My Favorite Focal Length for Studio Fashion

benjikan

TPF Noob!
Joined
Feb 8, 2007
Messages
454
Reaction score
14
Location
Paris, France
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Everyone I know in the business have their preferences regarding focal lengths for different applications. I tend to work quite a bit shorter than most when it comes to working in closed quarters in a studio environment. I specify this for a reason. Studio work is a fixed space that you set up lights in and know what those dimensions are for the whole day of the shoot. Unlike interior location shoots where you often have to change settings and adapt your focal lengths to the circumstances.

It is for this reason, that I often find myself using a wide angle zoom in non studio environments. My focal length of choice in 75% of my studio shoots is around 60-75mm i.e. 40-50mm in the 1.5 ratio APS-C sensor cameras. But I tend to shoot closer to the former. I have read on several forums that the majority of shooters tend to shoot quite a bit longer i.e. 90-120mm i.e. 60-80mm 1.5 ration APS-C sensor cameras. I find that getting in closer to the model, allows you to communicate on a different level which in my opinion is more immediate. I am also not that fond of (at least at this juncture in time) that compressed long focal length look. All of the major brands have focal lengths that fill this criteria.

I have on occasion shot shorter than the above at around 30mm (45mm) APS-C, with very pleasing results, but for this focal length I need to work in studio's with very high ceilings, as I more often than not am sitting or lying on the floor when shooting. I also need the much larger seamless when using this wider focal length or just work off of a bare studio cyclo wall.

Shooting at these shorter focal lengths most certainly have a distinctively modern edgy look about them (at least for now)...So don't be afraid to experiment with shorter than the recommended norm for fashion work. It may give you a bit of the edge to stand out from the rest of the very highly populated crowd.

Would love to get your feedback...

Benjamin Kanarek Blog | Benjamin Kanarek Blog
 
An area I am wanting to get into to. I love my 60/2 (about a 93mm on my Canon 50D) Tamron macro. Plan on adding the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 very soon and these 3 will probably be what I use most of the time for the wide side the 17-50/2.8 Tamron I think does more than a well enough job, though I have thought about picking up the 28/1.8 Canon (Yeah I just love primes) After those I think I'll grab another 70-200 but been debating on what one. I really loved the Tamron one I had when I shot with Nikon but hated the slow AF sigma had the AF but not the image quality. Of course Canon had them both but cringed on that price tag. So who knows. I might just skip it as I favor primes anyways and would only use zooms now and again anyways.
 
An area I am wanting to get into to. I love my 60/2 (about a 93mm on my Canon 50D) Tamron macro. Plan on adding the 85/1.8 and 100/2.8 very soon and these 3 will probably be what I use most of the time for the wide side the 17-50/2.8 Tamron I think does more than a well enough job, though I have thought about picking up the 28/1.8 Canon (Yeah I just love primes) After those I think I'll grab another 70-200 but been debating on what one. I really loved the Tamron one I had when I shot with Nikon but hated the slow AF sigma had the AF but not the image quality. Of course Canon had them both but cringed on that price tag. So who knows. I might just skip it as I favor primes anyways and would only use zooms now and again anyways.

I really love Tamron lenses and especially their 28-75 Gem. The 17-50 you are using has had some very strong reviews in their favor and I would have no reservations using it professionally.
 
Last edited:
No. You want a long lens: It makes the face look better. Many pros use lenses in the 90mm-180mm range, sometimes even longer.

Taken with 180mm:

0606039-R1-047-223.jpg

0606039-R1-047-223.jpg


Taken with 350mm:

0606040-R1-012-4A.jpg


Taken with 350mm:

0606040-R1-050-23A.jpg


Taken with 350mm:

0606039-R1-077-37.jpg



Taken with 350mm:

0606040-R1-020-8A.jpg
 
Last edited:
"many pros" eh???

Do you even know who Benjamin Kanarek actually is?
 
"many pros" eh???

Do you even know who Benjamin Kanarek actually is?

No, nor do I care. Long lenses (longer than 50mm on a 24x36mm frame) are more flattering to the face. This is well known and incontrovertible. The classic 'portrait' length is the 80-105mm range. I prefer even longer sometimes.
 
"many pros" eh???

Do you even know who Benjamin Kanarek actually is?

No, nor do I care. Long lenses (longer than 50mm on a 24x36mm frame) are more flattering to the face. This is well known and incontrovertible. The classic 'portrait' length is the 80-105mm range. I prefer even longer sometimes.

There's that hubris thing going on again. Kanarek's fashion and beauty credits include the top magazines in Europe. The USA. The UK. He knows more about flattering faces than I think, anybody on this board. You offering your opinion to Benjamin Kanarek is amusing,to say the very least. Perhaps you have some space walking tips to offer the US and Russian Space Station crews? Maybe?

For girl-watching candids at festivals, I can understand why you're using long lenses; Benjamin's post is about focal lengths for studio fashion photography, not about snapping shots of girls in tight tank tops at open air festivals...350mm is a bit long for most studio fashion work, dontcha' think P-P?
 
"many pros" eh???

Do you even know who Benjamin Kanarek actually is?

No, nor do I care. Long lenses (longer than 50mm on a 24x36mm frame) are more flattering to the face. This is well known and incontrovertible. The classic 'portrait' length is the 80-105mm range. I prefer even longer sometimes.

There's that hubris thing going on again. Kanarek's fashion and beauty credits include the top magazines in Europe. The USA. The UK. He knows more about flattering faces than I think, anybody on this board. You offering your opinion to Benjamin Kanarek is amusing,to say the very least. Perhaps you have some space walking tips to offer the US and Russian Space Station crews? Maybe?

If he says he thinks that longer-than-normal lenses are not flattering, he's wrong. End of discussion. That's not just my opinion, it's well known and incontrovertible. The ''classic' portrait length is 80-105 mm or so. I won't even consider discussing this inane statement. It's bunk.

Being farther away makes the relative distance between the front of the face and the back of the face less disparate. This means that the nose is less prominent. It's the 'being farther away' part that is the key, not the focal length. The focal length is simply the one that fits the frame from that distance.

When Cecil B. Demille did those close-ups, they used a long lens....
 
Last edited:
No, nor do I care. Long lenses (longer than 50mm on a 24x36mm frame) are more flattering to the face. This is well known and incontrovertible. The classic 'portrait' length is the 80-105mm range. I prefer even longer sometimes.

There's that hubris thing going on again. Kanarek's fashion and beauty credits include the top magazines in Europe. The USA. The UK. He knows more about flattering faces than I think, anybody on this board. You offering your opinion to Benjamin Kanarek is amusing,to say the very least. Perhaps you have some space walking tips to offer the US and Russian Space Station crews? Maybe?

If he says he thinks that longer-than-normal lenses are not flattering, he's wrong. End of discussion. That's not just my opinion, it's well known and incontrovertible. The ''classic' portrait length is 80-105 mm or so. I won't even consider discussing this inane statement. It's bunk.

Being farther away makes the relative distance between the front of the face and the back of the face less disparate. This means that the nose is less prominent. It's the 'being farther away' part that is the key, not the focal length. The focal length is simply the one that fits the frame from that distance.


Incontrovertable,eh? :(
 
No. You want a long lens: It makes the face look better. Many pros use lenses in the 90mm-180mm range, sometimes even longer.

Taken with 180mm:

0606039-R1-047-223.jpg

0606039-R1-047-223.jpg


Taken with 350mm:


0606040-R1-050-23A.jpg


Taken with 350mm:

0606039-R1-077-37.jpg

Are these the best examples you have to offer, very disappointing
 
No. You want a long lens: It makes the face look better. Many pros use lenses in the 90mm-180mm range, sometimes even longer.

Are these the best examples you have to offer, very disappointing

They are examples of faces taken with long lenses, to illustrate the point. They are candids taken at a festival. No-one was posing.
 
There's that hubris thing going on again. Kanarek's fashion and beauty credits include the top magazines in Europe. The USA. The UK. He knows more about flattering faces than I think, anybody on this board. You offering your opinion to Benjamin Kanarek is amusing,to say the very least. Perhaps you have some space walking tips to offer the US and Russian Space Station crews? Maybe?

If he says he thinks that longer-than-normal lenses are not flattering, he's wrong. End of discussion. That's not just my opinion, it's well known and incontrovertible. The ''classic' portrait length is 80-105 mm or so. I won't even consider discussing this inane statement. It's bunk.

Being farther away makes the relative distance between the front of the face and the back of the face less disparate. This means that the nose is less prominent. It's the 'being farther away' part that is the key, not the focal length. The focal length is simply the one that fits the frame from that distance.


Incontrovertable,eh? :(


Yes, incontrovertable.

http://inyourface.ocregister.com/files/2008/08/greta_garbo-230p.jpg

You can easily tell this was taken with a long lens.
 
Last edited:
If he says he thinks that longer-than-normal lenses are not flattering, he's wrong. End of discussion. That's not just my opinion, it's well known and incontrovertible. The ''classic' portrait length is 80-105 mm or so. I won't even consider discussing this inane statement. It's bunk.

Being farther away makes the relative distance between the front of the face and the back of the face less disparate. This means that the nose is less prominent. It's the 'being farther away' part that is the key, not the focal length. The focal length is simply the one that fits the frame from that distance.


Incontrovertable,eh? :(


Yes, incontrovertable.

http://inyourface.ocregister.com/files/2008/08/greta_garbo-230p.jpg

You can easily tell this was taken with a long lens.

While benjikan's posts usually bore me, (Sorry benjikan, the fashion world bores me these days, it's not you) Benjamin Kanarek has forgotten more about photography than you have learned either behind the camera, or in those philosophy classes you hold so dear.

Let me see here, whom should I listen to for advice on this particular subject? A well known and well respected photographer in his field who makes his living from photography, or a guy who writes books discussing the philosophy of whether a tree makes a sound if it falls in the wood when no one is around.

That answer is incontrovertible! :mrgreen:

So benjikan, tell us more.








p.s. Petraio, if your going to write books, even philosophy books, spelling is a useful skill to have. it is incontrovertible not incontrovertable.
 
Incontrovertable,eh? :(


Yes, incontrovertable.

http://inyourface.ocregister.com/files/2008/08/greta_garbo-230p.jpg

You can easily tell this was taken with a long lens.



p.s. Petraio, if your going to write books, even philosophy books, spelling is a useful skill to have. it is incontrovertible not incontrovertable.

It's "you're" not "your"


P.S. Not attacking you. I'm just a grammar nazi.
 
Incontrovertable,eh? :(


Yes, incontrovertable.

http://inyourface.ocregister.com/files/2008/08/greta_garbo-230p.jpg

You can easily tell this was taken with a long lens.

While benjikan's posts usually bore me, (Sorry benjikan, the fashion world bores me these days, it's not you) Benjamin Kanarek has forgotten more about photography than you have learned either behind the camera, or in those philosophy classes you hold so dear.

Let me see here, whom should I listen to for advice on this particular subject? A well known and well respected photographer in his field who makes his living from photography, or a guy who writes books discussing the philosophy of whether a tree makes a sound if it falls in the wood when no one is around.

That answer is incontrovertible! :mrgreen:

So benjikan, tell us more.








p.s. Petraio, if your going to write books, even philosophy books, spelling is a useful skill to have. it is incontrovertible not incontrovertable.

I wouldn't dream of calling myself a 'professional' photographer. Even I have standards.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top