Portraits is the 17-50 on a DX too short?

p1tse

p1tse

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,391
Edit My Images
No
Portraits is the 17-50 on a DX too short?

Would it be better to have something like 28-75?
 
I suppose it depends on what you aim to achieve.

As a general lens then that zoom range of a 17-50/55 is great for all-round shooting but for traditional head and shoulders portraiture, then the majority will tell you that 85-135mm on full-frame (the equivalent on a crop camera is somewhere in the 50mm-85mm focal length) is about right. At 50mm, your lens will have the effective focal length of an 75mm lens so it theoretically fits the mould (or thereabouts).

The fact is that longer focal lengths throw backgrounds out more effectively, creating better separation between the subject and background. Figure in a fast aperture on something like a 85mm f/1.8 lens and you can really throw backgrounds out easily. Some people rave about lenses like the Nikon 200mm f/2, but in part that's down to the wonderful bokeh it produces.

One of the other benefits of a longer lens is the compression you get. Wide lenses distort features so aren't always perfect, but again, it's the effect you want to achieve that dictates the lens used.

I'm no portrait expert and I do like to take shots on all sorts of focal lengths :)
 
Last edited:
I've been debating this myself for a good couple of weeks now, I've decided on the 28-75, just need to find one now :D
 
50/55 isn't really long enough in my opinion for portrait work on a crop body, unless you only intend on half body/head and shoulder shots.
By the time you get close enough to take head shots you will become too close to your subject and make them uncomfortable as you are in their personal space, (unless you know them very well).
The 28-70 mentioned above gives a field of view (35mm/full frame) of 42 -105mm on a crop body, and is much better suited to portraiture.
hth.
 
Yeah, I felt that, tried my kit lens and even at 55mm I still felt I was right on top of everyone.
 
I have just got the 17-50 for this type of work, not used it yet (diy and mrs doing a crazy frog impression) but used the 35mm 1.8 for some of my other portrait stuff. Looking forward to seeing how it performs though.

Phil.
 
As you can see^ it's personal preference. I always preferred a longer FL for portraits, so for me it's the 85mm 1.8, on film it was the 135 FL.
 
What Phil V says.... my other fav lens is the 90mm, but I like frame filling shots without too much empty space. It's all about your own stamp, the lens will only help you get that ;)

Phil.
 
I may have this all wrong but back in the day when 35mm film was king 85mm ish was the way to go, all lenses distort but around 85 mm seemed to be the most flattering.
Now come the bit where the confusion arises DX crop factor 53mm will give the same pov as 85mm FF but the lens distortion will be that of a 53mm lens. So IMHO ideally one should still use 85mm ish on a DX and stand farther away.
Hopefully if I have this wrong someone will come along and explain.
 
paulminus273 said:
I may have this all wrong but back in the day when 35mm film was king 85mm ish was the way to go, all lenses distort but around 85 mm seemed to be the most flattering.
Now come the bit where the confusion arises DX crop factor 53mm will give the same pov as 85mm FF but the lens distortion will be that of a 53mm lens. So IMHO ideally one should still use 85mm ish on a DX and stand farther away.
Hopefully if I have this wrong someone will come along and explain.
Click to expand...

Not sure. Thought that because crop sensors were using a smaller image circle you won't suffer the nuances of entire lens such as barrel distortion and softening of the corners.

This subject still melts my tiny brain - I just tend to shoot and if it looks good then I go with it... :lol:
 
paulminus273 said:
I may have this all wrong but back in the day when 35mm film was king 85mm ish was the way to go, all lenses distort but around 85 mm seemed to be the most flattering.
Now come the bit where the confusion arises DX crop factor 53mm will give the same pov as 85mm FF but the lens distortion will be that of a 53mm lens. So IMHO ideally one should still use 85mm ish on a DX and stand farther away.
Hopefully if I have this wrong someone will come along and explain.
Click to expand...

Let's see if we can clear this up.

You mention distortion, but it's nothing to do with the lens and everything to do with the perspective, i.e. the subject distance.

Here's a thought experiment to illustrate it. If you want to shoot someone with an ultra-wide lens, you'll need to have the camera very close in order to frame the shot properly. But that makes the distance to the nose quite a lot less than the distance to the eyes, proportionately speaking, so the nose looks too big. (For example if the nose protrudes 10cm in front if the eyes and the camera is 50cm away, then the eyes will be 20% further away and so the nose will seem 20% too big.) I'm sure you've seen that effect, and this is what causes it.

If your lens is too long, you have the opposite effect. You have to be a long way away to frame the shot, so the facial features appear flattened because they are all at very similar distances from the camera. This effect isn't so noticeable though.

So it's the distance to the subject which matters. If you liked using 85mm on film, then on a crop-sensor DSLR you should use a lens around 55mm so you're still the same distance away.
 
StewartR said:
Let's see if we can clear this up.

You mention distortion, but it's nothing to do with the lens and everything to do with the perspective, i.e. the subject distance.

Here's a thought experiment to illustrate it. If you want to shoot someone with an ultra-wide lens, you'll need to have the camera very close in order to frame the shot properly. But that makes the distance to the nose quite a lot less than the distance to the eyes, proportionately speaking, so the nose looks too big. (For example if the nose protrudes 10cm in front if the eyes and the camera is 50cm away, then the eyes will be 20% further away and so the nose will seem 20% too big.) I'm sure you've seen that effect, and this is what causes it.

If your lens is too long, you have the opposite effect. You have to be a long way away to frame the shot, so the facial features appear flattened because they are all at very similar distances from the camera. This effect isn't so noticeable though.

So it's the distance to the subject which matters. If you liked using 85mm on film, then on a crop-sensor DSLR you should use a lens around 55mm so you're still the same distance away.
Click to expand...

That makes sense thanks, I do like the results from my 50mm prime but always wondered why
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top