50mm f/1.4 on APS-C vs. 85mm f/1.4 for portraits

[Abitconfused]

Asside from ISO, DoF, or resolution issues, if I use a sharp 50mm f/1.4 lens on my D7200 (APS-C equivalent about 70mm) isn't it just as good as a 85mm f/1.4 on a full-frame D810 for portraits? Pros? Cons?

[xpatUSA]

Aside from ISO, DoF, or resolution issues, if I use a sharp 50mm f/1.4 lens on my D7200 (APS-C equivalent about 70mm) isn't it just as good as a 85mm f/1.4 on a full-frame D810 for portraits? Pros? Cons?

Excluding ISO, DoF and resolution doesn't leave much, Ed!

For equal framing, the shooting distances will be different because the lenses are not equivalent. That means somewhat different perspectives, "as good" being moot.

Apart from that, to be equivalent, the 50mm should be f/0.95 not f/1.4.

The sensor photocells are different size: 3.9 vs. 4.9 um - the D810 has much more area and gathers more light.

The above weighs in favor of the D810/85mm.

[Manfred M]

I don't understand your question. Both lenses will get you a good picture, albeit not the same one. If you are going to stop down to f/8 or f/11 (typically what I use in studio shooting), you don't need anything as fast as an f/1.4 lens.

Are you looking at shooting wide open (at f/1.4) in order to get a very shallow depth of field and interesting bokeh.

Because I print large format, I find that the full-frame image has a slight advantage when I print. If you don't print and stick to digital displays only, do you need the extra quality a full frame sensor gets you.

One other place that the 85mm buys you a bit of an advantage is that you can stand a bit further away from your subject. Connecting with your subject and staying outside of his or her "personal space" can be important; get inside that person's personal space will destroy the connection and reduce the quality of the images that you can get. There is generally more leeway when get farther away, although being too far can break the connection as well.

I don't shoot either a 50mm or 85mm as both get me too close; in general I will shoot no closer than 105 mm on a full-frame camera and often get into the 135mm focal length and beyond as I find that this range tends to work best for me.

[rpcrowe]

I use a combination of 50mm f/1.8 OSS and Sony 85mm f/1.8 lenses for portraits on my Sony APSC cameras. I will usually shoot wide open outdoors (where I want to blow out the background) and f/8 (or so) in studio work, where I have control over the background. Since I don't need a really wide aperture in the studio, I will often use the 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens for studio portraits, rather than either of the prime lenses...

I can do a decent job of getting backgrounds OOF with either the 50mm or the 85mm, at f/1.8, depending on how close I am to the subject. The 50mm gives me a 75mm equivalent and the 85mm gives me a 127.5mm equivalent. Since I don't like the absolutely hair thin DOF in which the eyebrows can be OOF with only the pupils of the eyes in focus, the f/1.8 wide open on my crop cameras works just fine for me.

A6500 with 85mm f/1.8 lens wide open


With 50mm f/1.8 lens wide open

[george013]

Perspective is a difference in magnification. The closer you are on your subject, the more perspective you get, meaning a difference in magnification between nose and ear. A matter of taste. The longer your focal length, the longer the distance, the less perspective. Often called flattening.
On a ff camera one calculaties with a different coc. The image has to be enlarged less to obtain a certain print.
My thoughts.

George

[Hanginon]

I use a combination of 50mm f/1.8 OSS and Sony 85mm f/1.8 lenses for portraits on my Sony APSC cameras. I will usually shoot wide open outdoors (where I want to blow out the background) and f/8 (or so) in studio work, where I have control over the background. Since I don't need a really wide aperture in the studio, I will often use the 70-200mm f/4 G OSS lens for studio portraits, rather than either of the prime lenses...

I can do a decent job of getting backgrounds OOF with either the 50mm or the 85mm, at f/1.8, depending on how close I am to the subject. The 50mm gives me a 75mm equivalent and the 85mm gives me a 127.5mm equivalent. Since I don't like the absolutely hair thin DOF in which the eyebrows can be OOF with only the pupils of the eyes in focus, the f/1.8 wide open on my crop cameras works just fine for me.

While both are good, in this instance I'll give the nod to the 85mm. However, I'm far more interested in the lighting, which is very good and in this instance IMHO is far more important than the choice of focal length - the catch lights in the eyes of both shots are very similar.

[rpcrowe]

"While both are good, in this instance I'll give the nod to the 85mm. However, I'm far more interested in the lighting, which is very good and in this instance IMHO is far more important than the choice of focal length - the catch lights in the eyes of both shots are very similar."

The shot with the 85mm was done outdoors in open shade using a Godox Hotshoe Flash on this bracket triggered with a Flashpoint/Godox R2 trigger. I usually mount the camera/lens on the bracket using an Arca Compatible L Bracket which allows me a choice of vertical or horizontal configuration...



I don't remember which diffuser I used with the flash... I remember that I was having some minor flash problems and did a bit of shifting around that day...

Here is another shot from that series with the 85mm f/1.8. While the first shot I posted shows friendliness, this one exudes power...



And this is from another day using the 85mm f/1.8... I love that lens...



The shot with the 50mm lens was done in available light with no flash in the front office of my vet. There is a large plate glass window at camera right providing soft and diffused light from a roofed portico outside the vet's office. I did this series for my vet who wanted portraits of her staff. The 50mm lens (75mm equivalent) was a bit better for an environmental portrait...

This shot had the window behind my camera - again no flash

[Hanginon]

Wow, Thank You! The last shot is almost a textbook example of how soft lighting directly on the front of a subject flattens everything.

Light, and the manipulation of light, is really important, and IMHO does not get the attention it deserves - especially by equipment hungry new photographers (i.e. a good flash is often their last acquisition). As photographers, it is assumed we are "collecting light", but I'm surprised CIC (A Learning Community For Photographers) does not have a 4th sub-forum in "Tips & Techniques" totally dedicated to anything related to it.

That's a cool flash bracket!!

[Manfred M]

Wow, Thank You! The last shot is almost a textbook example of how soft lighting directly on the front of a subject flattens everything.

Most portrait photographers who are not doing passport photos are taught to avoid techniques that "flattens everything" as that lighting is considered quite boring. If you look at the classic masters from the Renaissance, they painted with fairly dramatic lighting and that is something that continues to influence photographers even today.

Generally the only time I use flat lighting is when I do high key photography; i.e. shooting the subject against a very light background and avoiding shadows (much like passport photos and mug shots )

Light, and the manipulation of light, is really important, and IMHO does not get the attention it deserves - especially by equipment hungry new photographers.

Part of the reason for this, I suspect is that adding light adds another layer of complexity to image making. Not only does the photographer have to worry about the technical aspects of camera craft (proper use of camera controls and organizing the the element in the image well (composition, eliminating distracting elements and using the space in the frame well), but we add at least two more variables; the quality and direction of the light.

New photographers don't understand that lighting gear is equipment too. They don't see the value in it and unfortunately, other than a hot-shoe mounted flash, the equipment generally does not fit into a camera bag all that well. It doesn't cost a lot to get a basic lighting setup, but if one wants to move beyond that, one is looking at a lot of money with multiple studio lights, modifiers, triggers, etc.

As photographers, it is assumed we are "collecting light", but I'm surprised CIC (A Learning Community For Photographers) does not have a 4th sub-forum in "Tips & Techniques" totally dedicated to anything related to it.

Most photographers are intimidated by lighting. Most have tried a bit of on-camera flash and get mediocre looking pictures and this does not improve with practice, so most give up.

I get photographers with 40 years of shooting experience when I teach small flash and studio lighting courses at the local camera clubs around town. They tend to be amazed at how much better their images look when they do not shoot direct flash. Bouncing the light and getting the speedlight off the camera and using a light modifier takes a bit of practice, but the results are worth it.

I would not want to see another category in the the Tips and Techniques forum. Too many categories... What we have works reasonably well and covers off flash photography as it is just photographic equipment.

That's a cool flash bracket!!

I have a similar unit from Stroboframe. It does one thing well and that's to move the speedlight above the camera when shooting in portrait orientation. The downside is that it does nothing for the quality of light and the direction is still the same as the camera-mounted direct flash.

https://tiffen.com/pages/stroboframe

[DanK]

I'm of two minds about adding tutorials on lighting. On the one hand, as someone who knows next to nothing about off-camera strobe lighting, I find the topic a bit overwhelming and would welcome a clear source. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether the tutorials get the use they deserve. We often have people asking questions that are clearly answered in the tutorials. So, I do wonder whether a new section would get enough use to make it worth the considerable work it would take to prepare it.

A compromise might be to add an off-camera lighting section to the camera equipment section that simply gives links to other sources.

[Manfred M]

I'm of two minds about adding tutorials on lighting. On the one hand, as someone who knows next to nothing about off-camera strobe lighting, I find the topic a bit overwhelming and would welcome a clear source. On the other hand, I'm not sure whether the tutorials get the use they deserve. We often have people asking questions that are clearly answered in the tutorials. So, I do wonder whether a new section would get enough use to make it worth the considerable work it would take to prepare it.

A compromise might be to add an off-camera lighting section to the camera equipment section that simply gives links to other sources.

Dan - I have mixed feelings on the applicability of tutorials for learning that aspect of photography. Just as I have problems with trying to learn a language or a sport using online resources.

It's a challenge to learn these skills without feedback and when using off-camera flash the difference between a great setup and a mediocre one is often the difference measured in a few inches or a few degrees of rotation. It's very challenging to show that in words and images. Even videos, which are a bit better, don't always hit the mark.

The problem with flash photography is that we have two types of light; direct light and indirect light. In some cases there is a third component; ambient light. The workspace where the shooting takes place is just as much a factor as the equipment that is being used. Add to that the power level and how the light modifier is set up; that makes if very challenging for a home user to replicate what an instructor working in a studio is doing.

[Hanginon]

I'd like to be clear that when I suggested a dedicated sub-forum for Light, I'm specifically talking about lighting equipment, and perhaps discussion's as pertains to a specific picture, not general tutorials on lighting skills - I agree with Manfred that the subject is way too broad.

However, having "flash diffuser for macro" lumped together with "how to protect photographic gear from fungus" is (as Spock would say) illogical.

[Manfred M]

I'd like to be clear that when I suggested a dedicated sub-forum for Light, I'm specifically talking about lighting equipment, and perhaps discussion's as pertains to a specific picture, not general tutorials on lighting skills - I agree with Manfred that the subject is way too broad.

However, having "flash diffuser for macro" lumped together with "how to protect photographic gear from fungus" is (as Spock would say) illogical.

To be quite frank, there aren't enough photographers here at CiC that shoot flash or continuous light a lot to warrant a separate forum.

I've seen too many websites that have gone overboard on forums and sub-forums and there are just too few postings there to warrant having those separate forums. The present configuration seems to work quite well and I see no compelling reason to divide things up. We don't have a forum for film photographers, B&W photographers and people that make prints either. Likewise we don't have separate forums for bird photographers, macro photographers, street photographer and wildlife photographers either.

Things seem to work reasonably well the way the forums are configured right now. The moderators have discussed this from time to time, but frankly we have not seen a particularly compelling case being made to change the current categories.

[xpatUSA]

To be quite frank, there aren't enough photographers here at CiC that shoot flash or continuous light a lot to warrant a separate forum.

I've seen too many websites that have gone overboard on forums and sub-forums and there are just too few postings there to warrant having those separate forums. The present configuration seems to work quite well and I see no compelling reason to divide things up. We don't have a forum for film photographers, B&W photographers and people that make prints either. Likewise we don't have separate forums for bird photographers, macro photographers, street photographer and wildlife photographers either.

Things seem to work reasonably well the way the forums are configured right now. The moderators have discussed this from time to time, but frankly we have not seen a particularly compelling case being made to change the current categories.

On the other hand, "Lighting" seems quite fundamental to photography, so it could seem quite odd to some that there is no such category. Perhaps too technical for "most of us"?

[Manfred M]

On the other hand, "Lighting" seems quite fundamental to photography, so it could seem quite odd to some that there is no such category. Perhaps too technical for "most of us"?

I would suggest "to inherent" to us. No light = no photograph.

In my experience most photographers work around the light and are passive in the way they handle it. Want good light? Shoot at "Golden Hour". Want an interesting shadow falling on your subject, move the subject into the area where the shadow is.

When it comes to lighting many photographers seem to be intimidated that they are "in charge"; regardless of whether they are shooting with flash or continuous light. I've seen photographers not use a reflector in outdoor situations where one was available and then spend a considerable amount of time in PP getting the exact same effect they could have had in seconds with a reflector.

Get them into a situation where the flash is not mounted on the hot shoe and taken off TTL mode and people tend to be intimidated. Unfortunately, learning flash photography is a lot like learning photography; it take time and effort....

[xpatUSA]

I would suggest "to inherent" to us. No light = no photograph.

In my experience most photographers work around the light and are passive in the way they handle it. <>

When it comes to lighting many photographers seem to be intimidated that they are "in charge"; regardless of whether they are shooting with flash or continuous light. I've seen photographers not use a reflector in outdoor situations where one was available and then spend a considerable amount of time in PP getting the exact same effect they could have had in seconds with a reflector.

Get them into a situation where the flash is not mounted on the hot shoe and taken off TTL mode and people tend to be intimidated. Unfortunately, learning flash photography is a lot like learning photography; it take time and effort....

Sad to read how dimly-lit "most photographers" are. Hopefully not applicable to most of us here.

[Hanginon]

Most portrait photographers who are not doing passport photos are taught to avoid techniques that "flattens everything" as that lighting is considered quite boring. If you look at the classic masters from the Renaissance, they painted with fairly dramatic lighting and that is something that continues to influence photographers even today.

Generally the only time I use flat lighting is when I do high key photography; i.e. shooting the subject against a very light background and avoiding shadows (much like passport photos and mug shots )

Perhaps, but lighting like this when used with a seamless background and hair/back lighting (or high key as per you) was a staple of modeling agencies for years.

Regardless, 7 people in this thread. Discounting the OP (who's interest was focal length) and myself (thread hijacker who obviously has a vested interest) that leaves five. So, while lighting is obviously important, not enough interest for a separate sub-forum.

[Manfred M]

Perhaps, but lighting like this when used with a seamless background and hair/back lighting (or high key as per you) was a staple of modeling agencies for years.

Regardless, 7 people in this thread. Discounting the OP (who's interest was focal length) and myself (thread hijacker who obviously has a vested interest) that leaves five. So, while lighting is obviously important, not enough interest for a separate sub-forum.

Agreed; I have been known to shoot this way from time to time...




There are a number of aspects of photography that crop up from time to time that are interesting but have a very limited appeal to the membership. The photo club I belong to has a studio, but out of 200 members, there are only 30 of use that use the studio regularly. Printing, film photography, etc. are all areas that have limited interest from the general membership here as well. There are a handful of us that shoot with flash on a regular basis here (studio flash and small flash), about the same number of us that print regularly, etc. The current categories we have seem to suit the vast majority of members here.