Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Horoscope Fish" data-source="post: 463313" data-attributes="member: 13090">I would point out that neither focal length is technically appropriate for head and shoulder portraiture; there are reasons many pro's use 70-200mm zooms for this type of shooting. One reason is working distance and another is compression; you want both for portrait work. Another is distortion. At head and shoulder shooting range both the 35 and 50mm will distort facial features in unflattering ways. Now if you're talking about more, say, environmental portraits (wider, full body shots taken with contextual backgrounds for instance) then a 50mm would be okay. It sill wouldn't be my first choice, but I could work with it. For portraits my go-to lenses are my 70-200mm f/2.8 and my 85mm f/1.8G.Good video:<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG1pN5Vic8E'" target="_blank">The 50mm Prime is NOT a Portrait Lens</a>....</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Horoscope Fish, post: 463313, member: 13090"] I would point out that neither focal length is technically appropriate for head and shoulder portraiture; there are reasons many pro's use 70-200mm zooms for this type of shooting. One reason is working distance and another is compression; you want both for portrait work. Another is distortion. At head and shoulder shooting range both the 35 and 50mm will distort facial features in unflattering ways. Now if you're talking about more, say, environmental portraits (wider, full body shots taken with contextual backgrounds for instance) then a 50mm would be okay. It sill wouldn't be my first choice, but I could work with it. For portraits my go-to lenses are my 70-200mm f/2.8 and my 85mm f/1.8G. Good video:[url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nG1pN5Vic8E'"]The 50mm Prime is NOT a Portrait Lens[/url] [COLOR="#FFFFFF"]....[/COLOR] [/QUOTE]

Verification