Which of my Lenses should i use for portraits?

[Strodav]

days, we used to consider an 85mm to be about the minimum for headshots, and usually preferred a 105 or 135 for portraiture.

I've heard others rave about those. I don't have one but I suppose I could use the 70-200 f 2.8 wide open to almost simulate one. I think the bottom line for the thread starter is just about any lens can be used for portraiture (within reason) and the situation and personal preference dictates which to use. Some are naturally better suited than others. Experiment and find what works for you.

I had a 135mm lens when I was doing portrait work in 35mm film although I did some 1/2 and full body portraits with a 50mm lens, which has about the same perspective as the human vision system. Cameras and glass have undergone a lot of changes since then. Today, I use a FF 46mp D850 and 3 different lenses depending on what the situation calls for. I sometimes use a Tamron 24-70mm f2.8 G2, mostly a Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 G2, and fairly often a Tamron 85mm f1.8. The 85mm prime is extremely sharp, sometimes too sharp for portraits and have to be softened a bit in PP. The zooms are plenty sharp enough and provide for a lot of flexibility, especially when shooting outdoors. Some subjects (models) don't mind you getting too close and you can use a little shorter/wider lens, which makes it easier to separate your subject from the background, but you have to worry about distortion if you go too wide. Longer lenses let you get further away from your subject, which can make them more comfortable, makes it easier to use an on camera flash for fill, but your subject will look closer to the background. I still like shooting portraits at 135mm FF with the 70-200mm, which is 90mm DX (you won't see the difference to an 85mm lens). You want to be careful about going too long, especially with a DX body on hot days as atmospheric effects can affect IQ.

 

[JTPhotography]

close up portraits with a 35mm, even with the crop factor, will lead to unflattering distortion.

beyond that, the 35mm simply doesn't have the compression and fov that lend to "perfect" portraits.

Just compared to a 50mm, filling the frame identically with the subject and all other things being equal, the 50mm shots will tend to look better. 35mm shots will have more background in the shot that's less blurred, which is distracting.

If you want to include the environment into your portraits, it's a good lens for it. Otherwise, there are better lenses for "perfect portraits" -- especially at f/2.2.

Yeah, that’s the cliche answer. We’ve all heard that many times. Rules like this stifle creativity. In reality, some awesome portraits, both close up and wide, can be made with a 35mm lens, at 1.2, 1.4, or at f8.

 

[Braineack]

and being so "non-conformist" is just as cliche.

There's a REASON you hear it over and over, and why portrait photographers don't tend to grab for the 35mm as their go-to portrait lens. Hint: It has nothing to do with being cliche, but it does have to do with the reason I listed. Compression does wonders for both removing distracting background elements and making faces more flattering. It's a look that people spend quite a bit of money achieving (both the photographer and clients).

I never said awesome portraits can't be made with the 35mm -- but you have to know what you're getting with it. You're including a LOT of background information in your portrait unless you're literally shooting in the face of your subject and even then you're getting it. You're simply not going to get amazing background blur and subject isolation -- even using the $1600 35mm 1.4g.

Again, it really depends on what you're going for. If the environment is an integral part of the portrait, then yeah go for it. But if you're shooting head-shots with it, you're going to get unflattering exaggerated facial features and extra background information. So I wouldn't call the 35mm the "perfect" portrait lens that blanket statement simply doesn't keep me warm at night.


in this 35mm shot, i WANTED to include the bridal suite -- the room was really neat:


DSC_1705 by Braineack, on Flickr

but for this shot, i wanted to eliminate it and shot the same pose with the 105mm:


DSC_4431 by Braineack, on Flickr

both were shot at f/3.2 (i should have shot them both at 1.4) -- both decent in their own rights, but the outcomes are completely different.


I shot that entire wedding using just the 35mm and 105mm, I really fancied the 35mm for it's overall usefulness. But for portraits, I'd say it was where it was weakest.

 

[Strodav]

If you want to slim down your subject a bit, use a wider angle lens like a 35mm. Here's a nice comparison from 200mm to 20mm: Photographer Shows How Different Camera Lens Make Us Look Fatter Or Thinner Than Normal

 

[Braineack]

and look at Pinocchio's nose grow at 20mm...

I don't think it looks slimming at all, even in that example, just oddly distorted. His head looks oversized compared to his feminine shoulders and his nose is gigantic.

70mm and > looks much better IMHO -- his shoulder broaden out, nose-shrinks, and neck/head look in better proportion.

If you want to slim a model, work on your posing.

but I guess trying to make people look less like large-nose aliens is cliche.

 

[Designer]

If you want to slim down your subject a bit, use a wider angle lens like a 35mm.

"Slim down", huh? O.K., but at the expense of making your subject's nose, chin, and forehead look odd.

As for me, the model looks way better not being distorted. For what it's worth.

 

[JTPhotography]

and being so "non-conformist" is just as cliche.

There's a REASON you hear it over and over, and why portrait photographers don't tend to grab for the 35mm as their go-to portrait lens. Hint: It has nothing to do with being cliche, but it does have to do with the reason I listed. Compression does wonders for both removing distracting background elements and making faces more flattering. It's a look that people spend quite a bit of money achieving (both the photographer and clients).

I never said awesome portraits can't be made with the 35mm -- but you have to know what you're getting with it. You're including a LOT of background information in your portrait unless you're literally shooting in the face of your subject and even then you're getting it. You're simply not going to get amazing background blur and subject isolation -- even using the $1600 35mm 1.4g.

Again, it really depends on what you're going for. If the environment is an integral part of the portrait, then yeah go for it. But if you're shooting head-shots with it, you're going to get unflattering exaggerated facial features and extra background information. So I wouldn't call the 35mm the "perfect" portrait lens that blanket statement simply doesn't keep me warm at night.


in this 35mm shot, i WANTED to include the bridal suite -- the room was really neat:


DSC_1705 by Braineack, on Flickr

but for this shot, i wanted to eliminate it and shot the same pose with the 105mm:


DSC_4431 by Braineack, on Flickr

both were shot at f/3.2 (i should have shot them both at 1.4) -- both decent in their own rights, but the outcomes are completely different.


I shot that entire wedding using just the 35mm and 105mm, I really fancied the 35mm for it's overall usefulness. But for portraits, I'd say it was where it was weakest.

You just repeated the cliches, only with a bunch more words. It’s all opinion. I respect artists who resist rules, not so much the ones who follow them blindly.

There is no obvious”compression” difference in the two samples you posted. You’d have to be really close to the face for that to matter. Sp that’s a weak argument.

Here is an example of a 35mm portrait shot at 1.4 that achieves the subject isolation and background blur that you say “you’re not going to get”.

Night Market Hang Out

 

[Braineack]

How can I agree with someone that doesn't understand the basic definition of the words he uses and obviously has little reading comprehension?

like seriously if you don't see the difference in the compression on the BG in the examples I posted, there's no use continuing this conversation.

again, nothing inherently wrong with using a 35mm, but you should why it's difference and why it's not a "cliche" go-to and what some of the downside/upsides may be.

case in point: Untitled


let's try this a different way: What about the 35mm makes it "perfect" for portraits? Extra points for not using the word cliche in the reply.

 

[JTPhotography]

How can I agree with someone that doesn't understand the basic definition of the words he uses and obviously has little reading comprehension?

like seriously if you don't see the difference in the compression on the BG in the examples I posted, there's no use continuing this conversation.

again, nothing inherently wrong with using a 35mm, but you should why it's difference and why it's not a "cliche" go-to and what some of the downside/upsides may be.

case in point: Untitled


let's try this a different way: What about the 35mm makes it "perfect" for portraits? Extra points for not using the word cliche in the reply.

Why so touchy? This is a discussion, one that you started with a sarcastic comment. If you can’t handle your statements being challenged then maybe hold your tongue. Just sayin’.

Yes, there is a slight difference in compression. Not a big one really. Distortion is the term I meant to use. No significant change in your example. Is her nose bulging? No.

The 35mm is a perfect portrait lens because it is sharp and most have nice big apertures that can give you great background separation. Great angle of view. There are many other reasons.

And since we are talking about rules, the first photo you posted is a mess. You cut off the models feet and that white space above her head is terribly distracting. Not to mention the black board/rod balancing on her head.

Any particular reason why you’re shooting weddings at 6400 iso instead of using flash?

 

[JTPhotography]

If you want to slim down your subject a bit, use a wider angle lens like a 35mm. Here's a nice comparison from 200mm to 20mm: Photographer Shows How Different Camera Lens Make Us Look Fatter Or Thinner Than Normal

Good examples. The facial distortion is obvious at the low end there but you have to be close.

 

[Braineack]

You made the statement that the 35mm is the perfect portrait lens for someone asking for advice. When challenged, with specific reasons as you why it might not be so ideal, you went straight to ad homenin junk instead of defending your opinion.

The reason given above are the same for any other fast lens on the planet in terms of sharpness and apertures.

This has nothing to do with rules, it's physics and conventional wisdom.

And doesn't being a rule breaker make me not cliche? Hell I shot the damn wedding with a 35mm...

Isn't it not more helpful to the op to discuss all the advantages and disadvantages without unsustansiated blanket statements?



Using flash at weddings is cliche. You should know better.

 

[Designer]

It’s all opinion.

Not always. I've heard that phrase many times on here, with no substantive argument to actually prove it.

Following that line of thinking leads one to the conclusion that the opinion of someone who doesn't know what he is talking about should count as much as the opinion of someone who does know the difference between bad and good. Illogical.

Now there may be a difference of understanding in the assumed intent of a portrait. A professional portraitist who has been commissioned to produce a flattering portrait of his client will produce a flattering portrait.

On the other hand, an artist who wishes to make a statement about his client that, while not necessarily flattering, might convey a certain impression of that person which then may or may not be appreciated by the subject himself.

Two different concepts. Two possible approaches. Two very different results. Neither is "wrong".

Now when the OP asked about portraiture, we assume he means regular portraiture, not a distorted version. Therefore the suggestion of which lens comports with the usual straight type of portraiture.

Let's assume a hypothetical example; Let's assume that you are a professional portraitist, and your client has asked for her portrait. Would you give her a straight-up flattering portrait, or would you instead give her a distorted avant-garde portrait? Do you think it would be wise to ask your client what kind of portrait she had in mind? Or do you care whether it matters at all to her?

 

[Strodav]

Probably more portraits are taken with smartphones than any other type of camera. Most smartphones have a 35mm equivalent focal length between 24-30mm.

 

[tirediron]

Okay... let's calm down and discuss this like rational people, okay? Thanks!

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Okay... let's calm down and discuss this like rational people, okay? Thanks!

You’re a great portrait photographer. What lens do you use for your portraits?