What makes certain lenses good for certain types of photos?

[Jamal A]

For example I heard a 85/50mm 1.8f lens is good for portraits, what makes lenses suited to those situations? I can understand for example wide lenses or macro lenses, but others I don't yet understand why they are good for some (very specific things) and not for others.

 

[skd]

from what I understand an 35/50/85mm Primes are much sharper say compared to a zoom lens at the same focal distance, and is also better at portraits due to the lower f/stop, but primes can be restricted if space is a problem

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Hmmm - taking extremes.....

At 8mm the lens is only inches from the subjects face and isn't very flattering.
It's good for creating caricatures, but the subject needs to have a good sense of humor.

At 300mm you need to stand in the next county.... A slight exaggeration, but this next shot was a planned portrait and I had to ask her to go and stand the other side of a busy road just to get enough distance between us.

My favorite portrait lens is the 135mm f2 - it's close enough to interact with the subject and be part of what is going on (or direct them), but far enough away not to make them feel intimidated by the lens and results in relaxed informal looking portraits..

The 85mm is indeed a classic portrait lens, but the 135mm f2 gets bonus points for being lighter and cheaper; and the 100mm macro also does a cracking job of portraiture

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

from what I understand an 35/50/85mm Primes are much sharper say compared to a zoom lens at the same focal distance, and is also better at portraits due to the lower f/stop, but primes can be restricted if space is a problem

For portraiture sharpness is not needed - actually it creates a problem as the detail can be rather unflattering.
Primes are recommended for portraiture because the big apertures create ridiculously shallow depth of field that result in a lush cinematic feel to the image.

 

[Jamal A]

Thanks DuncanDisorderly, that was very helpful! There is so much I have to learn, all in good time though!

 

[Nod]

It all comes down to personal tastes. The range of 35mm to 100mm or so is often preferred for portraits since it offers a fairly natural field of view when compared to the human eye, although the shorter end can result in the unflattering look so well illustrated by Duncan's fisheye shot (although even they can work!). These shorter lenses also tend to be faster (have wider [smaller numbers] maximum apertures) so can offer shallower depth of field, an effect often used to get eyes pin sharp but render other areas slightly softer.

 

[skd]

For portraiture sharpness is not needed - actually it creates a problem as the detail can be rather unflattering.
Primes are recommended for portraiture because the big apertures create ridiculously shallow depth of field that result in a lush cinematic feel to the image.

I never said it was needed for portraiture, all I said was its sharper or have I got it wrong ?

 

[Phil V]

Whilst there are no 'rules'

Macro lenses - very close focussing, very flat field of view, designed to shoot small objects, also useful for copying and make a good portrait lens

Fisheye, really wide field of view, work best where you take advantage of the distortion

UWA not as extreme as a fisheye, good for interiors and landscapes

WA landscapes and environmental portraits

Std lens offers the same field of view as the human eye useful for general photography and cheap to make.

Short tele good for portraits as the slightly flattened perspective is flattering.

Long teles for shooting distant objects.

But there's nothing to stop you using tele's for landscape or fisheyes for portraits. Etc.

 

[jonbeeza]

I had to ask her to go and stand the other side of a busy road just to get enough distance between us.

Being a gentleman I would never have asked her to cross the road, ( and a busy road as well) and get some distance between us. I would have asked her to stay where she was, and I would have been the one to cross the road, and put some distance between us

Great use of the 300mm by the way

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Being a gentleman I would never have asked her to cross the road, ( and a busy road as well) and get some distance between us. I would have asked her to stay where she was, and I would have been the one to cross the road, and put some distance between us

Great use of the 300mm by the way

LOL - yeah, it doesn't sound good out of context does it

It was on the edge of a festival and I'd already done one shot where the background was quite distracting; the only uncluttered background was on the other side of the road and if we'd both crossed over then I would have been too close to take the shot.
Plus she lives locally to me and I know her quite well; so I could be a bit cheeky

 

[jonbeeza]

Plus she lives locally to me and I know her quite well; so I could be a bit cheeky

Reminds me of a person I knew some years ago, she used to be my test model whenever I bought a new camera. It's great when you get that certain person you can click with, it's makes things so much more enjoyable

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

Reminds me of a person I knew some years ago, she used to be my test model whenever I bought a new camera. It's great when you get that certain person you can click with, it's makes things so much more enjoyable

It's a good example of where a 300mm is totally inappropriate.
I was too far away to effectively communicate with her across the road.
However, the only other lens I was carrying was the 8-15 fisheye

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

I never said it was needed for portraiture, all I said was its sharper or have I got it wrong ?

I think we both have a valid point

Wide open at big apertures, most primes are slightly soft in the centre and very soft in the corners; often with a hefty does of vignetting. For portraiture this is actually good
There are a small number of primes which are razor sharp right across the full frame - like the 135mm f2 which is often criticised as being too sharp for portraiture. And there's another set of primes with significant batch variability - like the 50mm f1.4 which I have one of the rare copies that allows me to take a pin sharp image of a brick wall wide open at f1.4.

That last statement of mine sounds a bit tongue in cheek - it's not.
Used wide open the depth of field is so shallow that pretty much the only thing it is possible to photograph pin sharp from corner to corner is a brick wall viewed exactly square on.
For any normal subject it is a decision as to what you want in focus and don't worry about the rest of the image.

You can fix all this stuff by stopping down to a 'normal' aperture.
But then you might as well use a decent quality zoom as they give you all the flexibility of having a zoom with image quality that is so close to the best primes (at the same aperture), that it makes no practical difference.

 

[Nod]

Being a gentleman I would never have asked her to cross the road, ( and a busy road as well) and get some distance between us. I would have asked her to stay where she was, and I would have been the one to cross the road, and put some distance between us

Great use of the 300mm by the way

I may or my not be a gentleman (a true gentleman never lays claim to the "title"!) but if the light required the lady to be the other side of the road, I would have joined Duncan in requesting that she made the short step so she could be photographed to best advantage!

 

[jonbeeza]

I may or my not be a gentleman (a true gentleman never lays claim to the "title"!) but if the light required the lady to be the other side of the road, I would have joined Duncan in requesting that she made the short step so she could be photographed to best advantage!

Of course I am not a gentleman, in reality I am as rough as a bears backside.
You are of course correct, depending on what side of the road had better light.

I was pulling Duncan's leg with that post, just the mischievous side of me

 

[HoppyUK]

It all comes down to personal tastes. The range of 35mm to 100mm or so is often preferred for portraits since it offers a fairly natural field of view when compared to the human eye, although the shorter end can result in the unflattering look so well illustrated by Duncan's fisheye shot (although even they can work!). These shorter lenses also tend to be faster (have wider [smaller numbers] maximum apertures) so can offer shallower depth of field, an effect often used to get eyes pin sharp but render other areas slightly softer.

Not unless you've got zoom eyes.

Whilst there are no 'rules'

Macro lenses - very close focussing, very flat field of view, designed to shoot small objects, also useful for copying and make a good portrait lens

Fisheye, really wide field of view, work best where you take advantage of the distortion

UWA not as extreme as a fisheye, good for interiors and landscapes

WA landscapes and environmental portraits

Std lens offers the same field of view as the human eye useful for general photography and cheap to make.

Short tele good for portraits as the slightly flattened perspective is flattering.

Long teles for shooting distant objects.

But there's nothing to stop you using tele's for landscape or fisheyes for portraits. Etc.

Standard lens is roughly 40-45 degrees. I can see 180 degrees, with about 2 degrees of sharpest focus...

 

[RichardTaylor]

Re lens selection:
It all depends:
What is the lighting like?
How far away am I from the subject, or how much working room do I have?
What am I trying to achieve?

 

[DuncanDisorderly]

I was pulling Duncan's leg with that post, just the mischievous side of me

Ding Ding - oh yes..

Re lens selection:
It all depends:
What is the lighting like?
How far away am I from the subject, or how much working room do I have?
What am I trying to achieve?

+1
I think I was trying to say this (badly) earlier with my examples.
Whatever lens you have, you can still produce cracking images.
And the story you are trying to tell with the image is more important than the kit you are carrying.

 

[Phil V]

Not unless you've got zoom eyes.

Standard lens is roughly 40-45 degrees. I can see 180 degrees, with about 2 degrees of sharpest focus...

OK I could have worded it better :shake:

It's close to how we see, it looks fairly natural (I don't flippin know) - I'm sure you and Richard K have some better words

 

[woof woof]

Standard lens is roughly 40-45 degrees. I can see 180 degrees, with about 2 degrees of sharpest focus...

180? Not really... You have two eyes and the images are blended post capture to make the wide view... sort of like photo stitching

 

[HoppyUK]

OK I could have worded it better :shake:

It's close to how we see, it looks fairly natural (I don't flippin know) - I'm sure you and Richard K have some better words

I think that's quite a good way of putting it, about as good as it gets

In terms of field of view, how we see and how that translates to a camera view, is difficult. At the extremes, we have an awareness of around 180 degrees (women slightly more than men, apparently ) but the area of sharpest focus is tiny. For example, look directly at this WORD and see how many words you can actually read properly either side. I can't do more than a couple, say 2-4 degrees?

Then within that 180 total degrees view (using both eyes Alan ) there is a zone of high awareness and clarity that we examine just by moving our eyes, without moving our heads. That's reckoned to be about 60 degrees, which is the typical viewing angle if you take say an A4 print and hold it at a comfortable distance.

How does this relate to a standard lens, with an angle of view around 40 degrees side to side? Best I can do there is if you take a full-frame camera and 50mm lens, the viewfinder will show close to a life size (1x magnification) image, ie look through the camera with one eye, keep the other eye open, and both images with be about the same size. If you then take a picture, there's a good chance that the perspective will look natural, but perspective is a distance effect unrelated to lens focal length, so there's no guarantee LOL

That's where I end up with something similar to your description, that 'a standard lens tends to show natural looking perspective, similar to the naked eye'.

Sorry, but you did ask

 

[woof woof]

That's where I end up with something similar to your description, that 'a standard lens tends to show natural looking perspective, similar to the naked eye'.

I agree with the definition of a standard lens being a lens that gives you a natural view. Some class "standard" as the diagonal of the sensor and whilst that may well make sense what makes more sense to me personally is "standard" = "natural."