Sweet spot for portraits

[raffal]

<p>I have a question that might be silly for some, but I will still ask anyway ...:) I shot with Nikon D300 - when someone is reffering to portrait "sweet spot" -meaning 85mm-105mm --> means 85-105 mm on FX format or DX ??? Because 85mm on my d300 will be more like : 127.5mm and 105mm, more like 157.5 ....thanks ! raf</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p>Focal length is focal length regardless of format. On my D300 I really like my 58 f/1.4 for doing portraits. Some people like the 60 Micro but for me wide open it has to much Depth of Field.</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>85 on film.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>But 85 on DX also works great for portraits! A 105 is too long, though, in many cases. Personally I find the 50mm ("75mm on DX") too short.</p>

[stwrtertbsratbs5]

<p>"Focal length is focal length regardless of format."</p>

<p>Well, yeah. But the perspective also depends on format.</p>

[jay_poel]

<p>The change is that the image is cropped. There is no change in focal length or perspective.</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I don't mind the 50mm for portraits on DX, a 28-70 2.8 becomes a real nice useful portrait lens on DX though.</p>

[joe_a2]

<p>Rafal.... One thing to keep in mind is that you are somewhat splitting hairs and in the end it comes down to personal preference when you're talking 85mm vs 105mm or even 135mm. There's no rule to discover. I've done DX-shot portraits from 70mm to about 150mm on my 70-200 for different reasons. Shorter lengths make facial features more pronounced. Longer focal lengths tend to flatten faces.</p>

<p>The best way to see the difference is to play. I'm guessing you have a zoom or two. Set your zoom to 85mm and secure it with some gaffer's tape or blue masking tape. Then try it secured at 105mm. Move your feet so you frame both the same way. Try headshots and half-body shots at each focal length. Download the pictures and compare the two looks you get from each "lens". A prime will let you shoot with less depth of field due to it's bigger aperture, but you'll still be able to compare the main difference: perspective. Nothing beats seeing it yourself.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>... to add fuel to the discussion...on perspective.</p>

<p>I wanted to make stunning perspective compressed pictures with a very long telephoto lens, ... boy, how was I wrong!</p>

<p>I got a stern answer that perpective only depends on the relative distances between the camera, the subject, and the background. </p>

<p>I was instructed that perspective does not depend on the focal length of the lens, and the same perspective I could achieve with just one normal lens. Here is where a "theory" clashes with the "practice"... and seems contradict each other.</p>

 

[eric_arnold]

<blockquote>

<p>But 85 on DX also works great for portraits! A 105 is too long, though, in many cases. Personally I find the 50mm ("75mm on DX") too short.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>kind of depends on where you are in relation to your subject, doesn it? i'd agree with you about 50 being too short; my favorite "portrait lenses" for event/street/concert work are the 50-150 and the 28-75. the former is great because you can choose anywhere in the 'portrait range' and with the IF, your subject doesn't know your zooming. the 28-75 lets you decide how much background you want in the shot. for studio work, obviously, a FX camera and an 85/1.4 would be ideal.</p><div></div>

[raffal]

<p>Thanks for all the answers!...:) second of all , i thinks i stated my question pretty clear, i didnt ask about personal preferences....lol So i guess Eric Arnold is a winner!...short and straight to the point, thank you !raf</p>

[peter]

<p>I like to explain it this way.</p>

<p>Imagine a rectangle (for the sake of the argument lets say its in portrait not landscape mode given we are discussing portraits.) And lets also imagine that the rectangle is filled with a head and shoulders image taken on an FX format camera - using any given lens, lets say an 85mm at f1.8 for the sake of the argument.</p>

<p>Now imagine another rectangle superimposed over the top and exactly 2/3 the size. The image was shot with the same lens and aperture. In this case only part of the original head and shoulders shot will be visible. This is the image area that would have been captured had the photo been taken with a Nikon DX format camera.</p>

<p>The image is effectively cropped to this smaller size becasue the sensor / film gate inside the DX camera is smaller. (The so called cropping factor)</p>

<p>But all else about the image is the same in the two photos . It stands to reason that this should be so - the same lens was used in both cases so it projects an identical image circle inside the two cameras - but as the DX format sensor is only about 2/3 the area of the FX sensor only the smaller part of the overall image circle is captured - nothing else is different except of course that to blow up the image to make a final print to say A4 size you must enlarge it that small amount extra.</p>

<p>To capture the identical shot with the DX sensor you must step back a couple of paces - which is why we think of the 85mm lenses behaving like a 132mm (approx) lens. But in reality it does not do so.</p>

[sjmurray]

<p>"Portrait" can mean a lot different things. I've succesfully used lenses from wide angle to telephoto for portraits, depending on what type of portrait I'm doing. Each focal length is good for some type of portrait. Check out my folders, which have portraits going back to the 1970's and film cameras.</p>

[raffal]

<p>So in the above example, if i would use DX camera i have 2 options if i understood this correctly:<br>

1. move back a bit or <br>

2. i could use 56mm on DX , so that would give me apx. 85mm on FX am and shot from the same spot, without having to move back....am i correct ? <br>

raf</p>

[Brad_]

It depends on what you mean by "portrait." <P>

 

For me, that means there's some kind of engagement or negotiation. I like getting really close and an 85 is too long

unless shooting across the street. I usually shoot within 5-10 feet, so a 17-50 on a crop cam works for me.

<P>

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images46/DaveEva.jpg">

</center>

 

<P><P>

 

Or a 10-22 if you want to get wacky...<P>

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images47/Lawrence.jpg">

</center>

[raffal]

<p>What i meant is stated in my question above.....i didnt ask what the definition of portrait is...- ( thats why "sweet spot" is between 85mm to 105mm in general) ....raf <br>

PS. 85-105mm on DX or FX ...answer was FX !:) </p>

[Brad_]

>>> What i meant is stated in my question above.....i didnt ask what the definition of portrait is...- ( thats why "sweet spot"

is between 85mm to 105mm in general) ....raf

 

But that's the point. Asking other people for advice on a photography forum what the sweet spot is for a portrait lens means nothing

until you express what kind of portraiture you're interested in and the shooting distance.

[eric_arnold]

<p>brad, those are both good pics but to me they are more candids than portraits. not that a portrait cant be candid, but i dont think that's what rafal was asking about. in street shooting, background is important as it gives context to the shot, so it makes sense to use a wider lens.</p>

<p>however, when you are doing a more posed/static shot, you don't necessarily need background--you want the focus to be on the subject with no distractions. that's when you want to get in nice & tight.</p>

<p>if you're looking for the sweet spot on a DX camera for this type of shot, yes, 56mm-70mm on a 1.5x crop camera would hit that square in the middle of the range. technically the sweet spot begins between 56-57mm but that's getting a bit nit-picky.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> but to me they are more candids than portraits<P>

 

No Eric, not candids - I rarely shoot candidly. The first I was fully engaged, the second, I was bs-ing while shooting. I do a lot of street portraits (ie, snagging strangers, introducing myself and then doing their portrait) and the majority are close-in, like mine of Andy and Nelson, below. If you really want to be engaged with the subject, going

above 50 doesn't make much sense on a crop cam - and 50 on a crop cam still puts *me* too far away from the subject. A

50 on a full frame makes a lot of sense; in fact that's what <a href= "

Enos, a master at street portraiture</a> uses on his D3 full frame cam. <P>

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images46/Andy.jpg">

</center><P><P>

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images47/ramos.jpg">

</center>

[raffal]

<p>Again Brad , the question is not what particular focal length is needed for particular portrait.......The question is : "" 85mm-105mm --> means 85-105 mm on FX format or DX ??? Because 85mm on my d300 will be more like : 127.5mm and 105mm, more like 157.5 ... ""<br>

--- I stated that 85mm and anything between 105mm (85-105mm)-- is considered " sweet spot" , however the question again is not what "sweet spot " is... thanks, raf</p>

[Brad_]

Rafal, sorry, I'm still not understanding what your question is...

[raffal]

<p>Just for Brad : question - "" 85mm-105mm --> means 85-105 mm on FX format or DX ??? "" quote... and another quote : "" Because 85mm on my d300 will be more like : 127.5mm and 105mm, more like 157.5 ...."" </p>