Lets talk portrait lense options

[Derrel]

I feel comfortable with the look of this one, which was at 20mm. I dont see any distortion... EDIT, now that I look closer, maybe there is a fair amount? Her foot looks pretty big, right?

Uh, yeah, her feet and her legs look larger than her head!!! This shows extreme distortion.

In the $600 range used....my suggestion would be the 85mm 1.8 EF....that's a nice lens and is priced well,well below your budget limit, and it keeps you far enough away on a crop-sensor Canon so that the type of distortion you're getting when working very close with a W-A lens simply does not occur.

In terms of a lens that really has a beautiful "look", the 135 f/2 L series is one of my favorite lenses of all time...not sure what they are going for used, but the 135-L is a sweet lens for people pictures. On 1.6x bodies, it requires some distance between you and the subject, but it is a wonderful lens. A "lifetime" lens.

 

[Tulsa]

In the $600 range used....my suggestion would be the 85mm 1.8 EF....that's a nice lens and is priced well,well below your budget limit, and it keeps you far enough away on a crop-sensor Canon so that the type of distortion you're getting when working very close with a W-A lens simply does not occur.

In terms of a lens that really has a beautiful "look", the 135 f/2 L series is one of my favorite lenses of all time...not sure what they are going for used, but the 135-L is a sweet lens for people pictures. On 1.6x bodies, it requires some distance between you and the subject, but it is a wonderful lens. A "lifetime" lens.

Thanks for that input, but like mentioned 50mm is almost too much zoom. I am looking for something under 50mm.

 

[Derrel]

I thought you wanted to get away from the distorted look...that 19 to 35mm zone on 1.6x leads to a LOT of background inclusion and a great deal of apparent perspective distortion...I dunno...I guess I'd say the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 as BigTwinky suggested...pretty good lens if you get a decent copy that is in good alignment and has not been decentered due to a hard knock or a drop...that way you will get the 28mm end, as well as the 35-40-45-50-55-60-65-70-75mm ranges which are more traditional in the way they render things...

 

[stepollard1]

What lighting did you use in pic 2, it looks ace

 

[Robin Usagani]

Or keep saving your money for a full frame tulsa. I love 50mm on a full frame.. but now that I have a full frame, I want 85mm like derrel said.

 

[Dao]

I saw one example here in the past, even the 50mm lens show distortion. The photo was a girl sitting on the ground with foot much bigger than the head. So definitely, 50mm or longer will be my choice.

 

[Tulsa]

I thought you wanted to get away from the distorted look...that 19 to 35mm zone on 1.6x leads to a LOT of background inclusion and a great deal of apparent perspective distortion...I dunno...I guess I'd say the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 as BigTwinky suggested...pretty good lens if you get a decent copy that is in good alignment and has not been decentered due to a hard knock or a drop...that way you will get the 28mm end, as well as the 35-40-45-50-55-60-65-70-75mm ranges which are more traditional in the way they render things...

I am considering the 28-75 2.8. I think that would be ideal for what I am looking for. Do you get less distortion with a full frame?

What lighting did you use in pic 2, it looks ace

One umbrella about 5 o'clock of the model. And I believe a reflector at about 7-8 o'clock of the model.

 

[sobolik]

What part about using your 50mm for portraits do you wish you could change? (why not just continue to use that?)

Well, it does well, I just would like something wider. Some of the locations I shoot requires me to be closer to the subject, and I cannot capture everything I want. Thats why I tend to use my 10-20mm in those spots, but I do get some distortion below 20mm, so I would like some more options above 20mm.

For example this first one is shot at 12mm, not really ideal for portraits... some distortion.


I feel comfortable with the look of this one, which was at 20mm. I dont see any distortion... EDIT, now that I look closer, maybe there is a fair amount? Her foot looks pretty big, right?

SO
Do what any real photographer would do. (not snap shooter) Correct the distortion with software.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+4]Portrait Lenses [/SIZE]
© 2008 KenRockwell.com. All rights reserved.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]March 2008 [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+3]Introduction[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No one knows why, but everyone calls 105mm lenses "the perfect portrait lens." What's up with this?[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2][SIZE=+3]Perspective and Proportion [/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Perspective depends only on your position. It has nothing to do with your lens.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Shorter or longer lenses don't change perspective, they just make framing tighter or looser. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Different lenses require you to move closer or farther way to get the framing you want, but it's the change in position that alters perspective, not the lens. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want a tight head shot, you have to do it from too close for comfort with a 50mm lens, making a 50mm lens a poor choice for head shots. When you're only a foot or two away, noses grow and ears disappear.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Fifteen Feet[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Our brains recall people's facial features as they appear to be from about 15 feet (5 meters) away.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ask a human visual system researcher for the details, but our eyes don't actually see anything by themselves. All our eyes do is send signals to our brains which are then interpreted in ways about which we're still learning.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]In the case of facial recognition, when our eyes see a familiar face, it triggers our brain to reconstruct an image of those features as they appear from about 15 feet.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] If we see someone from only inches away, we don't see them distorted as a camera would; our brain perceives and reconstructs their features in proportions similar to a distant view.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Therefore we want to be at least about 15 feet away when photographing people in order to achieve realistic proportions.[/FONT]

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]So what's the optimum portrait lens? [/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It depends on how much of a person you're showing. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want the whole person standing, you can use a 50-70mm lens. If they sit down, a 70-105mm works great.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]If you want just head and shoulders, you'll want a 200mm to 300mm lens, at least, since you want to stay at least fifteen feet away.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Ever see a pro model shoot in the field? The photographer is usually using a big fat telephoto on a monopod like a 300mm f/2.8 or 400mm f/2.8 for head shots. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]So what's this about 105mm lenses?[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] It's just an old wives' tale from the 1950s.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the 35mm format became popular in the 1960s, the most popular affordable lens from Nikon happened to be the 105mm lens, first as the f/4 for 1950s Nikon rangefinders, and then the 105mm f/2.5 for SLRs. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Like most old wives' tales, people just put "105mm" and "portrait" together without asking why. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]What's the optimum distance?[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This is all art. Closer and farther away renders the facial features in different proportion. Not everyone looks best at the same distance. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As you get closer the nose gets bigger and the ears get smaller. Get further away, and the face flattens out. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]People working in studios often have space limitations.[/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I usually try to get as far away a possible. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]Background Rendition [/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Backgrounds are important in portraits. You usually want them to go out of focus and disappear. [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Large apertures like f/2.8 and f/2 help. This is why photographers use things like 300mm f/2.8 lenses for head shots in the field [/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]A weird characteristic of lenses called bokeh can make backgrounds have more detail or texture than you'd think, even if they are out of focus. A lens with bad bokeh can have distracting backgrounds even if they are completely out of focus![/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=+2]The Best Lenses Today[/SIZE][/FONT]​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For field use, I love the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC. DC stands for Defocus Control, which means Bokeh Optimization. The 135mm DC is one of Nikon's sharpest lenses. The DC feature allows you to tailor the bokeh for a perfect background that simply disappears into smooth washes of color. Nikon also makes a slightly smaller and less expensive 105mm f/2 DC[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The 105mm f/1.8 AIS and 105mm f/2.5 are nice, but went obsolete back in the early 1990s when they were replaced for portraiture by the DC lenses. Since few people outside of Japan understand what the DC lenses do, I don't know that any other than the most savvy pros know about them. Less informed people misunderstand them to be soft focus lenses, which they most assuredly are not. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]These shorter lenses were never perfect for head shots. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For head shots, a longer lens like a 300mm or 400mm is best. If I'm in a studio with a controlled background, I use my 80-400mm VR since I can use one lens for all views. If I'm in the field, I'd consider lugging a huge f/2.8 tele. On a more practical budget, the 300mm f/4 lenses do almost as good a job of losing the backgrounds as the f/2.8s, and cost a tiny fraction of the f/2.8 lenses. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For people with rational budgets, don't worry. Use whatever you have and have fun, like the 18-55mm lens that came with your camera - just zoom to 55mm. The 70-300mm zooms also work fine. [/FONT]


Portrait Lenses

 

[Dao]

What a smart photographer will do, get it right before pressing the shutter button.

 

[3bayjunkie]

a good range lens for portraits is the Nikkor 80-200. technically 85-105 is a good portrait range. but it is all up to the artistic prejudice of the photographer.