Portrait lense

[mark4583]

I have been looking at the Nikon 35mm 1.8G and 50mm 1.4 with the D300 as a shorter lens for Portriats down from the Nikon 85mm 1.4 that I currently use .
Any thoughts on these or others that you might recomend, I want it mainly for Portraits.
Thanks

[Polar01]

What do you mean by portraits, there are different types, tight headshots, head and shoulder, half body, 3/4 body, and where do you plan to shot these portraits. In a large studio type setting, or in a tight confined studio setting, as they will affect the shooting area and selection of lens to fix the area.

Cheers: Allan

[Manfred M]

The 50 mm is going to give you roughly the same focal length as the 85mm would on a full-frame camera (75mm FF equiv, so a touch shorter) and that is not a bad starting point. The 35mm lens might work for you in group shots, but is definitely too short for regular portrait work, as you are going to see some distortion creeping into your work.

Is there any particular reason you are sticking with prime lenses? A zoom would offer you a lot more flexibility.

[rpcrowe]

Many folks want primes because the largest aperture generally available on a zoom lens is f/2.8 with many zooms having f/4 or smaller apertures. In their opinion the larger apertures (smaller f/numbers) will provide shorter DOF...

I personally don't like head and shoulder portraits that have razor thin DOF resulting in one eye in focus with the tip of the nose and other eye OOF...

That is why my favorite lens for portraits of people and dogs is the Canon 70-200mm f/4L IS. The f/4 aperture at a long focal length will provide the DOF that I like in a portrait and, as remarked by Manfred above, a zoom will provide a lot more flexibility...

My general exposure (with lighting under controlled conditions) is 1/60 second @ f/4 using ISO 160...

[IzzieK]

Do you have all three lenses? If so, why not use them one by one a week or so before your assignment and see what you prefer to use on the actual shot/shoots?

[chauncey]

Manfred's distortion comment is spot on and is reason that 85mm or more would be my choice.
But, I would venture to say that any successful wedding photographer has a 70-200mm in his arsenal.

[JR1]

"Lens"

In fact there is no such thing as a "portrait" lens, any more than a wildlife lens or sports lens, the 85mm has just become associated with portraits because it allowed a head/shoulders shot from a decent distance.

ANY lens can be used for portraits from Fisheye to telephoto.

http://digital-photography-school.co...portrait-lens/




Nikkor 70-200 f2.8

[D L]

"Lens"

ANY lens can be used for portraits from Fisheye to telephoto.

Just to chip in and reinforce that statement a little...
I was quite surprised watching this Scott Kelby youtube video (fast forward to 1:02:30) that Brian Smith's "go to" portrait lens is a 24-70mm f2.8 (on full frame Sony body)

He says 90% of his portrait work can be done with that lens. He elaborates that he particularly like the 70mm focal length for the intimacy it provides between the subject and him.

Mark, perhaps you should check out his work, then if you like it, maybe that puts the 50mm (or a 17-50 2.8) on a crop sensor into play? Or maybe you have a favourite portrait photographer of your own, whose style you might like to emulate? Then work backwards to the focal lengths used in their shots?

I'm no expert, only commenting because I just saw that video, and Jeremy's comment reminded me of it.

[Mark von Kanel]

Hire them and play and pick the one you like, my fave is my 105 2.8 but i use both my 70-200 & 24-70 as well, they are a lot more adaptable and allow me mobility in my portrait shoots

[AB26]

Shot with a 35 f1.8 on a Nikon D200.
If your subject is going to allow you to get close.........................the 35 f1.8 is an option.

[JR1]

I have been looking at the Nikon 35mm 1.8G and 50mm 1.4 with the D300 as a shorter lens for Portriats down from the Nikon 85mm 1.4 that I currently use .
Any thoughts on these or others that you might recomend, I want it mainly for Portraits.
Thanks

It would help if you said where you are in your info

[mark4583]

I didnt word it the way I should have, Im looking to do some street types in low light hand held 3/4 and full, some head and shoulders.
thx

[William W]

I didnt word it the way I should have, Im looking to do some street types [Portraiture] in low light hand held 3/4 and full, some head and shoulders.
thx

Commenting only on Focal Length, not those specific lenses:

I think that that a 35mm lens would be more flexible for that purpose. In fact I would consider wider.

I use a fast 35mm lens on 135 Format ("FX"), and a fast 23mm lens on APS-C ("DX"), for that type of work.

One major consideration is that the longer the lens the greater the shooting distance to make a longer shot - which means a larger arc that you need to travel to get the angle that you want and as well as taking time – there is also the likelihood of more interference from other people that you do not want in the shot.

However with a wider lens, even if there is no interfering people, you can still maintain the shooting distance required for the PERSPCTIVE that you want, and crop in post.

The same logic applies if you are shooting in a in tight space and cannot move backwards to make the shot, as this example below shows - Example Fast 23mm Lens on APS-C Camera for Street Type Portraiture


"After the Concert", Subway - Vienna Austria

WW

Images © AJ Group Pty Ltd (AUS) 1996~2015

[Manfred M]

In street photography, anything goes. I've used a 14mm wide angle lens on a full-frame camera up to a 400mm lens on a crop frame. I personally prefer the longer lenses because I like the image quality a lot more than with a short lens.




Downtown Ottawa, Canada. Nikkor 14-24mm at 14mm focal length on D800






Mennonite boy in St Jacobs. Nikon D90 with 80-400mm lens using 400mm (600mm FF equivalent)




The downside of a zoom lens is the cost, size and weight. The upside is the flexibility you get.

[rpcrowe]

Shot with a 35 f1.8 on a Nikon D200.
If your subject is going to allow you to get close.........................the 35 f1.8 is an option.

Lovely shot Andre... Using a shorter focal length is quite feasible when shooting children because their facial features have not developed to the point in which a bit of distortion can seem unnatural.

Manfred mentions, "The downside of a zoom lens is the cost, size and weight. The upside is the flexibility you get." I agree! However a zoom can be less expensive, smaller in total size and lighter in weight than several prime lenses it would take to replace the focal range of the zoom...

Manfred posted two images showing the need for various focal length lenses. In the family shot, the wide angle shows the entire family as well as the environment in which the family has been photographed.

In the shot of the young Mennonite lad, the long focal length allowed Manfred to shoot from a distance and get the boy immersed in his own thoughts rather than reacting to the camera. Additionally, the long focal length (400mm) provides a short DOF (even at the long camera to subject distance) to blur the background enough to isolate the main subject which was the lad...

Today's top-line zoom lenses produce excellent image quality, especially since I can usually do the majority of cropping in the camera. I normally carry two zoom lenses on a pair of cameras when I am shooting. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is my go-to wide to slightly long lens while the 70-200mm f/4L IS is my telephoto used on a 1.6x camera. Obviously, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is also used on a crop camera since it is an EFs lens and cannot fit a full frame body.

Between those two lenses which I use about equally, I can shoot 90-95% of my travel and general photography image, including all my portraits...

[Manfred M]

Shot with a 35 f1.8 on a Nikon D200.
If your subject is going to allow you to get close.........................the 35 f1.8 is an option.

Andre - While I understand what Richard as written, I personally find that we do see some facial distortion on this image. Using this lens for a headshot would show more and a full body shot would show less. A group shot of two or more children would likely show even less, as the photographer would be standing even further back.

When it comes to portraiture, I find longer focal lengths usually give more pleasing results and focal lengths that are "near" that of a normal lens and shorter need to be handled with some level of care to get a good looking image. Funky looking headshots taken with an ultra-wide angle lenses or fisheye lenses can be quite effective, but I suspect many mainstream photographers would have problems selling images made with these lenses to clients.

[AB26]

Lovely shot Andre... Using a shorter focal length is quite feasible when shooting children because their facial features have not developed to the point in which a bit of distortion can seem unnatural.

Thank you Richard,

Distorted facial features is a debatable subject. Sometimes it is desirable and in some cases a definite NO.
It is up to the Photographer to decide when not to use a specific lens.

Today's top-line zoom lenses produce excellent image quality, especially since I can usually do the majority of cropping in the camera. I normally carry two zoom lenses on a pair of cameras when I am shooting. The 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is my go-to wide to slightly long lens while the 70-200mm f/4L IS is my telephoto used on a 1.6x camera. Obviously, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS lens is also used on a crop camera since it is an EFs lens and cannot fit a full frame body.

Between those two lenses which I use about equally, I can shoot 90-95% of my travel and general photography image, including all my portraits...

That, sure is a BIG 10.

[AB26]

Andre - While I understand what Richard as written, I personally find that we do see some facial distortion on this image.

But you won't know unless you have studied the facial features of the little one, in real life.

Agreed that longer lenses give more pleasing portrait results. Personally I prefer shooting portraits between 150-200mm FL.
It is still the choice of the Photographer and from experience we learn when and where to use what lens.

This was shot with a zoom lens at 48mm:



And this was shot at 170mm FL:



If the opportunity presents itself, I would like to believe it is possible to get the shot with the lens that is on the camera at that moment.

[Manfred M]

But you won't know unless you have studied the facial features of the little one, in real life. :confused

Not correct Andre - look at things like the forehead, nose, ears, etc. With shorter lenses parts of the head that are closer to the lens appear larger than parts that are set back further. I agree with Richard, that these can be more difficult to detect in young children because different parts of the face tend to be more delicate than with older ones or adults.

In your first shot, look at the size of your subject's hands as compared to the rest of the body; that is the giveaway in that shot that you used a shorter lens.

The last two shots that you show are all taken at longer focal lengths with your D200 crop sensor camera so distortion is minimized. 48mm = 72mm FF equiv and 170mm = 255 FF equiv.

[AB26]

Not correct Andre - look at things like the forehead, nose, ears, etc. With shorter lenses parts of the head that are closer to the lens appear larger than parts that are set back further.

How much distortion can you expect to get with a 50mm lens on a FF camera?
Why is a 50mm lens so popular on FF cameras?

How far is 35mm on a CF camera removed from 50mm on a FF camera?