Best focal length for portraiture (cropped sensor)

milster

milster

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,438
Name
Gary
Edit My Images
Yes
Thinking of maybe trying a bit of portraiture and I was considering maybe swapping my 35mm for a 50mm, would that be the way to go?

Cheers,

Gary.
 
Depends on what style of portraiture you're going for.
For tight head/shoulder shots I've found 50mm can be too short. I've had to get too close to my subject which can lead to facial distortion. (Getting too close means the persons nose is proportionally much closer to the camera, than the rest of their face, so looks much larger in the image and looks odd.)
Going for longer focal lengths (85mm+) could be a problem as you may not have enough room to step back enough to get it all in.
For wider shots the 50mm can be very good, as can the 35mm, it depends what you want. If you have a kit/zoom try setting it to each to see what you like.
 
Thanks Andy, that's what I'm thinking with the 35mm, I just have to get too close. I was thinking head and shoulders type shots really but I'll tryb anything
 
A lot of my portraits of my kids are taken with my 70-200 at the longer end, just seems to fit my style more
 
Longer is better, more flattering and less intimidating but usually working distances are governed by the space you have to work with.
 
A nice 50mm is great for a crop sensor camera, as it's around 75mm equivalent. A Nikkor 50mm f1.4G is a superb lens, and as you're not using it's edge performance with a DX camera you will NOT find a sharper portrait length lens anywhere.
 
The rule is the longest you have room for. For head and shoulders even on a crop I'd be looking at 85mm minimum.
 
I'm firmly with the longer focal length brigade. More than 80% of my portrait shots have been taken at 70mm or longer (105mm+ on a crop body). My 50mm was used so infrequently I sold it ... and haven't missed it :)
 
An example of focal length effects for portraits..

Source:http://www.lesjones.com/2011/06/15/effect-of-lens-focal-length-on-portraits/
stepheneastwood-tile1.jpg
 
Now all you've got to do is to knock the back wall of the house down so you can stand at the bottom of the garden :thumbs:
 
Number of reasons really, its a really cheap wide aperture lens (so you can get a shallow DOF and subject seperation) and 50mm gives you about as long a focal length than you can use in most domestic situations.

Can it be bettered? Yes of course - even staying at 50mm a f1.4 will give more and nicer bokeh but if you truly want much better portraits you want to move to 85mm f1.8/1.4 or longer still (a 135mm f2 is a lovely portrait lens and used to be the standard weapon of choice for most pros)

I shoot lots of head and shoulders portrait stuff with a 300 2.8 or even 500 f4 - but I am doing that somewhere other than my home!

PS I am not a fan of the "nasty fifty" - other than a cheap way of playing with wide apertures, its blurgh IMHO.
 
Last edited:
desantnik said:
Number of reasons really, its a really cheap wide aperture lens (so you can get a shallow DOF and subject seperation) and 50mm gives you about as long a focal length than you can use in most domestic situations.

Can it be bettered? Yes of course - even staying at 50mm a f1.4 will give more and nicer bokeh but if you truly want much better portraits you want to move to 85mm f1.8/1.4 or longer still (a 135mm f2 is a lovely portrait lens and used to be the standard weapon of choice for most pros)

I shoot lots of head and shoulders portrait stuff with a 300 2.8 or even 500 f4 - but I am doing that somewhere other than my home!

PS I am not a fan of the "nasty fifty" - other than a cheap way of playing with wide apertures, its blurgh IMHO.
Click to expand...

That's great! Appreciate the reply!
 
Also a lot of people will be using a fifty on a crop sensor, so it will be producing an image equivalent to the 70mm on those example shots above. Which you will agree is a lot better for portraiture than the 50mm.
 
Well, given that its not the focal length but the subject distance that causes perspective distortion, then yes :)

You could always use a 24mm lens on a FF body, stand three times the distance back than you would if you were filling the frame and then crop the heck out the resulting image :thumbs: (providing your subject was central in the frame!)
 
Last edited:
The nifty is also liked because of it being generally seen as the closest to human eye perspective from a focal length range. That is true of all fifties though (obviously on FF).

For the price it's fantastic. But price comes at a cost in other areas, which have been explained.

kd
 
King Damager said:
The nifty is also liked because of it being generally seen as the closest to human eye perspective from a focal length range. That is true of all fifties though (obviously on FF).
Click to expand...

This is true, perspective - not field of view or angle of view (as some like to say)

So try to fill your own eyes with a head and shoulders of someone and see whether they look that good close up :lol::lol::lol::lol:

Whether or not this perspective is the most flattering perspective we can have of a fellow human being is the question :D
 
I use a 50mm f1.8 an 85mm F2.8 and a 105mm f2.8 all seem to do the job in one way or another :thumbs:

Les :D
 
ThelVlenace said:
I'm still a noob, so forgive me...but what would be the difference say using a 50mm and moving closer to the subject than using a 70mm and zooming?

:s
Click to expand...

ThelVlenace said:
Ok...so why do people say that a "nifty fifty" is good for portraiture, when there's more distortion?...just curious :)
Click to expand...

The distortion looks bad on that example, however it would look significantly more exaggerated in the majority of the 18-55mm kit range. Another example here http://neilvn.com/tangents/composition-for-full-length-portraits/

As covered in more eloquently in earlier replies, the main factor is price when buying it. It is competing at the cheaper end of the market against variable aperture (f5.6 @ 50mm) zoom kit lenses. The larger aperture allows more 'blurring of the background', its a bit sharper than the equivalent priced kit zoom, its smaller and lighter and more critically allows 3stops of more light through. Thus you can stay away from poorer High ISO capabilities on the lower spec DSLRs.
 
AndyB1976 - thanks for posting that, it's useful and something I can remember seeing some time back but losing the link for. :)

OP - to be fair, a 35mm on a crop body like yours isn't a bad bit of kit, although much of the time it's 'ideal' to use something equal to or longer than 50mm due to what AndyB1976 posted above to do with distortion. I do find myself using my 70-200mm much of the time now I've sold my 85mm. You get that distance away from the subject where they have a bit of breathing space... you do end up with a specific look (blurred background, compressed features) but it's a reliable look.

I take it you're after doing 'traditional' style portraiture, as opposed to getting more exaggerated images like you'd get with a wider lens?
 
Last edited:
Save up an get a 70-200 f2.8! Absolutely brilliant portrait lens. Ok a bit long for indoors but quality is outstanding. I also have the 35 and love that too!
 
i would say anything over 85mm i love using my 300mm F4 when i have room to use it.
 
Tamron 70-300 for many takes and I love it for portraits on Canon 60D. I also use Canon 60mm from time to time. Mostly (90 - 150 focal length usage). As was mentioned it really depends on your style.
 
Georges said:
As was mentioned it really depends on your style.
Click to expand...

More accurately, as was said earlier, it depends on the space you have to work in.

Most people talking about "portraits" are talking about taking pictures of their family in their house - unless you are taken by shots of earlobes or nasal hair, my suggestion of a 300mm prime probably isn't suitable :)

Basically, longer is better, but your working distances will limit your choices.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top