even then only if you're using your lighting from the side and far away and small and harsh, which is usually bad (or intending something super dramatic like film noir or a cowboy's 5 o clock shadow which is rare). Regardless none of that = sharpness.

Argument only for arguments sake, I assume.

The "with flash" was about the f/5 (bounce) and was a very correct statement generally (certainly in any commercial room with higher ceilings). I use f/4 at ISO 400 under 12 foot ceilings.

And of course speedlight flash can stop motion well, and certainly can reduce movement blur, and is a really good way to bet, but that was not my point.

not because we will use f/2.8

Why would you not use f/2.8? All apertures have their uses, but 2.8 in my experience is not only useful but vastly more useful for most portraits than either 1.4 or 5.6. It has enough DOF to get a whole face easily and hassle-free usually, but still has attractive creamy non distracting backgrounds. I would rarely go significantly higher unless needing to get a whole group in focus, or wanting context to show, like a skater in a skate park.

Because I like better pictures with more depth of field than f/2.8 can do. I like f/8 or even f/11 for studio portraits. It is the rule of thumb, still holds.

24-70mm (70-200 for FX).

These are not equivalent lenses in the two formats. 24-70 in DX = equivalent 38-112 in FX, not 70-200.
They are usually used both at the same time for the same camera, not as substitutes by format.
So "the TWO good ones."

You are reaching too far, trying to object to anything imagined. Fuss away, I couldn't care less.

I never said those lenses were DX/FX equivalent, it is just your not understanding. What I implied (and said earlier) was 70mm is generally good for head and shoulders with DX, and 105mm is good for FX. Meaning anything shorter is too short for head and shoulders, allows standing too close (classic rule of thumb). The 24-70 does one (DX), but not the other (FX). I'm usually near 120mm. The 70-200 can do 70, but is inappropriate for wider scenes, like full length.

Also primes are usually better optically than even those zooms are. The drawback is inconvenience of switching constantly, not mediocrity of image quality. The sharpest lens I own is not my "L" glass zoom. It is a $35 JC Penney 135mm f/2.8 prime I got on ebay that was probably made in the 60s-70s.

I am speaking Nikon, but times change, and good zooms are mighty good now. My bet would be on the f/2.8 24-70 or 70-200 being a little sharper than any f/1.8 prime, at least from f/2.8 up. Look at any lens tests, like Nikon / Nikkor (APS-C) Lens Tests