Newbie getting into portrait photography - needs help on gear

[cgipson1]

A lot of suggestions to go for 50mm 1.8 over 35mm 1.8. Why?

I'm trying to do full body and half body shots indoors. In my bedroom, for example, to do a full body shot, I'd be backed up against a wall using a 50mm, I would think.

Would you rather have nice lovely photos that look real and flattering?

Or would you rather have photos where the Noses look larger than real life, and the heads are slightly distorted like in a bad dream?

Classic example of Barrel Distortion with a 35mm lens. Look at the subjects nose.. and face in general. This is a shot on Flickr from someone that says they love taking portraits with a 35mm! Interesting stuff! EXAMPLE: > buro | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

A 35mm can give barrel distortion if used close to a subject (any wide angle will do this.. the shorter the focal length, the greater the distortion). A 50mm can give distortion, but only if you stick it right in their face, basically!

 

[curveshooter]

First of all, I would hope you would be shooting in a room/scenario bigger than a standard bedroom.

the 50mm gives you good distance away from the subject. Have you ever had someone up in your face with a camera? Didn't like it did you? Yeah, neither do they.

DoF shallows with a longer focal length and close distance between you and the subject. This is key in portrait photography because you want your subject to be the only thing in focus, specifically their eyes.

I figure I'll be doing a fair bit of shooting in a standard sized bedroom. I think you may have assumed I'm doing this professionally or semi-professionally. I'm not. Just a guy looking to improve picture quality over what can be done with point and shoot digicams.

I shouldn't have used the term portrait in my OP. I'll be doing way more body shots than face shots.

I get the DoF argument for the 50mm, but I'm guessing it just won't work in the limited space I'm using.

Lol in that case 35mm on a crop wont be enough to do full body portrait in a bedroom. You'll be needing something like sigma 10-20

'Crop'? What's that?

I think 35mm should be enough, at least judging from playing around with distance in a camera shop. Certainly good enough for half-body shots? Though I guess at that point, maybe 50mm might work as well?

Would you rather have nice lovely photos that look real and flattering?

Or would you rather have photos where the Noses look larger than real life, and the heads are slightly distorted like in a bad dream?

Classic example of Barrel Distortion with a 35mm lens. Look at the subjects nose.. and face in general. This is a shot on Flickr from someone that says they love taking portraits with a 35mm! Interesting stuff! EXAMPLE: > buro | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

A 35mm can give barrel distortion if used close to a subject (any wide angle will do this.. the shorter the focal length, the greater the distortion). A 50mm can give distortion, but only if you stick it right in their face, basically!

Thanks for the explanation.

How far away would I need to be with a 35mm to avoid barrel distortion?

 

[curveshooter]

One thing I was thinking is that I could get a camera with basic kit lens of 18-55 and set it for both 35 and 50 and see which works better for me. Only issue there is that the two cameras I'm comparing - the D3100 and the T3 - have different availabilities of inexpensive prime lenses. For the Nikon, the 35mm 1.8 lens is $200. For the Canon, the 35mm 2.0 lens is $315. And the situation is reversed for the 50mm lenses with the Canon 50mm 1.8 going for $110 vs the Nikon 50 1.8 AF-S going for $220.

So it helps to know which prime lens I'd use (35 or 50) before deciding on the D3100 or T3.

 

[MTVision]

One thing I was thinking is that I could get a camera with basic kit lens of 18-55 and set it for both 35 and 50 and see which works better for me. Only issue there is that the two cameras I'm comparing - the D3100 and the T3 - have different availabilities of inexpensive prime lenses. For the Nikon, the 35mm 1.8 lens is $200. For the Canon, the 35mm 2.0 lens is $315. And the situation is reversed for the 50mm lenses with the Canon 50mm 1.8 going for $110 vs the Nikon 50 1.8 AF-S going for $220.

So it helps to know which prime lens I'd use (35 or 50) before deciding on the D3100 or T3.

Well - the canon 50 1.8 (from what I hear) is crap (build quality, bokeh, etc). The Nikon 50 1.8g is actually a really great lens for the price. Maybe eventually you'll want both the 50 and the 35 - then either camera would work since the cost of the 2 lenses is about the same for either brand.

 

[curveshooter]

OK, did some more reading and now I'm starting to understand why everyone was all for the 50mm over the 35mm.

For DX sensor cameras like the D3100, the focal length is magnified 1.5x. So the 35mm prime lens is like a 50mm prime on a full frame camera. And the 50mm lens on the D3100 is like a 75mm lens on a full frame camera.

So it would seem that for the D3100, the 35mm is the way to go for my intended shots, assuming I'm understanding things correctly.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

OK, did some more reading and now I'm starting to understand why everyone was all for the 50mm over the 35mm.

For DX sensor cameras like the D3100, the focal length is magnified 1.5x. So the 35mm prime lens is like a 50mm prime on a full frame camera. And the 50mm lens on the D3100 is like a 75mm lens on a full frame camera.

So it would seem that for the D3100, the 35mm is the way to go for my intended shots, assuming I'm understanding things correctly.

Of course, it's your camera, so do what you wish. However, you will enjoy that 35mm long enough to take half-torso/head shots. You will find yourself awkwardly close to your subjects. I'm sure your clients are going to love you being 2 to 3 feet in front of their face with your camera to get a mid torso shot, instead of 5 to 7 feet or so with a 50mm. I literally just tested my 50mm AF-S 1.8G on my D5000, the 50mm focal length on my N65 using the same lens, and I also used my 50mm 1.7 Konica, and all three could get my 5'4" wife in the images with no problem from 4 feet away from her. So, you would be right up in the subjects face using the 35mm.

BUT... if that's what you want to do.... more power to you.

 

[MTVision]

Of course, it's your camera, so do what you wish. However, you will enjoy that 35mm long enough to take half-torso/head shots. You will find yourself awkwardly close to your subjects. I'm sure your clients are going to love you being 2 to 3 feet in front of their face with your camera to get a mid torso shot, instead of 5 to 7 feet or so with a 50mm. I literally just tested my 50mm AF-S 1.8G on my D5000, the 50mm focal length on my N65 using the same lens, and I also used my 50mm 1.7 Konica, and all three could get my 5'4" wife in the images with no problem from 4 feet away from her. So, you would be right up in the subjects face using the 35mm.

BUT... if that's what you want to do.... more power to you.

For a full body shot with a 35mm lens - you won't be right in someone's face. For my boyfriend to get a full body shot of me with a 35mm lens he was standing about 8ft or more away - just a little room above my head and below my feet. I'm only 5". A 50mm lens it'd be even further away.

For an above the neck shot - yeah your gonna be right in someone's face and it may have some distortion. A half body shot isn't gonna be right in the persons face either. Close but not overcrowding. Plus if he's shooting in a standard sized bedroom I doubt his subjects will really care how close he is.....

 

[MTVision]

OK, did some more reading and now I'm starting to understand why everyone was all for the 50mm over the 35mm.

For DX sensor cameras like the D3100, the focal length is magnified 1.5x. So the 35mm prime lens is like a 50mm prime on a full frame camera. And the 50mm lens on the D3100 is like a 75mm lens on a full frame camera.

So it would seem that for the D3100, the 35mm is the way to go for my intended shots, assuming I'm understanding things correctly.

Technically the focal length doesn't change. A 50mm lens is always 50mm no matter what camera it's on (crop or FF). The field of view changes.

I think your best bet is what you mentioned earlier - get the camera and the kit lens 18-55. Use it for a day set to 35 and then to 50. See which focal length suits you better.

I have both the 35 and the 50. I started with the 50mm - and it's one of my favorite lenses and it literally did not leave my camera for almost a year. I recently bought the 35 because (a) I like to spend money (b) the place I was currently living in was so small that the 50mm was too tight. I still prefer the 50 over the 35 but the 35mm works great inside my house for lifestyle type shots.

 

[rokvi]

You would mainly see really bad barrel distortion on a shot that was down the body anyway, just go with what MTVision said and try out the kit lens to see what you like. You can even get some nice shots with said kit lens. A flash is a necessity though I feel.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

Of course, it's your camera, so do what you wish. However, you will enjoy that 35mm long enough to take half-torso/head shots. You will find yourself awkwardly close to your subjects. I'm sure your clients are going to love you being 2 to 3 feet in front of their face with your camera to get a mid torso shot, instead of 5 to 7 feet or so with a 50mm. I literally just tested my 50mm AF-S 1.8G on my D5000, the 50mm focal length on my N65 using the same lens, and I also used my 50mm 1.7 Konica, and all three could get my 5'4" wife in the images with no problem from 4 feet away from her. So, you would be right up in the subjects face using the 35mm.

BUT... if that's what you want to do.... more power to you.

For a full body shot with a 35mm lens - you won't be right in someone's face. For my boyfriend to get a full body shot of me with a 35mm lens he was standing about 8ft or more away - just a little room above my head and below my feet. I'm only 5". A 50mm lens it'd be even further away.

For an above the neck shot - yeah your gonna be right in someone's face and it may have some distortion. A half body shot isn't gonna be right in the persons face either. Close but not overcrowding. Plus if he's shooting in a standard sized bedroom I doubt his subjects will really care how close he is.....

If your boyfriend took a full body shot of you with a 35mm lens at 8ft away, he had plenty of foreground and background to boot. Like I said, I just tested my 50's on my 5'4" wife at 4 or so feet away. My nikon also has a 1.5x crop factor. So, if I can stand at that distance and get her in the entire frame, your boyfriend could have stood MUCH closer and still got you in the entire frame.

Mind you, she was laying down on a couch, but that wouldn't make a difference. I got her head to toe in frame with a 50mm 1.8 at about 4-5 feet away on a 1.5x crop sensor. This isn't something I'm making up with numbers, I literally just tried it about 30 minutes ago. Therefore, I could stand about 2 feet closer with a 35mm and still have her in the frame.

I'm not starting a pissing match or trying to argue with you. However, the proof is in the pudding.

 

[MTVision]

If your boyfriend took a full body shot of you with a 35mm lens at 8ft away, he had plenty of foreground and background to boot. Like I said, I just tested my 50's on my 5'4" wife at 4 or so feet away. My nikon also has a 1.5x crop factor. So, if I can stand at that distance and get her in the entire frame, your boyfriend could have stood MUCH closer and still got you in the entire frame.

Mind you, she was laying down on a couch, but that wouldn't make a difference. I got her head to toe in frame with a 50mm 1.8 at about 4-5 feet away on a 1.5x crop sensor. This isn't something I'm making up with numbers, I literally just tried it about 30 minutes ago. Therefore, I could stand about 2 feet closer with a 35mm and still have her in the frame.

I'm not starting a pissing match or trying to argue with you. However, the proof is in the pudding.

And I did the exact same thing right after I read your post. We even measured the distance. It was a little under 8ft away - 89" to be exact. He could've gotten a tad closer otherwise he would've cut my feet or the top of my head off. Granted our experiments weren't that similar since your GF was laying down and I was standing up. But there is no way my boyfriend could've stood 3' away and got me in the frame.

3ft away (2ft closer then you) and I was able to get an entire 21" dollhouse in the frame.

Sorry for the crappy photos - I took a picture of my LCD.


EDIT: can't believe I even posted that picture of my hugely pregnant self

 

[SCraig]

One thing I was thinking is that I could get a camera with basic kit lens of 18-55 and set it for both 35 and 50 and see which works better for me. Only issue there is that the two cameras I'm comparing - the D3100 and the T3 - have different availabilities of inexpensive prime lenses. For the Nikon, the 35mm 1.8 lens is $200. For the Canon, the 35mm 2.0 lens is $315. And the situation is reversed for the 50mm lenses with the Canon 50mm 1.8 going for $110 vs the Nikon 50 1.8 AF-S going for $220.

So it helps to know which prime lens I'd use (35 or 50) before deciding on the D3100 or T3.

Why are you hung up on primes? I don't even own a prime for my DSLRs (although I do have a few for my 35mm gear) and have never felt a need for one.

 

[AaronLLockhart]

If your boyfriend took a full body shot of you with a 35mm lens at 8ft away, he had plenty of foreground and background to boot. Like I said, I just tested my 50's on my 5'4" wife at 4 or so feet away. My nikon also has a 1.5x crop factor. So, if I can stand at that distance and get her in the entire frame, your boyfriend could have stood MUCH closer and still got you in the entire frame.

Mind you, she was laying down on a couch, but that wouldn't make a difference. I got her head to toe in frame with a 50mm 1.8 at about 4-5 feet away on a 1.5x crop sensor. This isn't something I'm making up with numbers, I literally just tried it about 30 minutes ago. Therefore, I could stand about 2 feet closer with a 35mm and still have her in the frame.

I'm not starting a pissing match or trying to argue with you. However, the proof is in the pudding.

And I did the exact same thing right after I read your post. We even measured the distance. It was a little under 8ft away - 89" to be exact. He could've gotten a tad closer otherwise he would've cut my feet or the top of my head off. Granted our experiments weren't that similar since your GF was laying down and I was standing up. But there is no way my boyfriend could've stood 3' away and got me in the frame.

3ft away (2ft closer then you) and I was able to get an entire 21" dollhouse in the frame.

Sorry for the crappy photos - I took a picture of my LCD.


EDIT: can't believe I even posted that picture of my hugely pregnant self

That's exactly the result I expected to see. It may not look like much on the camera, but that's about 10 inches above your head extra and another 8 to 10 inches below your feet. He could have easily moved up about 2 more feet, and still had you head to toe in the frame. With a 35mm, he could have moved in 2 more feet... which would have put him at 3 to 4 feet

Not to mention, your dollhouse image has to do more with perspective than it does the size of the dollhouse. Instead of placing the camera on the ground, have him stand up and shoot the dollhouse again, and I promise he could have gotten MUCH more than just the dollhouse in the image.

 

[MTVision]

That's exactly the result I expected to see. It may not look like much on the camera, but that's about 10 inches above your head extra and another 8 to 10 inches below your feet. He could have easily moved up about 2 more feet, and still had you head to toe in the frame. With a 35mm, he could have moved in 2 more feet... which would have put him at 3 to 4 feet

Not to mention, your dollhouse image has to do more with perspective than it does the size of the dollhouse. Instead of placing the camera on the ground, have him stand up and shoot the dollhouse again, and I promise he could have gotten MUCH more than just the dollhouse in the image.

Still don't see how it's possible - this was about 6' away and my toes are clipped.

I just measured 4ft away and tried to take a full picture of a cabinet I have that is the same height as me. It's not possible. I could get maybe 1/2 of the cabinet. Moving back another 3' and I can get the whole cabinet in the frame.

 

[curveshooter]

Why are you hung up on primes? I don't even own a prime for my DSLRs (although I do have a few for my 35mm gear) and have never felt a need for one.

For low/indoor light, particularly in conditions where I don't want to use a flash (assuming I'm correctly understanding why a prime lens, in a range already covered by the kit lens, would be useful).