Is a 50mm lens suitable as a portrait lens?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Thanks for clarifying.
Understood.

WW

I thought afterwards as I reviewed what I wrote about Phil's photo was the distortion can and in this case is a good example of emphaising the eyes and this is intended to be the interesting feature of the woman's face.

By the by one of the interesting things I noted with regard to Bunny Yeager's passing was a photo of her selfie using a Rollie.
Of course it might just have been a 'prop' for the teaching message ... not read her book so wouldn't know :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

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:
http://gallery.photo.net/photo/14372702-md.jpg

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

---

All due respect and honorable mention(s) this shot looks extremely distorted to me.

This without seeing the subject personally.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loose Canon

. . . this shot looks extremely distorted to me.

---

Then would ‘see’ this as being more-so ‘distorted’, which it is:
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...2352873-md.jpg
‘Those Glasses’


But that is NOT the point of the response to the Original Question.

That is why THAT image and also these two are placed as examples.

The reason for using a particular FL lens is to realize the vision and intent of the Photographer.


Another portrait with ‘distortion’ here:
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...2352872-md.jpg
Peter Sesselmann, Artist

WW

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by William W

Then would ‘see’ this as being more-so ‘distorted’, which it is:
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...2352873-md.jpg
‘Those Glasses’


But that is NOT the point of the response to the Original Question.

That is why THAT image and also these two are placed as examples.

The reason for using a particular FL lens is to realize the vision and intent of the Photographer.


Another portrait with ‘distortion’ here:
http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...2352872-md.jpg
Peter Sesselmann, Artist

WW

---

Hey Bill! No worries! I totally agree with you!

Your point is to show distortion? You certainly have.

If that's what one wants then 50mm or 35mm on a full frame fills the ticket! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loose Canon

. . . Your point is to show distortion?

---

No.

My point was to explain that:
1. The Photographer firstly has a vision of the portrait that he wants to make.
2. He then chooses the CAMERA VIEWPOINT to make the PERSPECTIVE that he requires.
3. He then choses the Focal Length to make The Shot that he requires.

*

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loose Canon

If that's what one wants then 50mm or 35mm on a full frame fills the ticket! :)

---

No. The inference is not good.

It is the CAMERA VIEWPOINT which creates the 'distortion' you are discussing and NOT the Focal Length of the Lens.
The PERPECTIVE (and thus the ‘distortion’ you are discussing) will be the same for any Focal Length of lens used at any same given distance: so this ‘distortion’ is absolutely dependent upon the where the CAMERA is with respect to the SUBJECT – and not the Focal Length of the lens.

Sure, if you firstly choose that you want a tight head shot and THEN you choose to use a 35mm lens you will get the 'distortion' that you are discussing - but my point is, that's going completely the wrong way to go about preparing for the Portrait.

WW

Hokay buddy!

All I said in the beginning was that I thought your original portrait had a lot of distortion to me.

You are right.

Huh?

For clarity - your comments don't upset me - if that's what you think.

I was continuing the conversation by responding to your questions and clarifying my meanings and my reasons which seemed to me unclear to you.

WW