Why is 85mm considered "the" portrait lens for digital?

I can understand why the 85mm is considered an ideal portrait lens for full-frame shooting, but I'm surprised it

still

seems to be considered the ideal portrait lens for digital, where it's effective focal length is over 120mm. In

the old days the 105 was considered a great portrait lens, and I still use it for that when I shoot film. But

the 50mm "becomes" a 75mm lens in the DX environment, and that's closer to a "real" 85mm than the 120+mm.

 

So...I'd think a 50, 55, or 60mm lens would be the ideal portrait lens on a DX body. The main drawback of my

manual, micro 55mm is its slowness, but optically it's a beautiful thing. I just used my new 50mm f1.4 Nikkor

for some professional portrait work and the pictures are very good. Every bit as sharp as the pix that another

photographer took with his D200 and an 85mnm 1.4. FWIW I'm using the D300.

 

Comments?

Mostly because the proper 65/70 is not easily available in a nikkor/Canon fast prime. It works better to go longer rather than

shorter.

 

If you had experience with 35mm film and a 85/100 and understand how nice it is to work that way and did not care to defocus

backgrounds, you might choose a lightweight zoom at about 70 mm.

Elliot, I tend to agree with you in that when I was shooting DX format cameras the 40mm - 60mm lengths suited me over my 85mm lens and now with FX I'm happy I have the 85mm length to replace the shorter lengths when using DX.

 

I have no definitive answers. My experience tells me that I prefer to be closer to my subject that 105mm or 135mm and yet these lengths carry a lot of favour with portrait photographers worldwide. I'm a rank amateur and have no studio to work with but those professionals who do work in studios (the several I have visited) always seem to distance themselves from their subjects a lot more than I prefer.

 

Another reason is more obvious perhaps, in that the 85mm f/1.4 lens in both it's AF and MF guises has been hugely popular as as super high quality, fine bokeh producing mainstay prime lens for photographers with Nikon backs for quite some time. Thus the lens itself determines the prefered working distance......just my 20 cents worth.......

The 85/1.4 is an outstanding lens, expensive and with a near cult following. It has a shallow depth of field and excellent bokeh. However, if you spend $1400 on a lens you have to justify it in some way. The usual excuse for the 85mm is "portraiture". For my taste 85mm is too long for portraits with a DX camera, and leaves facial features too flat.

It's not

I just received my D700, but it won't stop me from using the 85 1.4 on my D300...<div></div>

Hi Elliott,

 

I do not believe that there is an ideal portrait lens (focul length). The lens the photorapher uses and gives him / her

the results they intended to create is the best. I use Nikons' 50mm, 85mm and a 180mm on my D300 and love

each.

 

A lot has to do with the size of room if I am indoors. Can I keep backin up?

 

If I am outdoors, which ever lens I have with me.

 

Happy shooting, Doug

"It's not"

 

Of course it is...

 

135mm was considered a great "length" for portraits. There are biological and social reasons for that.

 

The Nikon 105mm f2.5 became "the" portrait lens because, despite having an awkward length, it was a "better" lens in just about every way: bokeh, sharpness, ease of handling, and pictures tend to be "judged" by photographers, even if we get the emotional content all wrong.

 

There's a kind of strange discussion going on about portrait lenses. I added some comments about the cultural and societal basis for the preference of certain focal lengths in portraiture.

 

http://www.photo.net/nikon-camera-forum/00QRUr

 

We read distance from perspective, and the "killer ape" in us forms primitive reactions "fight or flight", protect out child, preen for a possible mate, run off a potential rival, based on distance. This is then modified by whatever rules our particular culture has for "comfort zones".

 

And back to Elliot's original question, look at Ric's picture. The same picture could have been taken with a 105mm from 30% farther away, but the change in the ratio of the size of her nose to her eyes to the width of the face would have told us she's farther away: "less obtainable" as a prospective mate, "less defensible" as a current one or as a family or tribe member. Closer, and we would have sent other messages...

What works well for me is the new Voigtlander 58/1.4. It makes a portrait perfect 87mm.

three reasons

 

1. 50 is too short at 75, 105 is too long.

 

2. because its like 135 (its 128) which was an old favorite.

 

3. because its fast, and fast means huge aperture which means small DOF and thats what portrait shooters like. most shorter focal lengths (besides 50 of course) are slower, you dont see many 55, 60 or 70 mm lenses come in F/1.4, not that you see many of them anyways.

85mm times 1.5 = 127.5mm

 

That still falls into the classical portrait FL range: 85mm-135mm.

 

I been shooting portraits w/ a 50 1.8 on DX, although it's pretty good (shorter FL seems to be more versatile) or casual candid/environmental portraits, it's obviously a bit short for the more formal headshots.

The Nikkor 85 mm on DX perhaps flatens a bit facial features, as some people say, a bit but not too much if at all.

The 50 mm on DX is too short for tight head shots and exposes stronger facial features closer to the camera, notably

a big nose, but helps hide big ears.

 

Especially shooting poirtraits of "less fortunate" ladies you would want to take advantage of the optics compression

and hiding "less pleasing" features of a face, and exposing more of an overall beauty as much as possible, without

getting into portrait alterations in post processing.

 

Many fashion photographers use 200, 300mm, and even longer lenses for fashion and portraits and the results are

usually considered "stunning" and high quality. You could see many amateur portraits taken with lenses too short

and causing too much of ugly face distortion and exageration of big nose and chin.

In general short tele lenses have always been considered better portrait lenses because they slightly compress facial

features - noses, chins, etc - giving a more flattering result - esp for portraits of women where a softer result is usually

wanted.

 

That a 50 crops to a 75 on smaller digital sensors does not change it's focal length or perspective - it's still not a short tele,

and it still doesn't flatten features like short teles do. So even with the crop factor the 85 is still a better portrait lens.

I have a Canon 1D Mark III (1.3 multiplyer) and find the 85mm a bit short for head and shoulder shots - you become too close to the subject. The 85 becomes a 110, and is also great for distance full length shots in a photojournalistic approach - and the bokeh becomes even softer as well.

As far as I am concerned the concept of a proper portrait lens is purely a marketing concept. A long lens will produce less

distortion, but some people look better in the camera with a little distortion, others don't. I use a wide lens if I want the

architecture of the background to be an important part of the picture, and a long lens if I want the background to look soft or

less cluttered. I very often shoot the same portrait on a 35 and then switch to a 200 just for variety. I have often found

that people who look great close up with a wide look bad on a long and visa versa. I can think of dozens of reasons to

select a lens for a portrait that have nothing to do with a specific focal length. Sometimes its just because my back is up

against the wall.

Just to add to previous comments. The emotional impact of a lens is significant because the viewer's social relationship to

the subject is partly defined by distance... whatever distance that may be. I think that is the biggest impact a lens can

have on a subject. That said the intent of the artist is the primary reason for lens choice. To say there is a "correct" lens

choice is like saying there is a "correct" artist's intent. If that were true, we would all take the same boring picture and

there would be no point posting any of them for critique.

"That a 50 crops to a 75 on smaller digital sensors does not change it's focal length or perspective - it's still not a short tele, and it still doesn't flatten features like short teles do. So even with the crop factor the 85 is still a better portrait lens."

 

Disatance from the subject determines perspective. You'll stand farther away when using a smaller sensor. A 150mm lens is a normal lens for 4x5, but it makes an excellent portrait lens for MF.

...that I GREATLY appreciate the range of perspectives and contributions to this thread. I'm getting exactly the kind of insight I sought. Perhaps the single most interesting comment is the suggestion that I try different lenses to see what works best with a given subject. Makes great sense to me. But all the comments are useful and helpful.

Seems to me that the portrait lens was called such because the formula rendered portraits with minimal distortion.There's a distortion associated with focal length.Try to get a portrait with a 21mm and the point is made dramatically.Even if it is a top 21mm.Distortion of this sort diminish as the focal length increases.At around 50 mm you get "normal'' perspective for you average picture taking on the 35mm film frame.It remains true whether you use DX or whatever size that the manufacturer places at the same distance to the lens so you can use your 35mm intended glass collection.It does not turn a 50 into a 75 or whatever .It remains a cropped up 50mm perspective.You still have to shoot it like you would a 50.A portrait lens usually allows you to get intimately isolating.With the shallow depth of field and the facial proportions undistorted it will fill a frame with your mug beautifully.You can do portraiture with a 50mm but the facial proportions will have an elongated distortion however mild.Pardon me if wrong and if repeating what already has been stated.I did not have the time to read all posts.

Its not the focal length, its the perspective and that is set by how far away the camera is from the subject. I

could use my 24mm lens on my film SLR for a head and shoulders shot if I was willing to suffer the quality loss

of cropping to just the center 7X10 mm section of the neg. At 5 feet from the subject with both lenses, the 85 or

24, the distance from the tip of the nose to the ears would be the same in relation to the distance to the film.

With any crop factor DSLR you have to change the distance to subject to cover the same area. With the 4:3

OlyPanaLeica I'd have to move from 5 to 10 feet to cover the same head and shoulders shot with an 85mm. That

will flatten the perspective, and what if I don't have enough room to back up that far?

Since its only the DISTANCE to the subject that determines the perspective all the focal length does is define the angular coverage for a given film format or sensor size.<BR><BR> Thus if one "fixes" the distance at X feet for YOUR type of prospective YOU like; all the focal length does is define the angular coverage.<BR><BR> IF the subect has a small head with a crew cut hair style it requires less ANGLE than a person with a BIG head and a B52 hair style and a GIANT HAT..<BR><BR> All this is mentioned in photo books; even ones of the pre WW2 ones. Many folks are still quite confused and seem to thing focal length defines the prospective; folks such as artists understood its only the distance that matters many thousands of years ago.<BR><BR> Its interesting how there is no mention of hair; hats; or how big the persons face/head is on this thread; the fundamental "other" thing that matters to chose a lens once the distance is known.

One can shoot a image of a person 6 ft away using a cellphone with a 2mm focal length lens; a speed graphic with a 127mm lens; a Instamatic 104 with a 43mm lens; a Nikon F with a 50mm lens; a TLR with a 75mm lens; a Zorki with a 28mm lens; a dslr with a 105mm lens and the perspective is THE SAME; since the distances are the same.

Lets say since you are from Mars and you like the "perspective look" as 1.3 meters away. One friend has two heads; giant ears and a floppy punk hat and thus requires a 50mm lens for your dlsr to not loose anything; another friend has one head; short hair and maybe a 100mm lens makes the image fill up the sensor/film.

On earth one might ponder if ones "portraits" are of babies; kids; a couple together; football players with helmets on; Aunt Bea with a B52 hair style and a hat. Once one selects the distance for the perspective style you like; the choice of focal length just is selected to fill most of the the sensor or film.

Alright Kelly, your getting a little too close for comfort with all this two headed mars talk. :)