Favorite focal length for a full body portrait

B

benc98

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,189
Name
Ben
Edit My Images
Yes
Just wanted to find out what is most popular focal length for a full length shot is

I'm using a crop sensor and have a 17-50mm (dx) and a 70-300mm (fx) and I feel uncomfortable taking full length shots with either of my lenses. On the shorter end I feel I'm too close to the subject or else they're too small in the frame. The 70-300 feels too long.

Am going to solve this my throwing another lens at the problem? r should I be doing better and make do with the lenses i have
 
Depends on the image that I'm trying to create. For shooting people I most often use my 100mm on a full frame body. Mostly because I'm too lazy to take it off. However I personally usually prefer the compression that you get from a longer lens length, somewhere around the 200mm mark.

I think your lenses are fine.
 
It's not your lens. In practical terms you have a focal length from 17 - 300mm excluding 50 - 70mm, a whole 20mm. It's your 'uncomfortable' feeling that's the problem. Get past that and you'll be fine.

@CharlotteM he's talking about full length portraits here, at 200mm on a crop for an adult he'd need to stand 20m+ away, not always that practical.

.edit.
As to what actual length of lens, what ever fits with the client and final image required.
 
Last edited:
All depends on the distance to the subject. In an ideal world, I prefer >50mm on an FF body, so >35mm on a crop. However, needs must, so I often have to go shorter (well, not often, since that implies that I do a lot of full length portraits) to get full length at my (compact) home. When shooting short lengths, I prefer to be looking slightly down at the subject, otherwise the perspective tends to add a few pounds. Not stood on a chair looking down, just not crouching (being 6'1" usually gives me enough height and taller people don't seem to have the gut that some shorter ones have!)
 
As long a lens as the studio will comfortably allow.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
As long a lens as the studio will comfortably allow.
Click to expand...
This.

I've read that there's a max focal length for portraits beyond which people look 'flat', but in reality you're not likely to encounter that.
 
Phil V said:
This.

I've read that there's a max focal length for portraits beyond which people look 'flat', but in reality you're not likely to encounter that.
Click to expand...
Agree as well. I'll typically have the 70-200 or maybe 150mm macro on if space allows. I know I read somewhere that one particular pro likes to use a 200-400.

I wonder what FL makes someone look "flat" in a negative way...I've never noticed it even in long range sports shots at 400-800mm.


As an aside, I wish we would stop calling the effect "compression/distortion" and just call it "perspective."
 
Depends, if I want the background to loom large behind the subject then a longer lens is best (200mm @ 2.8/4 for me), but if I want the background to have less impact (appear further away) I'll use a wider lens. As long as care is used with the wider lens both have their place for full length portraits
 
ryanyboy said:
Depends, if I want the background to loom large behind the subject then a longer lens is best (200mm @ 2.8/4 for me), but if I want the background to have less impact (appear further away) I'll use a wider lens. As long as care is used with the wider lens both have their place for full length portraits
Click to expand...
Technically, you are correct that the longer lens makes stuff in the BG larger. And while I agree both have their place, I look at it the opposite of the way you do. If I want *less* BG, and for it to appear more OOF, I use a longer lens. If I consider the BG more important, then I'll go wider as needed.
 
Sharky said:
It's not your lens. In practical terms you have a focal length from 17 - 300mm excluding 50 - 70mm, a whole 20mm. It's your 'uncomfortable' feeling that's the problem. Get past that and you'll be fine.

@CharlotteM he's talking about full length portraits here, at 200mm on a crop for an adult he'd need to stand 20m+ away, not always that practical.

.edit.
As to what actual length of lens, what ever fits with the client and final image required.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of what a full length portrait is. I like to shoot them at around 200mm. I've even shot ¾ length portraits at 400mm. The longer focal lengths are what fit with the 'final image required; for my work. I rarely shoot anything at all under 100mm to be honest, I just don't find it very pleasing to my eye.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
sk66 said:
Technically, you are correct that the longer lens makes stuff in the BG larger. And while I agree both have their place, I look at it the opposite of the way you do. If I want *less* BG, and for it to appear more OOF, I use a longer lens. If I consider the BG more important, then I'll go wider as needed.
Click to expand...


Technically that is not so. What is causing the effect is "Viewpoint" the focal length makes no difference at all either on perspective or relative sizes of foreground to background.
however the distortions of a fisheye or poorly corrected lens can have unfortunate effects.
Two lens used from the same position will produce the same image, apart from their magnification. one can match one with the other by simple enlargement.
 
Last edited:
Terrywoodenpic said:
Two lens used from the same position will produce the same image, apart from their magnification. one can match one with the other by simple enlargement.
Click to expand...
Yes, perspective is strictly a function of distance. But we are talking about full body portraits which would indicate keeping the framing of the subject relatively constant. And that would require a difference in working distance. Combine a change in working distance with greater magnification (FL) and it does change the size of the BG in relation to the subject. http://photographic-academy.com/creating-a-picture/85-creating-a-picture/133-more-on-lens-selection
 
sk66 said:
Yes, perspective is strictly a function of distance. But we are talking about full body portraits which would indicate keeping the framing of the subject relatively constant. And that would require a difference in working distance. Combine a change in working distance with greater magnification (FL) and it does change the size of the BG in relation to the subject. http://photographic-academy.com/creating-a-picture/85-creating-a-picture/133-more-on-lens-selection
Click to expand...

It is only the working distance ( viewpoint that does that.)

Except in hanger sized studios the "distance available" dictates the lens to use for full length portraits.

That is why I said in my first post "As long a lens as the studio will comfortably allow."

You do not want to use a megaphone to communicate with your sitter so extreme lens are an unlikely choice.
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
It is only the working distance ( viewpoint that does that.)
Click to expand...
Not entirely...
Take the example of a subject at 25ft with a BG another 25ft behind (50ft total) and lets say we then switch from a 100mm lens to a 200mm lens backing up to a 50ft subject distance. By doubling the distance and the FL we keep the same composition at the subject, and we have negated the increase in FL magnification *at the subject.* But we have only increased the distance to the BG by 50% so we have ~ 1.5x magnification for the BG relative to the subject. Larger distances/separations make the effect greater.
edit to add: The main difference this makes is in the apparent DOF (not calculated) and OOF characteristics of the BG.

You did specify "studio" and this really wouldn't be a factor there, but Ryan (whom I quoted) and the OP did not.
 
Last edited:
It has been an extremely long time since I shot any full length portraits, in fact I think it was on my slr, my favourite lens was my 135mm. Was in on a test shoot at work and we were using the nikkor 200mm f2 on a D800E and that gave excellent results - pity I can't afford one yet!
 
Terrywoodenpic said:
Technically that is not so. What is causing the effect is "Viewpoint" the focal length makes no difference at all either on perspective or relative sizes of foreground to background.
however the distortions of a fisheye or poorly corrected lens can have unfortunate effects.
Two lens used from the same position will produce the same image, apart from their magnification. one can match one with the other by simple enlargement.
Click to expand...

I call it compression and what I wrote in my first post is correct.
 
ryanyboy said:
I call it compression and what I wrote in my first post is correct.
Click to expand...
Yor first post said....
Depends, if I want the background to loom large behind the subject then a longer lens is best (200mm @ 2.8/4 for me), but if I want the background to have less impact (appear further away) I'll use a wider lens. As long as care is used with the wider lens both have their place for full length portraits
Click to expand...

Both these Posts are incorrect... as the effect is caused by distance to the subject (view point) and not the lens chosen.
This can even be demonstrated with a pin hole camera or by perspective construction on a drawing board. It is the basic geometry of perspective.



Of course if you choose a shorter focal length you need to come closer to frame the subject.

It was one of the first things taught at Photographic college in the 50's... so it is not even new.....
 
But distance to subject is implied by what I wrote. I couldn't get a full length portrait with a 200mm lens if I was standing 6ft from the subject. But I could with a 35mm lens. I assumed anyone reading my original post would figure that I'd have to be closer or further away depending on the focal length I'm using.
 
sk66 said:
Not entirely...
Take the example of a subject at 25ft with a BG another 25ft behind (50ft total) and lets say we then switch from a 100mm lens to a 200mm lens backing up to a 50ft subject distance. By doubling the distance and the FL we keep the same composition at the subject, and we have negated the increase in FL magnification *at the subject.* But we have only increased the distance to the BG by 50% so we have ~ 1.5x magnification for the BG relative to the subject. Larger distances/separations make the effect greater.
edit to add: The main difference this makes is in the apparent DOF (not calculated) and OOF characteristics of the BG.

You did specify "studio" and this really wouldn't be a factor there, but Ryan (whom I quoted) and the OP did not.
Click to expand...

In your example you have moved your view point from 25ft to 50ft this is what causes the effect. The focal length change of the lens only alters the magnification to compensate.

The depth of field is a more complex area and depends also on the magnification of the final image and the accepted circle of confusion. Few people could calculate the total effect on depth of field, with out recourse to tables.
 
I am NOT arguing that most of the relative change in size isn't due to the change in perspective, it is. And I am NOT saying that the perspective from a given distance will change with FL, it won't.

It's taken me a while to suss it all out, and the root of the problem is that we (I) keep saying "the DOF remains the same." I've come to realize this is (can be) a huge mistake. (We can ignore COC as a factor here because it's used as a constant even though it may not be in reality).
DOF does not remain the same when we increase distance and FL. When you have very little DOF you loose very little; and it remains "relatively close" to the same. But it is still less (due to the magnification ratio change). If you have a lot of DOF, you loose a lot more.
And DOF doesn't say anything about what is OOF. When you have a shallow DOF there is a quicker transition from maximum focus to maximum OOF. And even minor changes to the DOF can have a significant effect on the OOF characteristics... OOF being a lack of detail/contrast and of a larger relative size (again, due to the magnification ratio change).

I've heard, and even said, that these changes cause the BG to "appear" more OOF; it doesn't. The BG *is* more OOF.
 
Last edited:
I would still say that, in most cases, the most significant reason for using a longer FL is to make BG elements larger due to the perspective change, and to reduce the FOV beyond the subject (include less BG).

But the effect on the OOF portions of the image can be significant.
 
Last edited:
A lens only ever has one true plane of focus at a time. Depth of field is always a compromise.
After the first 50 years or so you come to know what it will be, and what you can accept. Life is far too short to mess with tables or calculations.
It was far easier for learners when camera lens' had DOF scales. (however inaccurate they had to be)

Most people use Longer lenses to magnify the image to better frame the subject at a distance. The perspective effects come with the territory.
Birds, sports, and wild life come most to mind.
Landscape photographers have other priorities. where relative sizes and perspective can become more important.

It is not a one size fits all solution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top