Best lens for close up beauty?

[michael_s10]

<p>What's the best lens for close up beauty shots for Nikon? <br>

I find that my 85 1.8 isn't really long enough, and I'm worried that the 70-200 VRII that turns into a 135mm lens when close up won't be long enough either. (I'm shooting crop sensor, but would prefer to start buying FF lenses).</p>

<p> </p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>If by beauty you mean a person beauty, than I use the 300/4 AF-S Nikkor, outside, and the 180/2.8 Nikkor inside for tight head shots.</p>

<p>For less critical, and faster work I use 70-200/2.8 VR, and when my hands get tired of heavy lenses, or on travel, I use the good but discontinued Nikkor 28-200 G, ED, AF lens, or 24-70/2.8 AF-S.</p>

<p>The 85/1.4 Nikkor is best used for half figure or torso shots, and the 50/1.4 is best for full figure shots.</p>

<p>.. and this is for the FX camera.</p>

<p>I wish I had the 135/2 Nikkor, but .. I have too many already. (NAS).</p>

 

[JDMvW]

<p>You want longer than a 135mm on a APS-C (DX) body for <em>portrait</em> work?</p>

<p>As I've said before, you can use any focal length you want for anything you want, but I'm not sure what you mean by "close up beauty shots". I can only guess your subjects have very large noses or something that requires so much flattening. Are you shooting full face or just the corner of the eye? I'm <em>not</em> mocking you, I just genuinely don't understand why you need so long a focal length. Your three pictures at your member page don't hint at what you're trying to do here.</p>

<p>For an FX (35mm sensor) camera, I'd have supposed the 85mm would have been ideal, although the classic 105mm Nikon is one of the best lenses in the line-up, I think.</p>

 

[michael_s10]

<p>This at the widest - and I'd like the ability to go tighter than that - just eyes or lips etc.<br>

<a href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/2401472266_d57f289a41.jpg">http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2372/2401472266_d57f289a41.jpg</a></p>

<p> </p>

[michael_s10]

<p>Also, when I finally move to full frame, I'd like to have enough length in the lens as well, so while I'm shooting DX now, FF is in the future.</p>

<p> </p>

[tommyinca]

<p> <br>

Sounds like you want a lens that could focus closer and not necessary longer. Check out the Tamron's 90/2.8 or the 105 micro nikkor. If you also want fast aperture, try find a less then +1 achromatic close up lens to attach onto the 85/1.8. Something like a Pentax MF T226 (+0.45) with step rings will work. You can also find other quality fraction diopter on pro-video section (aka: not cheap). If manual focus is ok, Zeiss's 100/2 or Voigtlander 125/2.5 macro are other options.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>For what you showed in the link, and to get flattering perspective for less fortunate faces, you would need the Nikkor 300/4 or equivalent quality and length.<br>

The 200 mm range would do for the fortunate faces, where flattering may not be desirable or important.<br>

Anything shorter may not be what you are after?<br>

I used to shoot tight head shot model portraits with a 400 mm lens, on the beach, but that may be too heavy and cumbersome. The Nikkor 300/4 is the best balance for price, size and weight, as well as great optical quality.</p>

[michael_s10]

<p>WRT to getting closer...</p>

<p>Won't getting closer distort the features ?</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Michael,<br>

Getting closer is more friendly to your model than "changing /distorting" her face by using a long lens, the long lens flattens everything, so her nose gets optically shorter making it look wider with wider nostrills, her eyes will move to the surface loosing all dept etc.<br>

This way you remove all natural beauty and character from your models face, making it look like it has been slammed into a wall i think...<br>

If you think you need more than 85mm- 135mm then I think you just need to step forward, get closer.. <br>

If you want to isolate just Lips / eyes or other parts I think a macro lens like the 105mm would be the better choice, but be carefull with that, because it will also show every spot , hair or pore in/on your models skin because of its sharpness. Macro lenses are not realy known for being "Model Friendly" ...<br>

Just my two cents..</p>

[michael_s10]

<p>The 85 1.8 doesn't focus closer than like 4.5 feet :(</p>

<p>I think I'm going to end up with the 70-200....</p>

[phillip_garland]

<p>Michael S-<br>

The AF-D 85mm f/1.8 can focus a bit closer than that- it's minimum focus distance is about 3 feet. I've sometimes used it for candid head shots from across a table. If you want to go longer, everything but the micro-Nikkors will have a somewhat longer minimum focus distance.</p>

[Jerry_]

<p>Have you looked at the Nikon AF-S 85mm f3.5G Micro-Nikkor lens yet? It is DX, but it will get you closer with the same image quality (or better perhaps) than the AF 85mm f1.8D lens you now are using. When you go to a FX camera body, you can always sell the lens. The investment in a 70-200mm is large compared to the DX Micro-Nikkor lens.</p>

[frank_skomial]

<p>"Won't getting closer distort the features ?" - Yes. That is why I recommended longer lens that would force the photographer to move back a bit farther, to fit the head tightly into the frame without distortion, like the example in the link shows - it is what the poster wants.</p>

<p>C.P.M. has opposite concept, that longer lenses distort more of facial features ?</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_wilson1]

<p>I'm with Frank, I like the 180 and 300 also. Sometimes the 300 needs extension though.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Many of the 500mm catadioptric lenses have close focusing capability and depth of field fully as deep as 1/16". Beautiful circular out-of-focus highlights too, if you want to carry this trend to its less-than-logical conclusion. ;)</p>

<p>Thanks, but I personally will stick with my ancient 85mm f/2 Sonnar design and my 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor. I like the ensemble of that focal length range, nice bokeh, and hernia-free portage. :)</p>

[nsfbr]

<p>I have the 70-200 VRI, an 85 1.8, but since I've bought my 105 VR they gather dust when it comes to portraiture. It is a magnificent lens for the kind of work you are doing. I especially like its available light characteristics, since the VR is really great for shooting non-macro. <br>

I strongly recommend this lens.</p>

[luis_g]

<p> Best? No such thing, but in your shoes, I'd go for a used 70-180mm macro zoom.</p>

<p>http://www.bythom.com/70180Macrolens.htm</p>

<p>The nikkor medical lens adds ringlighting, but it's really a bit of a niche lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>C.P.M. has opposite concept, that longer lenses distort more of facial features ?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frank, in general : Tele compresses the dept / 3d , wideangle increases the dept /3d ..<br>

Try it, go out side , go to a lane/street with trees or lightpoles in a row, put on a tele lens (300mmm ?) , take a shot of the road so that you capture the row of pols / trees ( at a light angle for judging the effect better), then put on a standard or wide lens, again take a shot form the same standpoint in the same direction.<br>

Then compare the results :<br>

- The one taken with the long lens has all lightpoles / trees semmingly at a very short distance from eachother, they seem unnatural close to eachother <br>

- With the normal lens evrything seems in the right proportions, the distances between the poles are like you see them normally<br>

- with ae wide lens ( up to 35 mm for FX , up to 24 mm for APS-C to show clearly what is going on) the poles / trees seem to be further from eachother then in real life ..<br>

Therfore its common practice for portraiture to use a normal to slight tele ( 85-105 on film, 50 - 85 on APS-C) , the slight tele often produces a bit more"flattering" portait ands allows for some distance between photographer and model.<br>

Seldomly a wide lens is used because it produces a "long Nose effect" unless the model has a very "flat " face of course ..<br>

S o in general : more tele = more flattend portrait, les tele ( more wide) produces more dept in any picture (unless shot wide open, then you loose DOF..) .<br>

So when I would need to get close to the model because I want partial face shots, I'd rather use a macro/micro lens like the 85mm or 105mm or even better, like Luis suggests, a 70-180 micro if availlable, and try to avoid "extremes" like the 300mm ..</p>

 

[frank_skomial]

<p>C.P.M.<br>

The statement that long lenses distort like "wider nostrills", is you own perception.</p>

<p>Any Photography scholar would tell you that perspective des not depent on the lens focal length, but only on the distance proportions between the lens, subject and a background. From "Photography 101" basics.</p>

<p>You take picture with a standard 50 mm lens, and crop it to obtain perspective of a 300 mm lens, and the subject will not get misteriously distorted, since it is the same picture. Though use of one lens for all purpose, may not be practical.</p>

<p>Michael,</p>

<p>If you need stunning perpecive compressed tight head shots, without distortion, you need longer lens, you cannot afford to loose picture quality by cropping. The lens you need should be considerably longer than what is considered a "portrait" lens. Do not worry about any distortion from long lenses, but do about short lenses.</p>

[jack flannery]

<p>I have a friend who absolutely loves his Sigma 150mm macro. He uses it for inanimate studio work.</p>

[photom]

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=977463">Frank Skomial</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Frequent poster" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/3rolls.gif" alt="" /></a>, Jun 23, 2010; 10:30 a.m.</p>

 

<p >C.P.M.<br />The statement that long lenses distort like "wider nostrills", is you own perception.</p>

<p >Any Photography scholar would tell you that perspective des not depent on the lens focal length, but only on the distance proportions between the lens, subject and a background. From "Photography 101" basics.</p>

<p > </p>

 

 

</blockquote>

<p> </p>

 

<p >This is true, but the OP said they specifically wanted a close-up so this limits which lenses will work at the ideal working distance. Cropping is never really a solution that you plan for up front. You start out with the proper lens and crop later if you need to. You can crop to solve anything if you want to give up data.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As an example, if you like the relative perspective of 12 ft. from the subject, and you have a 105mm lens on an Nikon APS-C camera, your vertical image dimension will be about 2' 8.9" for portrait orientation. This should be in the ballpark for a closeup. DOF with the same lens and camera using f2.8 will be 5.2" (.020 COC) which should be OK for you, or you may wish for more DOF.</p>

 

 

[CvhKaar]

<blockquote>

<p>You take picture with a standard 50 mm lens, and crop it to obtain perspective of a 300 mm lens, and the subject will not get misteriously distorted, since it is the same picture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frank, this is true, but I did not write anything about cropping a picture that was taken with a 50mm to begin with.</p>

<p>What i'm trying to say is :</p>

<p>In general if you use a shorter lens, you have to move closer to get a good head size, which expands perspective, resulting in pointy noses and a "warped" look,<br>

If you use a longer lens, you have to move back to get a good head size, though moving back compresses perspective, resulting in a more "flattened" look.. . <br>

If you use an even longer lens, like a 300mm ( on an APS-C Sensor to increase the effect.....). the flattening effect also becomes more obvious becausse you have to move back even more..... for an "almost straight in the face" headshot this can result in the perception of a flattened nose . ( try it , use your 300mm at its minimal focusing distance for this type of shot, then compare it to the same shot using a 85mm lens, for which you need to get closer obviously in order to get a frame filling head...).<br>

Now if you would use a macro "tele" lens, which is an entirely different beast all together, for partial face shots, you preserve more of your perspective because you don't need to move back that much. Therefore i mentioned that ,the 105mm macro or better the 70-180 could help the OP for the partial face shots, I understood, he was looking for,Using a lens like this he would not have to step back that much and this way could keep a tidy shot while preventing the flattening effect of a 300mm....</p>

[michael_s10]

<p>First off, thank you to everyone who chimed in. Lens purchases are big investments, and I appreciate the guidance on this.<br>

Maybe I actually phrased this question all wrong.</p>

<p>Maybe the right question is:</p>

<p>At what distance is the photographer from the subject when those great beauty shots (often advertising makeup) are taken? 2ft? 10ft?</p>

<p>If actually I knew that, I then could compute the right lens for the job, depending on how tight I wanted the shot.</p>

<p>Does anyone know? :)</p>

<p> </p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>To get just eyes and lips, you need about 1:4 magnification on FX. You could use an 105 AF-S Micro or the 200/4D Micro for this. Or the 300/4D. The 180/2.8D also allows fairly tight close-ups, as does the 70-200 (original version).</p>

<p>As for apparent distortion of perspective, that doesn't just depend on the distance from camera to subject, but also the print size (or how magnified the print is compared to life size) and how far away it is viewed. To reproduce the perspective observed by the photographer for the viewer, you need the subject to appear the same angle of view in the print-viewing situation as in the photographer sees with their naked eyes just before taking the shot.</p>

<p>What does this mean? Let's assume that the subject size is 15x10cm. Let's set the final print size also 15x10cm, and assume the subject fills the frame tightly. The print is life size (i.e. the subject appears the same size in the print as in the 3D world). Now, if the photographer talks to the subject at a distance of 1 m, then there is no perspective distortion if the print is viewed at a distance of 1m. If the viewer moves closer to the print and looks at it at a distance of 25cm, then there is a considerable discrepancy in the perspective of the print and what would be seen if the viewer looked at the subject in the 3D world at a distance of 25cm. Hence, there is perspective distortion. To obtain a more accurate rendering of perspective, the photographer would need to switch to a lens with 1/4 the focal length of the original capture and then make the print. Now, the print would provide the correct perspective for the shorter viewing distance of 25cm. In the 1m camera to subject distance, the correct lens for FX would have f = 240mm and for the shorter 25cm distance, f = 60mm, if I calculated correctly. For a detail shot, one might typically print it at A6 size (i.e. approximately 10x15cm) and then view it at a distance of 25cm. This would suggest that 60mm is a good choice of a focal length for this kind of a shot, if you want the viewer to experience natural perspective (i.e. the proportions of the parts of the subject in relation to one other will be the same as when seeing the subject in person at the same size as in the print). In practice I would take a slightly longer lens than the 60mm Micro as that internal focus lens, when focused close, has a bit wider angle of view than might be expected from the focal length at infinity. If you use a 300mm lens, then you will get a much-magnified image that has an entirely wrong perspective for a life size print. To get natural perspective with that lens you will need to make a print smaller than the sensor (assuming the viewing distance of 25cm to print).</p>

[CvhKaar]

<p>Ilkka , very good explanation and well calculated .</p>

<blockquote>

<p>At what distance is the photographer from the subject when those great beauty shots (often advertising makeup) are taken? 2ft? 10ft?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Michael, knowing two of those guys very well, I could say for a fact that ( the guys I know) use Medium format cams<br>

One of the uses Hasselblad digital / whith Leaf back's, and the other guy uses rolleiflex's ( he's more "old Fashioned"..) , sometimes digital and sometimes "Velvia Slides ==> Scan & process" .<br>

This kind of machinery produces images that you can "Blow Up" and Crop almost infinitly and still have High IQ ... so a crop sensor is no match for this equipment to start with. They add complex lighting with softboxes umbrella's and reflection screens ( often at least 1 gold one) to this<br>

Both  prefer to use a "Standard "lens ( 80mm for medium format) , and say that they never close in more than +- 1m ( 3-4 ft) because moving in closer creates all kind of lighting issues. Using ring flashes that close on cam's creates so much gloss that a decent shot becomes very hard, so they avoid this option too.</p>