Is a 50mm lens suitable as a portrait lens?

[Digital]

I realize that this may have been touched on before, if I remember correctly.
The reason I am asking is that on CreativeLive recently several professional photographers, using FF cameras, have used the 50mm lens with apparently good results.
I have heard that the 50mm lens is not a good lens to use for portraits.
Am I wrong?
Any comments will be greatly appreciated.

Bruce

[Manfred M]

Full body shots, why not. Head shot, probably no...

[Downrigger]

I think the answer depends a little on the sensor size....

[Digital]

I think the answer depends a little on the sensor size....

Mark, I think all of the photographers were using FF cameras. On my D300 with a crop of 1.5x, I could probably get by with using a 50mm prime, even on head shots.

Bruce

[ajohnw]

To a limited extent it depends on if the subjects facial feature would benefit from optical perspective aspects but the main problem with using a 50mm for head shots is that many subjects might feel uncomfortable with the lens so close to their face.

John
-

[William W]

. . . I have heard that the 50mm lens is not a good lens to use for portraits. Am I wrong?

Not wrong that you have heard it; but it is wrong that a 50mm lens is not a good portrait lens.
There is no such thing as “A Portrait Lens”

The Portrait Photographer firstly takes into account the PERSPECTIVE that is required to fulfil the vision of the photograph. PERSPECTIVE is determined by CAMERA VIEWPOINT. Camera Viewpoint is a combination of the DISTANCE to the SUBEJCT and the ELEVATION relative to the SUBJECT.

Once the PERSPECTIVE is determined then the FOCAL LENGTH of the lens determines THE SHOT – be it: a Full Length Shot; an Half Shot; a Tight Bust Shot; a Very Broad Shot . . . etc.

As already alluded in Posts #2 and #5, the PERSPECTIVE that is chosen will have an effect on the rendition of the FACIAL FEATURES: however that does not disqualify a 50mm lens being used on 135 format camera to make Very Tight Head Shots.

Obviously all photography, as an art form, is open to Subjective Critique apropos Artistic Value, but suffice to say this Portrait (below) has been awarded two Honourable Mentions and it was made with Available Light using an EF 50 F/1.4 on an EOS 5D:


I use a 50mm Prime Lens quite often for Portraiture. But, I use a 35mm Prime Lens more often, than a 50mm Prime Lens for that purpose. (on 135 Format Cameras)

***

The equivalent of a 50mm Lens (an 80mm Lens) was the staple for most Wedding and Portrait Photographers using Medium Format Camera for many years – often being the ONLY lens which was used throughout the entire coverage and also for the Studio Portrait sessions. One skill that is necessary for that issue is to be able to carefully assess the camera's ELEVATION - DEPENDENT UPON ‘The Shot’ - to ensure the rendition of the Facial Features (and also Hips and Bust) would be absolutely acceptable to the Client - especially the Bride, who often were and still are the most critical of the single images which made of themselves.

As one example: a Photographer who knew the Craft well would use the Waist Level finder of a ‘blad or a TLR for the Full Length Shot but for the Half Shot the camera would usually be raised to about Chin Level.

For a Tight Head Shot, for example to display the Diadem, it was not unusual to see Photographers shooting with the camera sideways to the Bride and the Waist Level Finder at eye level, or some short photographers would need to shoot with the camera held inverted.

Many of the Portraits, across a the range of Broad Shots to Tight Shots, made in that era by Photographers who knew their Craft and using only that one 80mm lens are extreme example of fine workmanship; so obviously a 50mm lens can be used to make quality Portraits today, there is absolutely no reason why it cannot be so.

WW

[Glenn NK]

It doesn't matter what the focal length is, provided the camera isn't too close to the subject's face.

As the camera gets closer to the face, the larger the nearer features of the face (such as the nose) will appear. A fattened nose isn't flattering.

If the camera to subject distance isn't less than 2 metres/six feet, the apparent enlargement of the nose will be negligible. It also provides the subject with a bit of personal space.

With an 80 mm focal length on a FF body (35 mm), and framing for a head/shoulders shot, one can't get much closer than 2 metres without in-camera cropping of the subject, so the problem is avoided. At one time this was considered the most useful portrait focal length (head and shoulders). Obviously even longer focal lengths will work provided the camera can be far enough from the subject to get the subject in the frame without cropping.

With full length and group portraits, shorter focal lengths are required, but in these scenarios, it isn't possible to be within two metres of the subject(s) so the distortion problem is avoided.

Glenn

[dubaiphil]

I agree with Glenn - certain facial features can be exaggerated by too short a focal length. I'm often using 35mm on FF for street environmental portraits and find it the ideal FL for me.

So there's no rules on the correct FL to use, only guides and common sense as to what a certain FL will do to facial features. I've seen 14-24mm Nikkor portraits at 14mm on full frame which work - admittedly Barry Mannilow wasn't the subject

Getting closer with the right face isn't a problem at all either - here's an example:

[jcuknz]

The 50mm makes for an excellent portrait lens if you are using MFT and saves you getting the distortion that Bill demonstrates in his example ... I shudder slightly at the thought of all the film portraits I did with a 50mm becuase it was the only lens I had for most of my film days ... more when I think of using my Rollei as I did for portraits in blissful ignorance of pre-digital days with its 80mm on 2.25" film.

[Manfred M]

I think Phil's image is a great example of why we shouldn't be shooting portraits with wide angle lenses because of the distortion that it introduces (having to get quite close to the subject is the root cause of the distortion). I also quite agree with Bill, that both the 50mm lens (for 35mm camera) and the 80mm lens on medium format were the "go to" lenses in the film days and beautifully crafted portraits were created.

While crowding the subject to frame a shot is one issue, when shooting with a "short" lens has been brought up by some. The flip side is the photographer's personal preferences. I know a number of photographer's that shoot an 80mm lens on FF, whereas I prefer the 105mm. If I look at the portraits I do with the 70-200mm lens, I find that most of my shots tend to be taken at the longer end of that lens. In my case, I think this was originally driven by my own "personal space" needs, but then over time was because, outside of studio shots, I tend to be someone who shoots quite wide open in order to get the shallow DoF effects in my portrait work.

[ajohnw]

50mm was the 35mm film kit lens which goes a long way to explaining why it was used a lot. I thought exactly the same as Manfred when I saw the shot.

Much of the perspective aspects comes down to the "beauty of female faces". In the west some psychologists reckon this is related to the fact that babies tend to have flatter features and we must all of course be attracted to babies in order to survive as a species. Some famous fashion type models have what might be called striking features. I sometimes wonder if this gives photographers at the top end of that sort of business more scope for how they can appear in shots. I also wonder if the introduction of shorter portrait lenses is an eastern influence. I vaguely remember Nikon offering one around 70mm at one point. These day though from self takes with phones etc people are probably more accustomed to how they look taken with rather short lenses. Some however might not like it.

I used quotes as maybe I should have not used anything gender related but in this case I don't think there is much choice as the baby comparison is often more obvious in this case.

John
-

[Magwai]

I prefer 85 for portraits but 50 is also useful. 50 is better for group shots but then you don't really need the shallow DOF for that.

[jcuknz]

A "group shot" is not a portrait ... of course if you have a small studio then you need the 50 or wider to get everything in but it is very loose talk to call it portraiture.

[jcuknz]

While Phil's photo is a very nice photo of a very attractive lady it is still distorted as all hell

[William W]

The various comments:

> The Subjects’ personal space
> Defining a specific Shooting Distance to where there is acceptable Distortion
> Having no rules and using common sense
> The Photographer’s personal preference – which maybe driven by other outcome specific reasons
> The “beauty of the female face” – what is “beauty” where is its origin?

are all extremely interesting and indicate that this is a very complex matter which is vexed in considerations and preferences - RATHER THAN- predicated by rules and conformity.

I would be very interested to get a few opinions from Female Portrait Photographers, on all these points.

WW

[William W]

I thought that one of the main reasons for Phil posting his sample image was to show that any visual impact of "distortion" could be overcome by the visual impact of the whole.

And in any case, whether that was Phil's aim or not - I think that the image does that job, anyway: especially considering that it appears that the image was made with a 35mm Lens on a 135 Format Camera - which implies even more that my assumption is correct.

WW

[William W]

I prefer 85 for portraits but 50 is also useful. 50 is better for group shots but then you don't really need the shallow DOF for that.

There is an implication in that comment that DoF is dependent upon the FL of the lens: I'd suggest that you not be mislead that lenses have intrinsic DoF.

The 50mm lens is just as capable of making the same (shallow) DoF as the 85mm lens.

DoF is directly related to the FRAMING of the shot – the FL of the lens matters very little for most photography.

Throw your 50mm lens on the camera; choose an aperture and (for example) make a Tight Half Shot of a person; then use the 85mm lens for the same shot using the same aperture and you will have exactly the same DoF.

WW

[William W]

For clarity, I define Portraiture as “Photographs of People”.

Portraiture, includes, but is not limited to: individual people; pairs of people ( a ‘two shot’); groups of people (‘group portraiture’); candid photography depicting people and their actions in day to day life (‘street portraiture’); specific portrait assignments and/or commissions (e.g. models’ portfolios, actors’ headshots, formal family portraiture) . . . etc

Certainly also, ‘Portraiture’, is NOT limited to just the Tight Half Shot.

WW

[Magwai]

What I meant was that I don't use a fast 50 prime for portraits. For the dof I need a zoom is fine.

[dubaiphil]

My point is similar to that whenever a "which ultra wideangle lens should I buy" for landscape question comes up.

There's no rule as to what lens you should use, just how the focal length chosen affects the representation of the subject. However, if you were making a living shooting portraiture in a studio environment you'd probably be best served with a 70-200 towards the long end for head shots due to the minimum focus distance of a lot of 85's.

This was a pretty extreme example of 35mm on FF, shot very and almost uncomfortably close to the subject (mainly as the background was dirty and not particularly large and I wanted to avoid walls/lighting/ceiling encroaching) - but wider still at 24mm wouldn't be an issue if you want to include some background and as long as you keep the subject pretty centred.