What lens for Full Length Pictures?

[chimera_h]

<p>What lens would you suggest I use for full length pictures, to where I could get nice bokeh as well? I have an 85mm 1.8 that I love, but I need something wider. I used a 17-50mm for some recent pictures and they just don't look right on full length images. They lack a nice bokeh and have more of a snapshot look. </p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[alvinyap]

<p>This really depends if you have the space - an 85mm lens is perfectly fine for full body portraits - I personally use the 70-200VR for that, if there is alot of space for me to move back and space behind the subject. Love the background going totally blurred. Maybe if you post up some links to samples of "snapshot" look? More frequently though, I use my plain old 16-85 as rarely is there enough space for a long lens.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>What camera body are you using? The sensor format will have a lot to do with this discussion, as will the environment in which you're working).<br /><br />When you say that images from the 17-50 don't look right, what focal length are you actually using? There's a huge difference in effective depth of field (and thus the degree to which you can throw the background out of focus) when you use that lens at, say, 20mm, vs at 50mm.<br /><br />When you mention "nice bokeh" - are you talking about how out of focus your background is (a function of distance, focal length, and aperture), or the aesthetic <em>quality</em> of the out of focus areas? Some lenses certainly make the same OoF elements look worse than othes, with edgy elements, double lines, etc ("nervous"-looking blur).<br /><br />On a cropped-sensor camera, I wouldn't usually want to to wider than around 30mm on a full-length shot if I could avoid it - just so that I don't end up working from too close, and then winding up with body-distorting perspective troubles. Even at 30mm, you'll run into that problem if you're working at awkward look-down/up angles.<br /><br />Anyway: mention what camera you're using, and you'll get some more specific suggestions.</p>

[richard_cochran]

<p>If you want to blur the background, keep that 85 or go even longer. You will be a long distance away from your subject, though, so you'll need a large shooting space. But I recommend trying that at least once. You'll probably have to go outside.</p>

<p>Getting close to your subject in a full length photo tends to make the legs get small and head get big (assuming you're holding the camera near eye level). You can lower the camera a bit to help somewhat with this issue, but it still won't give the same perspective as backing up.</p>

<p> </p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>You CAN blur the background with a shorter lens - you just need to use a wider aperture. I have no problem substantially blurring the background behind subjects using 30mm or 50mm lenses at standing-human distances ... but you've got to be shooting close to wide open at something like f/1.8. And when you're that wide open, you risk some trouble with softness, CA, etc., depending on the lens and your technique (and the scene). <br /><br />How good the background <em>looks</em> at a diven focal length will depend on the lens. I've got two 50mm primes. One has atrocious bokeh, and the other looks fantastic. But first, you've got to decide about your working distance and the perspective you want to see. <em>Then</em> you choose the right lens (quality-wise) at that focal length.</p>

[myworkshop]

<p>

 

<p>If you like your 85mm f/1.8 then why not try a 50mm f/1.8? They're dirt cheap and both Nikon and Canon models produce nice Bokeh.<br>

Pete</p>

 

</p>

[garydem]

<p >in 35mm terms portraits used lenses from 70-80 to 135mm. the former were the full or 3/4 body shots while the 135mm was for face only. when taking portraits the distances were always in the 10-12 maybe 15ft range in the studio. when one wanted a different type of portrait you simply changed lenses. you did not move the camera to subject distance. if you did and went closer the nose ended up as very pronounced, if you went farther then the face had a very flat one dimensional appearance.</p>

<p >macro lenses are not used for portraits simply because they see too much facial features; no one is going to thank you with every wrinkle or pimple or imperfection shown in all their glory. The image will just not be flattering. if a macro lens is used then you should plan on plenty of pp time to get the bad features back out. it is far simpler to simply use a kit lens size, or a lens similar, that is a 16 to 50 for the 3/4 shots and if desired switch to a 70-200 zoom used at 70 for the face only, which is 105mm, if not tight enough zoom to 90 which is 135mm. but in all this keep the subject distance at the 10-12 to 15ft distance.</p>

<p >for your info- </p>

<p >portraits were done in the studio by pros using, in 35mm terms, about 70mm to 135mm. the distance was fixed you were shooting from 10-12ft. at that distance the 70 gave the 3/4 body shot while the 135 gave a face only. in c sensor the 70mm becomes 47mm while the 135mm becomes 91mm. the distances used were to keep the face and body from distorting from a natural appearance. For digital the f1.4 50mm lenses becomes a very good portrait lens. It can also double a lowlight lens.</p>

<p > </p>

[brucecahn]

<p>A normal lens. 50-35mm on full frame, but 35 is a little short.</p>

[david_klaffenbach]

<p>I assume you are doing this in a studio, otherwise my answer would be a 180/2.8. But you said you needed wider, so I am assuming you don't have the room.</p>

<p>From a practical standpoint, I would use the longest lens I have room for (to force a perspective that will blur the background better) and use a much larger aperture than you would use for a head shot or head and shoulders shot. If you do a full-length shot at f/2 on APS-C, you will have about 1.5 feet of DOF, which should be OK. With a 50mm lens, you'll need about 12.5 feet to get that shot, and proportionally more or less with wider or longer lenses.</p>

[chimera_h]

<p>Thanks everyone! I shoot with a Canon 40D. I have a 50mm 1.8 also, but prefer a zoom. I don't shoot in studio, but on location. There is an area I go to where I need a wide angle...otherwise I'd have to stand in the street. I've tried my 85mm and I was too far away.<br>

Oh how I wish I coudl shoot wide open and get a nice sharo subject and blurred background. However, I'm not consistent enough, so often times the focus is off.<br>

I understand I need to be closer to the subject and the subject further from the background. I'm thinking I must have been standing too far away. When I first started shooting, I used to stand so close to the subject that I wouldn't even leave enough room for various sized prints. Now, I tend to stand a bit too far away.<br>

I also have a 70-200mm 2.8, so maybe I could try that next time. Of course, I love that lens!</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

[gulfbeach47]

<p>I have a family shoot of 18 people today. I was considering trying my Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 but figured I would have to get at least 50 feet away. Oh how I love that lens. I used it for the first time the other day doing a music festival. Hand holding it at night with just stage lights on musicians. Love the silhouette shots. Well, I ma headed out to shoot the family of 18 :(</p>