Don't Buy a 50mm Lens For Portraits.

[DaydreamJay]

Those that can do, those that can't teach

I think you'll find that the lecturers at college are all guest lecturers, Martin Parr for instance, you may have heard of him. When I said staff I was more referring to the technicians.

For the record I dislike Martin Parr intensely even though he is possibly the most famous (alive) photographer around at the moment.

 

[treeman]

For the record I dislike Martin Parr intensely even though he is possibly the most famous (alive) photographer around at the moment.

I couldn't agree with you more, but that's the point, I bet none of his images conform to what your lecturers tell you, however he's making more money from photography than any of us!

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Who said that? I didn't say that. Whoever said it was wrong. However some portraits are head shots and in that case I do not want a lens that doesn't allow me to do that.

Newsflash. You will not find a lens to shoot every type of portrait, in every type if scenario. Buy an 85mm or longer for headshots, but then try and take a full length portrait with it in a small studio, or a family portrait indoors, good luck.

The thing is, you've said categorically don't use a 50mm lens for portraits, you stated it, and that's complete *****e. What you mean is don't take headshots with a 50mm lens if you don't want distortion. But then again, the flattering distortion of a long Tele lens is considered aesthetically pleasing by many. So either way you're wrong. There's nothing wrong with distortion if you consider it, and use it to your advantage.

Evidently you don't know how to do this, as you have proven, distortion has negatively effected your images due to your uneducated lens choice for the purpose.

And that's coming from me....imagine what a "proper photographer" would say.

 

[EdBray]

Good thread this, very entertaining.

 

[Ed Sutton]

I was joking. Unfortunately Yorkshire humour doesn't transmit very well in writing.

As we say in Lancashire, "You can always tell a Yorkshireman, but you can't tell him much".

:bonk:

 

[DaydreamJay]

Newsflash. You will not find a lens to shoot every type of portrait, in every type if scenario. Buy an 85mm or longer for headshots, but then try and take a full length portrait with it in a small studio, or a family portrait indoors, good luck.

The thing is, you've said categorically don't use a 50mm lens for portraits, you stated it, and that's complete *****e. What you mean is don't take headshots with a 50mm lens if you don't want distortion. But then again, the flattering distortion of a long Tele lens is considered aesthetically pleasing by many. So either way you're wrong. There's nothing wrong with distortion if you consider it, and use it to your advantage.

Evidently you don't know how to do this, as you have proven, distortion has negatively effected your images due to your uneducated lens choice for the purpose.

And that's coming from me....imagine what a "proper photographer" would say.

There are many discussions on this site and many other sites as to what the "best portrait lens" is. It rarely asks "what range of lenses do I need to take portraits" so therefore we can have a lens which is considered as a portrait lens. I concede to you point that it will not be able to provide perfection in every scenario. However I find that the 50mm distortion is totally unacceptable and as the face is such a fundamental part of portraiture I would suggest that a lens that handles this correctly is a first and foremost. Size restraints of a studio is of course a mitigating factor.

 

[DaydreamJay]

As we say in Lancashire, "You can always tell a Yorkshireman, but you can't tell him much".

:bonk:

 

[DaydreamJay]

Good thread this, very entertaining.

Sorry Ed but I have to depart to the pub shortly

 

[grum]

This thread just goes to show that a little bit of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.

I know I can correct distortion in PP but I'm a bit old school, I want to learn properly how to take a photo.

IMO obsessing over small amounts of distortion rather than thinking about what makes a good photograph isn't the way to learn. But then I've never been to college to study photography with guest lectures by Martin Pa........ zzzzzzzzz

 

[Hippo_MC]

But if a lens actually prevents you from taking a certain style of portrait i.e. a face shot then what's the point of having it when you could get a lens that doesn't do that?

I will throw my 70-200 away now as I can't take macro 1:1 shots with it

Horses for courses. If you want to take 'different' types of portrait shots with a prime lens, you will need to own more than one prime lens!

 

[Mahoneyd187]

There are many discussions on this site and many other sites as to what the "best portrait lens" is. It rarely asks "what range of lenses do I need to take portraits" so therefore we can have a lens which is considered as a portrait lens. I concede to you point that it will not be able to provide perfection in every scenario. However I find that the 50mm distortion is totally unacceptable and as the face is such a fundamental part of portraiture I would suggest that a lens that handles this correctly is a first and foremost. Size restraints of a studio is of course a mitigating factor.

To be fair that's probably a lot to do with the 50mm being so cheap, lots of people have it, and thus recommend it.

I would find it immensely difficult to cover a whole genre of photography with one fixed lens. I love primes, and I shoot only primes, but I accept I need more than one.

 

[DaydreamJay]

This thread just goes to show that a little bit of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing.



IMO obsessing over small amounts of distortion rather than thinking about what makes a good photograph isn't the way to learn. But then I've never been to college to study photography with guest lectures by Martin Pa........ zzzzzzzzz

It's not a small amount of distortion though. It's enough for me to have spotted it ages ago and had me thinking it was being caused by my lens.

And yeah I know I sound like a div saying I go to college but believe me if I thought I could self-learn the subject I would have done so. I tried but found that I needed structured learning as I was getting gaps in my knowledge over some really basic stuff.

 

[dentedshed]

Why is this site so full of snide condescending prats?

jebus, you'll go far

I still think you're a troll.

 

[DaydreamJay]

To be fair that's probably a lot to do with the 50mm being so cheap, lots of people have it, and thus recommend it.

I would find it immensely difficult to cover a whole genre of photography with one fixed lens. I love primes, and I shoot only primes, but I accept I need more than one.

With hindsight the thread title is wrong. I stand by the fact that the 50mm cannot be called a "portrait lens" if it is unable to render a face correctly.

 

[DaydreamJay]

I will throw my 70-200 away now as I can't take macro 1:1 shots with it

Did someone recommend it for 1:1 macro shots then?

 

[Ste Manns]

Deary me - I said in the lego thread that I was making the point "jokingly" - people overlooked that fact before wading in. I also stated that the "proper photographers" statement was sarcastic.

So insulting us all is ok, because you did it jokingly? No, sorry, you don't get off that lightly. You should think carefully about what you write on a public forum like this, and you aren't doing. As a consequence instead of a good healthy debate you're getting everyones back up and making sweeping statements that just aren't true - like I said earlier, it doesn't MATTER. Photography is, for the most part, about art, and is not an exact science. Treating it as such is a mistake and I'm afraid you seem to be missing the point of it entirely.

Portraiture isn't about making an exact record of a scene with a person in it. It's about making an image of a scene with a person in it, and it should convey something about the person (or persons) within it. That's two very different things.

I don't care if there's some subtle distortion in one of my portraits. People whom have asked me to take their portrait don't seem to care either.

 

[DaydreamJay]

jebus, you'll go far

I still think you're a troll.

I may be critical of equipment (which in turn may offend its owner) but I would not consider that I have been offensive to actual thread posters. However you will find that many many users post offensive comments to me, as this thread has highlighted.

 

[EdBray]

If you use a 50mm on a cropper (75mm on Nikon, 80mm on Canon AOV equiv) All you need to do is step back a bit and then crop the end result. That will be the same as using a longer lens and not cropping.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

With hindsight the thread title is wrong. I stand by the fact that the 50mm cannot be called a "portrait lens" if it is unable to render a face correctly.

Sorry you're wrong. I can take a portrait with it, 99.9% of people with one can. So its a good portrait lens, provided you understand its focal length and distortion. A 200-400 zoom can be a portrait lens. Anything can if you know what to do with it.

 

[CSB]

And yeah I know I sound like a div saying I go to college but believe me if I thought I could self-learn the subject I would have done so. I tried but found that I needed structured learning as I was getting gaps in my knowledge over some really basic stuff.

I have highlighted the problem

 

[dentedshed]

I may be critical of equipment (which in turn may offend its owner) but I would not consider that I have been offensive to actual thread posters. However you will find that many many users post offensive comments to me, as this thread has highlighted.

This site is littered with critics of certain lenses, equipment and all other manner of stuff.

You however seem to have recently started threads that are rubbing people up the wrong way and you seem to be doing it deliberately.

Like I said, I call troll.

 

[DaydreamJay]

So insulting us all is ok, because you did it jokingly? No, sorry, you don't get off that lightly. You should think carefully about what you write on a public forum like this, and you aren't doing.

I take back the "proper photographers" comment, but I didn't think it would be taken literally.

As a consequence instead of a good healthy debate you're getting everyones back up and making sweeping statements that just aren't true

It's true that 50mm lenses distort faces. I may not have been clear about that....

 

[DaydreamJay]

I have highlighted the problem

Yet another snide personal dig? Great site this.

 

[DaydreamJay]

This site is littered with critics of certain lenses, equipment and all other manner of stuff.

You however seem to have recently started threads that are rubbing people up the wrong way and you seem to be doing it deliberately.

Like I said, I call troll.

You can call what you want. If you want to debate my initial post on this topic let's do it. We can talk trolls later.

 

[woof woof]

As already previously stated... perspective "distortion" is common to all lenses regardless of focal length.

 

[dod]

I still think you're a troll.

That's what I was thinking after the lego thread, it's an even stronger opinion now although every one is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Jason, start thinking very carefully about how your posts can be perceived. The written word doesn't always come across quite how it's intended and you seem to be able to create exactly the opposite impression to what you say you're trying to put across.

 

[Ste Manns]

Great site this.

This is the ONLY thing you've said that has any truth to it.

 

[2Thumbs]

Did someone recommend it for 1:1 macro shots then?

For someone who likes to tell a good joke, you seem to have trouble telling them apart yourself.

 

[grum]

With hindsight the thread title is wrong. I stand by the fact that the 50mm cannot be called a "portrait lens" if it is unable to render a face correctly.

I bet I could go on flickr and find millions of great portraits taken with a 50mm lens. But of course they should all have been binned because of the distortion.

 

[DaydreamJay]

As already previously stated... perspective "distortion" is common to all lenses regardless of focal length.

But it is undetectable distortion when it's a face (and 85mm) and that's what I am talking about.

 

[DaydreamJay]

I bet I could go on flickr and find millions of great portraits taken with a 50mm lens. But of course they should all have been binned because of the distortion.

Find me some good face shots that haven't been cropped.

 

[EdBray]

It's true that 50mm lenses distort faces. I may not have been clear about that....

Only if you go too close. It is nothing to do with the lens, only the lens to subject distance!

As I said, if you use a 50mm from exactly the same position as a 135mm the distortion will be the exactly the same, if you then crop the resulting 50mm image to give the same framing as the 135mm they will look identical (pictorially), obviously there will be less defenition due to the enlargement. FACT.

 

[Mahoneyd187]

Only if you go too close. It is nothing to do with the lens, only the lens to subject distance!

As I said, if you use a 50mm from exactly the same position as a 135mm the distortion will be the exactly the same, if you then crop the resulting 50mm image to give the same framing as the 135mm they will look identical (pictorially), obviously there will be less defenition due to the enlargement. FACT.

+1

 

[SparkUK]

But it is undetectable distortion when it's a face (and 85mm) and that's what I am talking about.

It's not undetectable at all..... it's just proportionally less because you're further away....

 

[EdBray]

Just noticed I can't spell definition

 

[POAH]

lol best thread in ages.

 

[DaydreamJay]

Only if you go too close. It is nothing to do with the lens, only the lens to subject distance!

I have to get close to get a full face crop should I require one. I don't want to throw away pixels.

 

[odd jim]

Why is this site so full of snide condescending prats?

Feel free to leave it at any time.

 

[DaydreamJay]

lol best thread in ages.

Try being at this end. I've worn the fingerprints off my fingers.

 

[CSB]

Yet another snide personal dig? Great site this.

Yes that was a dig and maybe a bit childish but, then what do you expect for calling someone a pratt? What I should have said is that you seem to be having a hard time understanding what everyone else is saying to you, which is that your original statement is wrong. Haven't you noticed that nobody agrees with you? Lots of people are explaining why you are incorrect but you refuse to take on board what they are saying.

I think you are either very stubborn/unwilling to listen, just plain stupid or as others have said, a troll.