80mm for portraits? acceptable?

im thinking of getting an 80mm f1.9 mamiya lens for a 645 system.

my concern is... is this lens going to work for casual portrait work?

i really want this lens over the 110 f/2.8 or the 150 f/2.8 because

of the one extra stop. but would an 80mm be acceptable for portrait

shots (shoulder up shots)?

I don't know the Mamiya, but their web site says they focus down to 0.7 m, which is not

quite as good as my Bronica's 75mm can get. So I will state with relative confidence that

the 80mm is not going to do the trick without extension tubes or heavy cropping and will

probably be too distorting at that kind of close range anyway. The 150 should be much

more useful for that.

Personally I would not shoot H&S portraits with a standard lens. I'd go for something which is 2-2.5 times standard focal length, e.g 150 -200 mm.

There's no firm answer to this sort of question. Try it and see what you think of the results. It might be worth remembering that a lot of portrait photographers used TLRs with fixed lenses before SLRs with interchangeable lenses became affordable. I worked in the darkroom for a large studio in London for a while during the 'sixties and it was common practice to print a head and shoulders from a half length taken with a Rollei.

If you must use the 80mm, then leave a little extra room all around the subject and tell the lab to print with a D crop. This will force you to back up a little and the perspective will be about that of a 100mm lens.

No, the lens is too short for shoulder up shots.

A couple of examples of casual portraits which were shot with a "normal" lens:<P>

<center><img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/farrahbw38.jpg"><br>

<i>75mm on 6x6</i><P>

<img src="http://mikedixonphotography.com/rachelbw03.jpg"><br>

<i>50mm on 35mm camera</i><P></center>

I have some other, much-tighter shots posted in <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=007ZYE">this thread</a> (a question similar to yours).

I'd say you'll do fine with the 80. I have a Mamiya 645 that I use almost exclusivly for in studio shots and find that the 80 is my most used lens. I have the 150 too, but for the way I shoot I find it is a little to long for all but tight head shots. I've never had anyone notice a difference when looking at the proofs taken with either lens. I'll note that my "studio" is just a spare room of my house, and only about nine feet long. When using the 150 I have to put the subject fairly close to the backdrop and the camera (and myself) are crammed up against the opposite wall. In these conditions the 80 leaves me a little more cropping room, if needed, and I havn't noticed any unattractive distortion when used from about four feet or more. For casuals the 80 should be fine. See if you can rent one and give it a try.

Well it depends. Personally, I favor a short tele or a normal lens and including a bit more of the person and/or the background. I don't remember when was the last time when I did a really tight crop. So for headshots, I would favor a short to medium tele, mainly for the working distance. This depends a lot on one's style, so 80 mm might be perfect for you. A faster lens permits some more interesting lower light work, if you're going to make use of it.

Here are links to a couple shots taken with 80's. One is from a 645 and one from a TLR.

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2744770">Adele</a>

and <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/2744774">Stacy</a> . The uploads look a little dark to me, but you get the idea.

Asim,

 

The 80mm was used extensively by Richard Avedon (RIP) and by Helmut Newton (also RIP)

and that was mostly on 6x6 (Helmut Newton also shot a bit of Fuji 645).

 

I really like shooting Portraits with my Rollei TLR and with the 80 on a Hasselblad. I also

own a Mamiya 645, but have only used the 55mm for Group Portraits.

 

jmp

Here I worked my way thru college making mone by shooting portraits with a 80 or 75mm lens on a Rollie TLR; with stock screens; alot with cropped parts of the 120 format.

I too, like the 80 on medium format for portraits, although I usually like to include more than just head and shoulders. You can do some cropping. My "70's" folder has several examples of portraits done with a Yashicamat 124. The 80mm on 6x6 is an interesting lens: it has the breadth and "feel" of being slightly wide angle, yet at the right distance you get a nice portrait without the distortion. I think it all boils down to what you like.

You would certainly get more depth of field with a standard lens.

 

Swings and slides: 6 of 1 and 1/2 doz. of the other.

Lee,<br><br>You only get more depth of field when you record your sitter at a smaller scale. If you do, for instance, a "head and shoulders" with different lenses, always framing your sitter the same, depth of field will always be the same too. No matter how long or short the lens.<br>Perspective will vary wildly, but depth of field will not.

And that (what i wrote above) also holds when you do record your sitter at a lesser scale, but then crop to get the same framing: depth of field will be the same as if you had used a longer lens.

I understood your first post (assuming the same f-stop for each lens), but "that (what i wrote above) also holds when you do record your sitter at a lesser scale, but then crop to get the same framing: depth of field will be the same as if you had used a longer lens" contradicts your first post and is simply not true.

 

If you photograph a subject that is 2 meters away with an 80mm lens at f2.8 and with a 150mm lens at f2.8, the shot made with 80mm lens will have greater depth of field no matter how you crop it. Perhaps you meant that perspective will be the same? (And yes, the perspective will be the same--it depends only where the camera is relative to the subject.)

I'm afraid it is true.<br><br>When in the "head and shoulders" appear at the same size both in a crop from an image taken with a certain lens and in a frame filling image taken with a longer lens, depth of field will be the <b>same</b> (assuming indeed the same f-stop was used).

Do have any references, supporting theory, or practical demonstrations which back up that statement? You're essentially claiming that how you crop an image (after the exposure) will alter its depth of field. I hope you'll understand if I ask for more than your word on it before I accept that it's true.

Mike,<br><br>This is basic "depth of field". Search the web and you'll find plenty discussions and explanations.<br>Alas, you will also find more than enough examples of people's misunderstanding of depth of field (like yours ;-)). Which is why, i guess, there are so many discussions and explanations in the first place... ;-)<br>Just believe me: when the subject appears same size, it doesn't matter what lens was used, depth of field will always be the same. The very simple rule to remember is that depth of field depends on <b>magnification</b> and <b>aperture</b>. Period.<br>It doesn't matter at all how a certain degree of magnification was achieved: only magnification and aperture matter.<br><br>The only focal length related effect (apart from focal length being embedded in magnification. Which, by the way, is no reason to extricate it and treat it as a separate factor) is that with increasing focal length unsharpness increases more rapidly when moving away from the bounds of depth of field. But still, the <b>amount</b> of depth of field only depends on magnification and aperture. So same size subject, same depth of field. No matter how you get to "same size subject".

You are, of course, correct. I was thinking of DOF as a property of the lens rather than a property of the image. When I stopped to consider that the greater magnification of the cropped print would require a smaller circle of confusion on the negative, your explanation came into focus. ; )

I use 55mm, 80mm (2.8), and 150mm Mamiya 645 lenses -- choosing the 150 for head-and-shoulders. A 110mm may be ideal for this purpose.

 

To achieve a "normal" perspective, I stay at least four feet away from the subject.

 

But my subjects can bite, which might affect my choices. My schedule for next week-end includes a Rottweiler whose owner said that no one else can be in the room, or else the dog will freak out (a Nikon with an old 300mm Soligor will be at hand!)

 

To take a wider shot with a long lens, you can move backwards if you have enough room. But this isn't always possible. For general portraiture, e.g., two or three people, or 3/4 length shots, I'd prefer the 80mm.

 

At f1.9, the 110mm will have nearly no DOF.

 

"Brandon's Dad"

A portrait lens should be 1.5 to 2 times the focal length of a "normal" lens for the format used. In the case of 645 that would be in the 120-160 range, which is why Mamiya makes the 150mm. It has to do with the perspective of the normal lens. If you focus on the subject's eyes with an 80mm lens - from say three feet - the nose is proportionally closer and ears further away than they would be with a 150mm lens. Think about how a wide-angle lens distorts features when you take a close-up portrait. The normal lens does the same, on a lesser scale. The short tele lens tends to flatten features slightly, which most people find more pleasing.

I am currently working on a rather large portrait series where I am only using the 80mm lens on my Hasselblad and the subject is about 8 feet away. I'm getting them from head to toe.

 

I'm also using a D40 flash which is a great piece of equipment.