Advice needed on a new lens for portrait work

[Nero]

Talk about distortion as much as you like, you really seem to know what you're talking about. But camera shyness? I'm pretty sure a almost-pancake lens at 5ft is *less* impressive than a bazooka, even a stadium away.

If you'd had much experience taking portraits you'd know that lots of people get uncomfortable when they're in front of a camera no matter what kind of lens you're using. Hence why any good tutorial on portraiture will include a section on making your subject feel comfortable.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk 4

 

[Nero]

*Ignore this. Accidentally quoted my own post instead of clicking edit.*

 

[Horoscope Fish]

This is unlikely.
Can you define distortion?
Field of view affects working distance.
Then an FX with an 85mm would also need to be roughly 3-5 feet from the subject. Forget either as my discussion above was using the working distance of the FX 85mm combination.
Why?
Assuming there would be distortion, we are not at 3-5 feet. We are at 7-8 feet.
DX has already cropped the image.
Covered above.
It is simply a fact that as the camera moves closer to the subject the variation in magnification between objects at varying distances grows greater. This is why noses get bigger.
I don't disagree. I would use long as opposed to short, but my preference does not change how stuff works.
These do not support the stated ideas.
==============================================================================================
In general, I agree with the idea that longer is better, because in many cases a longer lens is more flattering to the human face. One of the things that led me to the above conclusions is that we used 105mm on the long roll camera back in the day because it was a good choice to cover individuals and small groups, just as an 85mm would be a good choice for FX and a 50mm would be fine for DX.

Though I have worked this out on paper so to speak, I plan to do some test shooting, and I will be the first to report if I find different.

One more thing. I really hate long post, including this one I'm posting, but felt this was worth conversing about.

I'm not a fan of overly long posts either so I'm just going to say, again, how I've heard from numerous professionals I work with, and have worked with for almost 15 years now, the 50mm is not a proper H&S portrait lens. I've posted supporting links from working professionals, including a link showing Scott Kelby saying, "When you shoot people with a 50mm lens up close, they generally look a bit distorted and that’s the last thing you want in a portrait" and your replies are things are things like asking if I can define distortion (as if online dictionaries are some kind of foreign concept) and statements saying the provided external links to sites of working professionals saying the 50mm lens is not a H&S portrait lens, "... do not support the stated ideas" (the "ideas" being my premise that the 50mm is not a proper H&S portrait lens). Then you wrap up by saying, "a longer lens is more flattering to the human face" which of course it is... Because there's no distortion.

So, yeah; at this point I'm confused by your responses and, bearing all this in mind, I've come to the conclusion that we are simply going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think the 50mm is a proper H&S portrait lens and you do. I'll adhere to the oft repeated adage, "Use what works for you" and if a 50mm lens is working for you for H&S portraits, by all means stick with it.

Regards and good shooting!

....

 

[sam49]

I originally asked for advice on a new lens for portrate photograph. It seems to popular opinion is the 85mm is the better lens for this type of photography. But this is just and idea I had and the 85mm is a bit pricy if I don't like this kind of photograph. Well I have managed to get a 50mm f1.8 lens to try and take some photos it

It looks like it might work if I try and photo more of of the subject and not just a portrate. I would use my 18 to 105 f3.5 but with a maximum apature of 3.5 is that fast enough the get a narrow depth of field.

Any more advice would be nice..

 

[Eyelight]

I originally asked for advice on a new lens for portrate photograph. It seems to popular opinion is the 85mm is the better lens for this type of photography. But this is just and idea I had and the 85mm is a bit pricy if I don't like this kind of photograph. Well I have managed to get a 50mm f1.8 lens to try and take some photos it

It looks like it might work if I try and photo more of of the subject and not just a portrate. I would use my 18 to 105 f3.5 but with a maximum apature of 3.5 is that fast enough the get a narrow depth of field.

Any more advice would be nice..

Using your zoom at 85mm for instance @ f/3.6 (my calc does not have 3.5 as a choice) would produce a DOF of 4.46 inches, so yes, you can get narrow at f3.5 aperture.

There are some good websites with DOF tables and Calculators. DOF Master is one that comes to mind.

 

[TedG954]

Hi ShootRaw thanks for the advice. but im not sure if I will take to this style of photograph and it a little more than I wanted to spend on a trial run

Try out a 35/1.8G and I think you'll be happy you bought it. You'll have to be a bit closer to the subject (for portraits) but the lens will be very good for other uses as well. At less than $150, it is a very highly regarded DX lens.

 

[Eyelight]

I'm not a fan of overly long posts either so I'm just going to say, again, how I've heard from numerous professionals I work with, and have worked with for almost 15 years now, the 50mm is not a proper H&S portrait lens. I've posted supporting links from working professionals, including a link showing Scott Kelby saying, "When you shoot people with a 50mm lens up close, they generally look a bit distorted and that’s the last thing you want in a portrait" and your replies are things are things like asking if I can define distortion (as if online dictionaries are some kind of foreign concept) and statements saying the provided external links to sites of working professionals saying the 50mm lens is not a H&S portrait lens, "... do not support the stated ideas" (the "ideas" being my premise that the 50mm is not a proper H&S portrait lens). Then you wrap up by saying, "a longer lens is more flattering to the human face" which of course it is... Because there's no distortion.

So, yeah; at this point I'm confused by your responses and, bearing all this in mind, I've come to the conclusion that we are simply going to have to agree to disagree. I don't think the 50mm is a proper H&S portrait lens and you do. I'll adhere to the oft repeated adage, "Use what works for you" and if a 50mm lens is working for you for H&S portraits, by all means stick with it.

Regards and good shooting!

....

My apologies, as I realized I missed something which led to a misstatement on my part.

The further consideration reading does indeed support what you are saying in regards to a full frame 35mm camera. What I should have said was that it does not disprove what I had stated. The boudoir article touches on DX and specially states the info presented relates to full-frame. I don't think the other two even mention DX, and since pros tend to work and think full frame, there is no reason to apply their ideas to a smaller format. Same as if you were reading an article on 8x10 camera work may not apply to FX.

It is a fact that a larger format camera requires a longer lens to work at the same distance as a smaller format. The inverse fact is, it requires a shorter lens on a smaller format to work at the same distance as a larger format. This should be a clue that 50mm will work fine on DX.

 

[dickelfan]

I've got the 35mm and 50mm 1.8 lenses. I rented the 85 mm lens this past week and really enjoyed it. I've got a post over on the PRIME section about it where people chimed in as well about this versus the 50. I've got a feeling I'll be purchasing the 85mm pretty soon, I was really pleased with some of the shots I got.