advice on portrait lenses.

reish_lakish · May 17, 2010

Hello,

Thanks in advance for your views, experiences and pointers re: Nikkor <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/97413-USA/Nikon_1902_AF_Nikkor_50mm_f_1_4D.html">50mm/1.4 D AF</a> and the <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/84151-USA/Nikon_1931_AF_Nikkor_85mm_f_1_8D.html">Nikkor 85mm/1.8 D AF</a>. My interest is portraiture--both on location (available light and off-camera flash) and in the "studio" (studio = modest strobe setup and a sheet.)

The camera's a d90.

From samples I've seen (<a href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/96/cat/12">SLRgear.com</a>) there's some significant blurring on the 50mm when it's wide-open at 1.4; in fact, both lenses seem at their sharpest when stopped down to 2.8.

I'm thinking: the big advantage to the 85mm is that'll let me shoot while at some distance. This is a plus, given much of the street photography I do.

Last: Long vs Not so:

I've been using a Sigma 30mm/1.4 (on a d40). It's a terrific lens, but a bit wide. Too ofen, I do have to get awfully close to the sitter. I'm thinking: the 50mm can replace this lens. Even at an effective 75mm on the d90, the 50 can give me all the wide I need, when needed. But, when working at some distance, it's the 85mm seems to give me the best options. (Please tell me where I'm wrong.)

Again, I'm grateful for views or experiences with either or both lenses--and more so: corrections on my thinking.

Thanks in advance-

frank_skomial · May 17, 2010

Some stunning model and portrait photographs I have seen were taken with 400/2.8 and longer lenses, on the beach with use of reflectors and flashes.

You need to experiment with longer lenses as well, to see if you like the effects.

In parks and open areas I use the 180/2.8, and 70-200/2.8 on DX, and often 300mm on FX camera. This works well flattening big noses, large chins, of less fortunate faces. On Pentax 6x7 I used 400 mm lens for outdoor portraits.

Some will argue that wide angle lenses are also appropriate for portraits.

hjoseph7 · May 18, 2010

The classic portrait lens is the 85mm on a FF camera, of course there are other options such as long lenses and wide angle lenses, but they all have their drawbacks.

kari v · May 18, 2010

From samples I've seen (<a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/96/cat/12" target="_blank">SLRgear.com</a>) there's some significant blurring on the 50mm when it's wide-open at 1.4; in fact, both lenses seem at their sharpest when stopped down to 2.8.

</blockquote>

You should try it yourself and see what you like. How did you like the Sigma wide open? These lenses won't be any worse really. Basically all fast primes start to shine at f2.8 when it comes to sharpness but who cares if you want 1.4-2... 85mm is great for headshots up close and when you want some distance. There's nothing wrong with your reasoning. While 50mm on a crop sensor camera is the most recommended portrait FL many people prefer something longer and that 50mm really could be your "wide" lens if you feel like it.

kari v · May 18, 2010

Some will argue that wide angle lenses are also appropriate for portraits

</blockquote>

I've used even 17mm on FX and it certainly has its place. :)

About that 50mm. Of course one big reason it's recommended so often is because 50/1.8 is so cheap. People just as often forget to mention that if one is interested in headshots and/or wants to keep some distance it's way too wide and you end up with uncomfortable perspective or need to crop quite a bit in post. 85, 105 or even 135 work much better. (200mm on FX is not bad at all outdoors and gives you distinctly different shots from "normal" 50mm stuff.)

mariosforsos · May 18, 2010

Street photography huh? Then I'd second Frank's suggestion on trying some of the f/2.8 long zoom lenses. True, you can grab some amazing photos with the 85 on a crop factor camera (I did with my D200 and my 85/1.8) but you must be aware of a certain caveat: when working at anything less than 2.8 (I would say 3.2) using the 85 on the street, you may end with unusual behaviour in terms of what is in focus and what isn't. Prime behaviour is not always the same as zoom behaviour at less than wide-open apertures.

Personally, I would go for a 70-200/2.8 and never look back. You can find some of the previous model very reasonably priced these days (as professionals move from this model to the newer one). Not as cheap as the 85/1.8, but well, well worth the money (especially on a crop camera!)

plasma181 · May 18, 2010

A 50mm is a bit too wide for portraiture on a film SLR, except for groups. It works better on a DSLR with a smaller than full frame. An 85mm should be good for both film and digital. If your lens is too short, you have to move close to your subject which causes distortion. If you have to use a short lens for a portrait, you could keep back and crop, but you would lose some resolution.

reish_lakish · May 18, 2010

Thanks all, for the terrific--and quick--replies. Good advice and good things to think about.

@Marios, I hear you about the benefits of a zoom lens, over a prime, when in crowded situations and when working below 2.8. I've share that experience with my 30mm. It's something to consider, and a zoom could come in handy if shooting DV.

@Robert, I tend to agree with you take on the 85. But I'm amazed at how many great portraits I see being shot on full frame cameras with a 50. I think it's a real skill, you know? I wonder about all that iconic work done by big names when the gear was way more primitive and the choices were fewer.

@Kari, yeah the 50/1.8 always scores high for price and quality. I guess I have to go and play around with each to see where it's at and where I'm at.

@Harry and Frank, yep, most of the really good work I've seen is done with a longer lens and some great distance. It's not headshots or glam shots that interest me, but more detail and grit--character over gloss. I think a long, fast-ish lens might give that clarity and detail in uneven light. But, again, I guess the thing is to go and try it.

Again, thanks all for the good advice-

Matt Laur · May 18, 2010

Richard: When you're evaluating 50's, do consider Sigma's 50/1.4 HSM. It's optimized around shooting wider open. That's its main purpose for existing. If you like the 30/1.4, you'll really like their 50/1.4.

andrewg_ny · May 18, 2010

I don't particularly love the perspective of 50mm on crop bodies. Depending on the type of portrait, I usually prefer something shorter or longer, like in the 70-90mm range. People often say that 85mm was a preferred portrait lens for film, but in reality 100-105mm and 135mm lenses were also very popular for this purpose--the 85mm was really one of a few common choices in short telephoto. I think that the main reason people go for the 50 now is not the length, it's that for historical reasons its the cheapest way (with the most choices) to get fast glass. If I was a Nikon shooter I'd get the 85/1.8 in a heartbeat. I'd also consider a zoom, probably 70-200/2.8, Tokina 50-135/2.8 (discontinued recently?), or Sigma 50-150/2.8.

Lou_Meluso · May 18, 2010

Richard: You can shoot portraits with almost any lens-wide to tele especially in a candid/street situation. If you don't get on top of the face and/or crop in slightly, a 50mm on a crop body is fine. Sure, it's always nice to have different optics to give different looks but you could spend a lifetime with only that 50mm and never approach it's full potential. Great portraits aren't made by a bag full of lenses. They are made by the sensitivity of your eye, the joy in your heart and your love of people.

richardsnow · May 18, 2010

Richard --

I shoot a D300s and D90, so I can tell you what I use for portraits. I tend to shoot portraits at f/5.6 and use my SB-900 in "Balanced Fill" or full iTTL mode with a DEMB Flip-it and/or Diffuser.

On your D90, I would use the following:

50mm f/1.4 for "classic" bust (head and upper torso), 3/4 length and full length portraits. I typically shoot at f/5.6. This lens is great for in-studio and on-location. For head shots, you have to get uncomfortably close with this lens so keep reading.

70-200mm f/2.8 - for general purpose on-location shoots. I use this lens for everything. Head shots, 3/4 shots, and full length. This lens excels at head shots @200mm. You can stand far enough away to make the subject comfortable and get acceptable DOF @ f/5.6 due to the long focal length. The distance to subject at 200mm also flattens out big noses like mine, so I'm fond of this technique.

105mm f/2 DC - This is a specialty lens that is great for portraits. It has a slightly longer learning curve due to Nikon's "Defocus Control" It is my favorite portrait lens because I have an additional element of control with this lens. The "Defocus Control" smooths out the out of focus elements and can be used to make the lens into a soft focus lens without the need of an additional filter. The lens is quite sharp at f/2 when DC is not used and is at its best at f/4 and f/5.6, which is where I shoot most of my portraits.

It is also available in a 135mm variant.

85mm f/1.4 - Since my purchase of the 105mm f/2 DC, my 85mm is relegated to the bottom of my bag. I can't bear to part with it because it is a fabulous lens, but it is not as sharp wide open as my 105mm and the bokeh is not as smooth as the 105mm due to the DC. before I bought my 105mm, this was be my most used portrait lens.

After giving you all of this information, I will agree with Louis. You can shoot portraits with just about any lens...you just need to figure out the perspective you wish to create and determine which lens will give you that perspective.

Regards,

RS

William Michael · May 19, 2010

"(Please tell me where I'm wrong.)"

Commenting only upon choosing between two lenses either FL 50 or 85 used on a D90

Where the oversight is in your debate between these two lenses is not considering the "limits" you might encounter. The main limit well could be the shooting distance - how big is your "studio"?

To have the maximum versatility in the "studio" the choice would be a 50mm lens not an 85mm lens.

***

Commenting on Perspective: is a function of Shooing Distance not of Focal Length.

Subject Compression, Subject Foreshortening and distortions like barrel distortion are dependent upon FL (and Camera Viewpoint) - and in this regard I too generally prefer an 85mm lens on an APS body, and a 135mm on a FF Body for (more the formal or controlled) Portraits.

I am not nit-picking: I believe I understood correctly the comments about Perspective, but I believe it is important in this particular case to clarify what I think was meant and to keep the technical word "Perspective" to its technical meaning.

Commenting on a recommendation to buy:

If I were Nikon, I too would buy the 85 and then if money were tight I would buy the cheaper Nikon 50mm whatever that is - because for the "studio" with Flash I understand you will be using Flash anyway - so that means F/5.6 or thereabouts.

On the other hand as a "one lens solution" the Sigma 50/1.4 does get rave reviews and what Matt wrote about wide open, I have noticed also from sources I trust.

I don't use Nikon Gear anymore, and I have not used those Sigma lenses – so this is all theory from me, not experience with the particular lenses you cite: though I have and use the equivalent fast Primes in the Canon range and use them all across dual formats, in studio and outdoors.

A substantial amount of my work is Portraiture – and just touching on another point you questioned much of my candid (street) portrait work is up close – on and APS-C body using a 24mm lens and on a FF body using a 35mm lens, for Zoom a 16 to 36 on the APS-C body . . .

“It's not headshots or glam shots that interest me, but more detail and grit--character over gloss.”

Then I think you need to direct as much attention toward technique as to what lenses to buy – IMO you need to acquire the control; composure; compassion; and rapport to get in tight and to make that personal space of the subject, yours – and capture that in the image.

WW

reish_lakish · May 23, 2010

Apologies for the late response and thanks for the terrific feedback.

@Matt, as always, you're right (if not a tad prescient, even). Tried the Sigma 30/1.4 when it came out. It's an amazing lens. But, if my math is right, it's 50% more than the Nikon 50/1.4, that delta owing to the HSM, which isn't much necessary on the d90. (Yes?) Hard for me to justify the additional $170 at this particular economic moment. (read: Yikes.) Thanks, tho. It is an outstanding lens. Scary sharp in all kinds of light.

@Andrew, good point. History plays is big in the making of the 50mm bias. Capa helped ("If you're pic aren't good enough, you're not close enough.") I have seen some amazing portraits made with lenses over 100mm and mounted on FF sensors. But with so much decent work out there shot with the longer lens, I'm convinced I should try it. Thanks for the advice. Re zooms: I'm not good with them. I cannot get the clarity I'm after and have had much better luck with primes, even on my starter d40.

@Richard, I'm grateful for the break down. I ask photographers from whom I can learn about how they shoot and too often end up looking at the EXIF data on images they send. Your mentioning your own practice here is important and useful and, again, I'm grateful. I've looked at the 105 and it is an amazing lens. For me, it's a some-day lens. Wishfully, someday soon. But for now, I still get a bit white-knuckled when thinking of any single purchase over the cost of the camera body itself. (When that day comes, and you feel like parting with the 85/1.4, please do drop a note.)

@William,

"direct as much attention toward technique as to what lenses to buy – IMO you need to acquire the control; composure; compassion; and rapport to get in tight and to make that personal space of the subject, yours – and capture that in the image."

Of course, you're right. But I have plateaued some in the development of technique and that's because, I think I've coaxed what I can out of the gear I've got. My results, and the moment of making the picture itself, improve dramatically when I rent more versatile (better) gear. It leads me to think, reluctantly, that skill level does rise with the challenge of gear that can deliver more. Shoot with a faster lens and you can do more in trickier light. Shoot with a longer lens and get a more relaxed subject, thanks to the distance. (Most of my subjects have been living on the street for some time and are on a hair trigger. They find comfort in distance, I've found.) All this to say, gear helps.

@Luis, what can I say, but this is a wholly accurate and wonderful take:

"Great portraits aren't made by a bag full of lenses. They are made by the sensitivity of your eye, the joy in your heart and your love of people."

I agree, completely, and I am compelled to go further with my camera because it's a tool that gets me to know people and the situations each inhabits. That said, the shorter lens has been terrific at yielding two kinds of pictures: 3/4 portraits and environmentals. One of Avedon's assistants remarked that he was able to get more from his sitters when he moved his camera back some, and shot in light that was consistent across the studio floor. (I'm taking some liberties in what was actually said, which was mostly about the choice of light in the studio.) I agree that gear matters less than rapport, but that a moderate kit, one that offers a reasonable range, and the distance I'm now going w/out, does matter.

Thanks all. The advice is really terrific. Again, I'm grateful.

William Michael · May 23, 2010

"My results, and the moment of making the picture itself, improve dramatically when I rent more versatile (better) gear. . . All this to say, gear helps."

OK - noted a critical self analysis. Logical process and conclusion, I agree.

Lateral thought: have you considered the flexibility of two cameras, one each with a fast Prime of different FL

WW

lee_richards2 · May 23, 2010

"direct as much attention toward technique as to what lenses to buy – IMO you need to acquire the control; composure; compassion; and rapport to get in tight and to make that personal space of the subject, yours – and capture that in the image."

</blockquote>

Right on William!

Of course, you're right. But I have plateaued some in the development of technique and that's because, I think I've coaxed what I can out of the gear I've got.

</blockquote>

What gear do you have? It would be helpful to know. I respectfully beg to disagree with part of what you say. I have never known a photographer who has "plateaued in the development of technique". There is always room for improvement. After 40 years of camera work I still take seminars and workshops and rarely come away without new ideas and techniques. And usually the motivation to try them.

You do realize that you possess a camera (and even if what you have is the 18-55 kit lens) a lens that would be the envy of any professional not that many years ago. You know that some of the iconic images of all time were shot with cameras and lenses that were toys compared to what you have. And the digital darkroom you have even with freeware.......I would have killed for that capability in the 1970's.

There is a very good chance that the new gear motivates you but I doubt its inherent capability makes much difference in your final product. Question. Why have you ruled out zooms? For the price of an 85 f1.8 you can get a Tamron AF28-75mm F/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF). This gives you considerably more flexability. It is discrete, sharp, fast, gives you slightly more range than either of the two lenses you mention and (image quality wise) would be diffucult to tell from the primes.

William Michael · May 23, 2010

"I have plateaued some in the development of technique . . .Most of my subjects have been living on the street for some time and are on a hair trigger. They find comfort in distance, I've found"

Considering a 2.8 zoom is a good idea.

Zooms require contant honing of technique (or at least awareness) IMO to balance the laziness of zooming with the dedication of getting the correct view, vantage point and resultant Perspective.

On the other hand - a very wide prime or a P&S with high ISO capacity allows developing hip-shot technique.

The below is NOT taken in a volatile environment, but nonetheless it was taken at very close range and whilst moving past the Subject - My Favourite Barista.

5D + 24L (not a small rig), but nonetheless my rig went unnoticed at the time.

My favourite "small" DSLR rig for hip-shot technique is a 5D (without Battery Grip) and the 35/2, which is a small snub unobtrusive wide lens, rendering acceptable results at F/2 and very good quality at F/2.8.

My all-time favourite rig for hip-shot is a Rangefinder with a 35/2 with B&W film pushed 2 stops to ISO (ASA) 3200 – unobtrusive and zero noise.

WW<div></div>

pbjef · May 24, 2010

I use 2 lenses and I do almost exclusively portraiture. I have a Nikon D50 and I use a 50mm and the kit 18-55mm lens. I enjoy the kit lens at 24mm and I'm looking to get a 24mm prime lens. You will notice if you look at my<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/46016095@N02/sets/72157623173364003/show/"> flickr account</a> I shoot at a different angle other than straight on most of the time. If I do shoot straight on, I use the 50mm. As you stated, it all depends on the camera. The D90 may not treat the two lenses you have like my D50. I do have a 70-200mm lens I use occasionally. It requires I work with a lot of room behind me and is not effective in close quarters.

I would suggest that you find a local camera store that will rent you a lens or two for a day or two, find a model on Model Mayhem and go and shoot the same poses with all the lenses you have in outdoor and indoor settings to let you know what you do and don't like.

Sign In

advice on portrait lenses.

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in