malkav
Lifetime Member
Posts: 132
|
Post by malkav on May 30, 2007 3:01:40 GMT -5
Hey everybody,
I was wondering what is a good lens size to do portraits with?
I have a couple of 135mm f/2.8 lenses, a couple of teles (80-200mm f/4.5, and 75-150mm f/4)
and a couple of zooms (28-85mm f/3.5-4.5, and 42-75mm f/3.5-4.5).
TIA for any replies.
Edward
|
|
|
|
Post by Rachel on May 30, 2007 4:16:45 GMT -5
Hey Edward,
I've read that about 85mm is a good size for portraiture as it gives both a good perspective and working distance.
|
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on May 30, 2007 10:04:09 GMT -5
85mm to 105mm are generally considered to be the best focal lengths for portraits, although I have shot my share of portraits with a 135mm.
|
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on May 30, 2007 13:46:52 GMT -5
I think it's generally agreed that the 85, 90, 100 and 105mm lenses are the best choices for portraits with many favoring the 85 & 90 focal lengths. Leitz, before the war, even made the 90mm f/2.2 Thambar with a special filter to soften the image center. It was promoted as a portrait lens but also as a sharp lens when stopped down. Another "portrait" lens they made was the Hektor 73mm f/1.9. It would be considered today to be at the very lowest focal length that would be suitable for portraits and probably too short for the tastes of many. Both of these lenses are highly desireable collectables today and command premium prices.
For my rangefinders I rather like the 90mm f/4 Elmar and for M42 SLR cameras I have 85, 90, 100 and 105 lenses. All do very well. I also found that the 55mm Super-Takumar on the Pentax *ist-DS becomes effectively an 82.5mm and takes a great portrait.
Walker
|
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on May 30, 2007 16:41:44 GMT -5
Agree with everything said so far but.... If you have a 135 (and you mentioned that), and the subjects are nervous, a 135 works every time. Sit on the oter side of the room and snap away - and one will be a classic!
Regards - John
|
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on May 30, 2007 19:29:26 GMT -5
John: I'm like you. For no good reason I'm never had an 85mm other that one I have for my FSU RFs which I seldom use. I do have a 50mm 1.8 Nikkor now that on my D100 is kinda, sorta an 85mm. Have used a 105 a lot but in recent years anything over 50mm seems too long for most of my projects. Guess as I've grown older I have expanded my horizons  |
|
|
|
Post by byuphoto on May 30, 2007 20:46:05 GMT -5
I love the canon 85mm f1.8 in either FD or Ef mount
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on May 31, 2007 5:54:06 GMT -5
Assuming that I'm doing this right, this should be a picture I recently took of a friend's daughter.  It was taken with a Tokina AT-X 90mm 1:2.5 probably stuck on the front of a Canon A1. The point about the focal length around the 90/100 mark is that it allows you to be close enough to keep a rapport with your sitter, speaking at a comfortably conversational volume, but keeping enough control over the framing. A much longer lens, and you end up with nothing but head in the frame; move too far further away and you break the contact with the sitter. Oh, and on this occasion, I would have had to drill a hole through from the next room. Regards Tim. |
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on May 31, 2007 8:35:52 GMT -5
Well done Tim - you got your posting spot on. Lovely portrait too. I've used a Pentacon 135 for ad-hoc portraits outdoors. People don't like lenses in their face, and the additional distance puts them even more at ease. For that type of shot you don't need the contact with the sitters - in fact, you don't want it!
Regards - John
|
|
TimH.
Contributing Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by TimH. on May 31, 2007 9:30:27 GMT -5
Absolutely right. When I'm working the crowd at a wedding, I use 200mm or even the long end of a 100-300 zoom. I can take the candid stuff from across the street if need be.
I find, though, that in a studio set-up or such-like, I need to be not too close, not too far away.
The weird thing is, I then quite often crop the pictures so the head completely fills the frame. Hey ho.
Tim.
|
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on May 31, 2007 10:15:29 GMT -5
I use 75, 85, 90, and 105 (depending on which lens I have for which camera). I have a 'new' 75mm CV for my Bessa R that works well for me. I use 135mm occasionally but am not fond of it. A bit too much foreshortening of facial features for my taste. My Nikkor 105/2.5 is a sterling portrait lens.
Gene
|
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on May 31, 2007 11:09:43 GMT -5
Tim, that's a lovely portrait of your friend's daughter. Her expression is wonderful and doesn't show any self-consciousness about being photographed. That picture should become a family keepsake. The 90mm lens you used did fine.
Walker
|
|
|
|
Post by herron on May 31, 2007 11:14:50 GMT -5
I would add my 2¢ worth in favor of the 85 or 105 answer, for most things. However, I'm sure there are exceptions and examples that say it is not a hard-and-fast rule. In fact, I know there are....  I've posted this shot before. It was taken with my Mamiya 1000-DTL -- back in 1968! The lens was the 50mm that came with the camera (I couldn't afford any others back then)!  |
|
|
|
Post by Peter S. on May 31, 2007 16:35:35 GMT -5
Tim, You created a dense portrait of that young girl. Are You aware of this enthusiastic report of that lens here? forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=13056277When it comes to Minolta manual focus stuff, I would also recommend the MC Tele Rokkor 2.5/100 (or its later MD cousin). This is usually the cheapest of the Minolta short teles, but it is not worse than the rest of the bunch. Best regards Peter |
|
