50mm is NOT a portrait lens ??

LudwigVB

Senior Member
I daresay many of you have already seen this YouTube video 50mm Prime Lens is NOT a Portrait Lens - YouTube . Some people have commented saying they agree with the opinion of Gregory Cazillo. Personally, I think that he is correct for a full frame (FX) sensor, but not a crop (DX) sensor.

I think Mr Cazillo fails to understand that perspective distortion depends entirely on the camera-to-subject distance, which will naturally be greater with DX than with FX for the same field of view. 50mm FL on a DX sensor gives equivalent FOV to 75mm on an FX sensor, which makes it a good candidate for portrait use.

What do you think?
 

Moab Man

Senior Member
There are many that love the 50mm on the DX format. However, there are also some of us that are not that overly impressed with the lens. My personal experience is the focus is not 100% reliable to nail it like the 35mm.

The glass is good, but I don't trust the focus.
 
Last edited:

wud

Senior Member
I agree with Moab Man, even though I really like the 50mm - but I think it works fine as a portrait lens, and if it is, its really easy to adjust the distortion in ps/lr. Mostly I keep the distortion, as it looks better (to me).

Sendt fra min GT-P3110 med Tapatalk
 

gqtuazon

Gear Head
I daresay many of you have already seen this YouTube video 50mm Prime Lens is NOT a Portrait Lens - YouTube . Some people have commented saying they agree with the opinion of Gregory Cazillo. Personally, I think that he is correct for a full frame (FX) sensor, but not a crop (DX) sensor.

I think Mr Cazillo fails to understand that perspective distortion depends entirely on the camera-to-subject distance, which will naturally be greater with DX than with FX for the same field of view. 50mm FL on a DX sensor gives equivalent FOV to 75mm on an FX sensor, which makes it a good candidate for portrait use.

What do you think?

I understand the different field of view part when a 50mm lens is mounted on a FX or DX camera including the distortion part for those who have been shooting head shots for a while but, does it really matter to those who are just starting with photography? I understand that he covered this already in his video and that there is nothing that prevents people from using at as a portrait lens. Use any lens to whatever purpose. If you only have a kit lens, then that's all you can use.

The way I understood his comments, I take it as a "recommendation" or a "suggestion" coming from a person who does a lot of portraits and compared to longer lenses. That is all.
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
As soon as he says something like, "The 50mm cannot produce pleasing images as all focal lengths", I realize he's just jammering to hear himself speak. I believe he means "at all distances to your subject", because a 50mm lens has only one focal length, but come on, get it right.

Someone posted a link to a blog a while back from a model called something like "10 Things Photographers Need To Know About Shooting Models" and one of them was about shooting heads hots with anything less than an 85mm as it tends to add weight/width to a face they've been keeping nice and thin. I agree, at least from the perspective of professional portraiture. That said, it doesn't mean you can't use a 50mm for portraits, only that you will likely get more consistently pleasing results (for both you and your subject) with something longer.

His rant is likely based having to hear "pro" shooters include their 50mm in their list of "portrait lenses", which gets under his skin. So rant on, brother. For the rest of us, file the information as "good to know", because in many ways he's right. Distortion is easily fixed in post, but not perspective, and that's the real difference here. 50's and 35's in particular will widen the face, because that's what they do - they provide additional left-to-right separation to objects in the field of view (and up to down when oriented vertically). So when your subject isn't looking quite right, back up and go longer. But if you, and they like the look with the 50, then who's not happy?!
 

carguy

Senior Member
While I disagree with the generalization, I read this interesting article just yesterday:

"One of the most common mistakes I see other photographers make is choosing the wrong lens when making a portrait. With the 50mm and 85mm both being billed as “portrait” lenses, a lot of photographers use them for portraits without regard to what they are actually shooting. The truth is it makes a difference what you use and how you use it. Choose the wrong lens and you can potentially be doing your client a disservice when a more flattering lens option is available."

More: The portrait lens: 50mm vs 85mm. | Orange County Wedding Photographer Los Angeles
 

WayneF

Senior Member
But we should know why. The full idea of portrait lens focal length is about the perspective due to the camera to subject distance. The common rule of thumb is that this portrait distance should be at least about seven feet, for proper perspective of the features of the face (like noses). Closer can distort the size of facial features. Ladies tend not to like that distortion.

On 35mm film and FX format, the 105 mm lens was always classically considered proper perspective for head and shoulders shots. This would be 70 mm for DX, to still stand at same distance. Obviously 3/4 or group shots can use a shorter wider lens, but should still stand back at least seven feet, for proper perspective of facial features.

Some may consider five feet sufficient, others prefer ten feet. But perspective (size of noses, etc) depends on where you stand, which is affected by which lens you choose. Always stand back a bit from the subject.
 
Last edited:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
On 35mm film and FX format, the 105 mm lens was always classically considered proper perspective for head and shoulders shots. This would be 70 mm for DX, to still stand at same distance. Obviously 3/4 or group shots can use a shorter wider lens, but should still stand back at least seven feet, for proper perspective of facial features.

Noooooooooo!!!! (here we go...)

If the 105mm is considered proper perspective on full frame and film it's because of how it renders the image and not how far you need to stand from your subject. A 70mm lens on a DX camera will allow you to stand in the same place, but it will look different than the 105mm on the FX. "Proper perspective" has to do with the relative position of facial components to each other and now how large the head is in the frame, and the 70mm lens on a DX will show a slightly different orientation of those components (eyes, nose, mouth, ears) than the 105mm on the FX. Period. There is no way, short of post-processing lens correction trickery, that will allow a DX and an FX camera to take the same photo from the same spot and look exactly the same.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!!

The only reason I rant about this here is that the point of the original video is one of facial feature orientation, distortion and perspective, and that has everything to do with the focal length of the lens and not with how close you are to the person. If a 105mm is considered proper perspective on an FX then put it on a DX and stand back farther - though doing that will also change the relative perspective of the facial features.

If 105mm is perfect on FX then I'm going out on a limb and saying an 85mm will likely get you there on a DX. You'll be a little further away to get the same head shot perspective, and that added distance will compensate for some of the perspective difference created by the lens. In both cases at least you're dealing with a lens that does not "stretch" the facial features.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Noooooooooo!!!! (here we go...)

If the 105mm is considered proper perspective on full frame and film it's because of how it renders the image and not how far you need to stand from your subject. A 70mm lens on a DX camera will allow you to stand in the same place, but it will look different than the 105mm on the FX. "Proper perspective" has to do with the relative position of facial components to each other and now how large the head is in the frame, and the 70mm lens on a DX will show a slightly different orientation of those components (eyes, nose, mouth, ears) than the 105mm on the FX. Period. There is no way, short of post-processing lens correction trickery, that will allow a DX and an FX camera to take the same photo from the same spot and look exactly the same.

<sigh> :)

No, your thinking is confusing you. Perspective is ONLY about where you stand. Standing at 7 feet sees the same perspective regardless of lens. The lens focal length affects magnification and the field of view, but not the view itself. Distance affects the view. This seems clearly obvious.

IF standing at the same place with same lens, DX is merely a crop. The perspective (at same place) is the same.

The only reason I rant about this here is that the point of the original video is one of facial feature orientation, distortion and perspective, and that has everything to do with the focal length of the lens and not with how close you are to the person.


Dead wrong, and backwards. Sorry.


 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Call me wrong on my definition of "perspective" but everything I say about the orientation of facial features differing is spot-on accurate and the crux of why using a 70mm on a DX is not the same thing.

And just so you know, you are the person who is dead wrong on what "perspective means".
 

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
<sigh> :)

When everyone else is wrong, it is time to reconsider your own notions. :)

https://www.google.com/search?q=perspective+portrait

To your credit, there is of course a relationship between lens and where you have to stand to use it.

Do study up. The lens frames the view (magnification and width), but where you stand determines perspective.

<sigh back atcha>

OK, in "studying up" (again - this ain't my first rodeo), it would seem that "Perspective", in photography, refers to the relationship of imaged objects in a photograph. If you don't buy that, stick "define perspective in photography" in your search engine of choice and look at the gaggle of definitions available, all of which have more to do with the relationship, orientation and/or distortion of/between the objects in the photograph than they do with the field of view (which is how you are limiting your definition of it).

While the the contents of your viewfinder determine a large portion of overall "perspective" (the part covered by focal length equivalency - field of view), it does not cover the relationship between those objects, which changes when you stand in the same place with different sensor formats and equivalent focal length lenses. This was demonstrated to some effect, or at least explained, by the video above. In other words, "perspective" changes when you use lenses of equivalent focal lengths on different sensors.

Perhaps it's time someone else reconsiders a notion or two. :p
 
Last edited:

WayneF

Senior Member
While the the contents of your viewfinder determine a large portion of overall "perspective" (the part covered by focal length equivalency - field of view), it does not cover the relationship between those objects, which changes when you stand in the same place with different sensor formats and equivalent focal length lenses.

Sorry, that is simply nonsense. You seem to be defending a wrong view without actually thinking about it.

Think about it. No matter what lens magnification you use, the angles in the scene (lines from eye to points in scene, which is perspective) do not change with the lens. The lens may magnify larger, but it captures the scene it sees, meaning it cannot change angles in the scene. The scene angles can only change when you move to stand at a different distance. Normally we do stand back farther with a telephoto, which must be your argument, but my argument is about perspective standing in the same place.

And DX is merely a crop, the same lens still does exactly the same thing (FX is just a wider uncropped view of the same scene from the same lens at same distance).

Photo perspective is only about where we stand. For proper perspective (noses and such), portraits should stand back at about six or eight feet. Use the lens that gives the view you want to see from that distance.
 
Last edited:

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
Arguing with you is the only thing that's "nonsense". And to accuse me of not "actually thinking about it" means you know even less about who your dealing with than what you claim to understand about perspective. But alas, you are from Texas, and I understand separating a dog from his bone, so allow me time to prepare a proper example with sufficient visual aids, to enlighten you and others who share your distorted perspective - something I've been meaning to do for some time now.

Meanwhile, I'd ask you keep your six to eight foot distance and ponder on this some more. You may actually change your mind before I have to do it for you.
 

WayneF

Senior Member
Arguing with you is the only thing that's "nonsense". And to accuse me of not "actually thinking about it" means you know even less about who your dealing with than what you claim to understand about perspective. But alas, you are from Texas, and I understand separating a dog from his bone, so allow me time to prepare a proper example with sufficient visual aids, to enlighten you and others who share your distorted perspective - something I've been meaning to do for some time now.

Meanwhile, I'd ask you keep your six to eight foot distance and ponder on this some more. You may actually change your mind before I have to do it for you.


That should prove interesting. :) Whatever it is, you must be discussing something different than perspective.

I have suffered wrong notions and had to change my mind before, but this perspective topic is not one of them. Where we stand is the first thing learned about photographic perspective.

Much stuff on the web has been dumbed down now, so greater readership will affect ad income. But some still tell it how it is.

Perspective distortion (photography) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Note that perspective distortion is caused by distance, not by the lens per se – two shots of the same scene from the same distance will exhibit identical perspective distortion, regardless of lens used."

What is Photography Perspective? - Understanding How to Use Perspective in Photography

Therefore, photography perspective may change the way an object looks, depending on the object's size and distance the object is from the camera. This is because perspective is determined not by focal length, but by the relative distance between objects.

It is obvious truth, simply think about it.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
Why not experiment and post results on this subject. Maybe this afternoon I'll have some free time to do so. But I'm with Wayne on this one. The difference between field of view and perspective is the main thing that could be confusing for some.
 
I have never thought about it in this way before. Normally when we think about shooting say a full face shot with different focal lengths we think about framing it the same with each different lens and we do know that will really change the look of the face. Think wide angle and long noses. But I just have not thought about it with just changing the lens without moving the camera. What would be interesting is to shoot a full frame face with a 200mm lens and then replacing the lens with say an 18mm lens but don't move the subject or camera and shoot it. Then in post processing crop the 18 to the same framing as the 200 and see the results.
 
Top