85mm Portrait Philosophy

[Stock-Photos]

<blockquote>

<p>" why the 85mm (have 1.8 D) is considered a portrait lens"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>1.) Composition, (headshots)</p>

<p>2.) Bokeh (background blur) </p>

<p>Wide aperture lenses blur the background more / better than say a 4.5-5.6 zoom. I bought an <strong><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=909607">85MM 1.2 for the sweet bokeh.</a></strong></p>

[lisa_f]

<p>Holy smoke! This is like taking a class. LOVE IT. I personally don't prefer compression in my portraits. It's like the view of the portrait is looking through binoculars. But that is just an opinion. And Craig is right. My original question is not what is "best" or what "is" a portrait lens but rather why the 85mm is considered a portrait lens.</p>

[robert_delaurentis1]

<p>Lots of phrases in photography are oversimplifications of more complex ideas. In this case, consider the word portrait. There are many different types of portraits, and left unspecified, the word portrait will evoke different things to different people.</p>

<p>A newspaper photographer may tend to think of environmental portraits, where the subject and his or her environment are more or less equal subjects in a photo. These are often created with wider angle lenses. Senior portraits are often environmental.</p>

<p>Another photographer may think of a portrait as a traditional head and shoulders composition. These images are typically called everything from a "portrait" to a "headshot" to a "close-up" and many others, depending on custom in a particular group or market. These are the ones that often use a longer focal length, and there are religious debates on which is ideal, 85, 105, 135, and sometimes with crop sensors 50.</p>

<p>Still another may think in terms of a formal or three-quarter portrait, which is usually in between a headshot and an environmental portrait. There really are a lot of different, specific ways to describe a portrait, and they are all true, depending on the context.</p>

<p>Bob</p>

[Brad_]

>>> ... but rather why the 85mm is considered a portrait lens. <P>

 

Beats me. It's a false premise from my perspective. I don't consider it a portrait lens any more than the

lens I happen to shoot all of my portraits with, which happens to be a 35mm (on a full frame) for the kind

of portraiture I do, and the level of subject engagement I require.<P>

 

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images54/Edward.jpg">

</center>

[mikal_grass]

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>I have always liked your work. You did nothing wrong with the portrait of Betty. What people don't understand is that portraits can be taken with any lens as long as the work is good and says something. Most portraits taken with the classic lenses are just plain boring and lifeless. </p>

<p>After all these years, the naysayers are getting to you? Keep up the good work.</p>

[Peter_in_PA]

<p>He wasn't asking if you can use different focal lengths, but why the 85mm was considered by so many (as it truly is) to be the "portrait length". It needn't be a debate about what lenses can and can't be used for portraits.</p>

<p>I respectfully submit that it <em><strong>is</strong></em> a classic portrait length, and that to use something substantially shorter is to "break the rules", which is fine... but one is probably very well served by learning to follow the rules before learning to break them.</p>

[richardsnow]

<p>@Jeff</p>

<p>There is nothing wrong with shooting a 24mm for portraits. What I described in my original post was why 85mm is considered a "classic focal length". I routinely shoot with a 35mm on my D700 (not much longer than your 24mm on a 1.3x crop camera). I haven't been posting my portraits since they tend to be of High School Seniors and parents are routinely requesting not using the photos for anything online.</p>

<p>Most of my subjects tend to be more comfortable with the working distance of my 85mm, but I understand your use of the 24mm as well. I respect your work and your posts tend to be very insightful. BTW, the Betty Boop Portrait is a great example of moderate wide angle/normal FL portraiture!</p>

<p>RS</p>

[bambang indrayoto]

<p>you will not be able to understand it with 1.8 D. Thou must have the 1.4 version... </p><div></div>

[Brad_]

>>> What people don't understand is that portraits can be taken with any lens as long as the work is

good and says something. Most portraits taken with the classic lenses are just plain boring and

lifeless.<P>

 

Yes! That notion comes up several times a week.There is no classic portrait lens, Unless ascribing labels are important to one's photography. Speaking of

boring and lifeless, the difference between that and good portraiture is directly driven by subject

engagement.<P>

 

Those that doubt should look at Laura Wilson's <I>Avedon at Work - In the American West</i>."

Wilson was one of Avedon's assistants during the time that body of work was being compiled, in the

early '80s. She also chronicled the event with stories and photographs of Avedon at work engaging his subjects, which then became

the subject of her book. Though he shot in 8x10, you can see from her photos how close he was

working. Engagement was key.<P>

 

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images54/Mark.jpg"><P><P>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images54/Freddie.jpg">

[rodeo_joe1]

<p>"Two of the best lenses ever made in this category were the Zeiss Biotar 75mm f/1.5........"</p>

<p>I owned and used this lens 40 years ago, and it was an old design even then! At that time it was my favourite lens, but I must admit that wide open the image quality wasn't up to much. The 85mm AiS f/2 Nikkor absolutely trounces it for wide-open picture quality, and given the difference in light transmission between their coatings the Nikkor would probably allow the same shutter-speed at f/2 as the Biotar at f/1.5.</p>

<p>What I'm trying to say is: Don't be taken in by the "classic", vintage or rarity status of the old 75mm Biotar (AKA Jena B). It really is a very ordinary lens by today's standards, and most modern designs will eat it for breakfast - even the budget Samyang 85mm f/1.4. It's certainly not worth going out of your way to find one of these old lenses and adapt it to a Nikon fit or anything silly like that.</p>

[pbjef]

<p>@ Richard Snow </p>

<p>Oh Gosh, no offense meant or taken.</p>

<p>I'm a little like Lisa myself wondering what the difference is in 15mm. I think it really comes down to what you have and what you are used to using and your success with both or neither in my case. I have a 70-200mm that I just set at 85 or 100 and honestly, both are acceptable to me. But then again, I'm not comfortable with either focal length because I like the feel of the 50 and 24 for my style and I don't have that much room to shoot. I probably should just get a 100 or 85 and shoot with it for a year solid and see what I like. I did just buy a 135mm in hopes of working it into my arsenal. But I may end up selling it because I don't like it. </p>

<p>I think whatever Lisa likes or uses and is comfortable with and gets her goals accomplished is the best lens. </p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I don't need to defend the Biotar lenses. The market value alone shows what the broader world thinks of them.</p>

<p>To say it is "ordinary" is just sheer unjustified nihilism.</p>

[michael_bradtke]

<p><br /><br /><br>

The classic portrait lenses (85 105 135) where/are chosen<br />for a reason. If you start out with an 85 place yourself far enough away from<br />your subject to get a full length shot. When you move to a 105 you now have a<br />3/4 shot from the same position. Change to a 135 and you are now at a head and shoulders.<br>

Does that mean you have to use those lenses. Nope it sure doesn't.<br />The 85 f/1.8 is a fine all purpose lens that does wonderful work as a portrait<br />lens.<br>

Shoot it and have fun don't get hung up by all the rules<br>

<br /><br /></p>

 

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I like 45mm for a whole body shot, 85mm for head and shoulders, and 135mm for a head shot. But then there is a lot of leeway depending on what else you want to show. In the context of a "portrait lens", it is implied that a head and shoulders or similar shot is intended, not an environmental portrait. And the reason why this is so is very simple: when you do a tight close-up of the face, different optical characteristics is desired than when you do a whole body or environmental shot. In an environmental shot you want the lens to be sharp so you can see the subject clearly even though they may not be all that large in the frame. But in a head and shoulders or a head shot, you typically want a lens that doesn't give a very harsh micro-contrast. Thus in the 85mm-135mm lens category, two types of lenses are common: the macro lenses intended for flowers etc. where you want the details as sharply rendered as possible, and then the portrait lenses which tried to hide blemishes. Also there are differences in bokeh between the two. In other focal lengths there was no need to deliberately make a lens render details with a soft contrast, as the human subjects were not typically photographed as a tight head shot with a wide angle, for example.</p>

<p>Today it doesn't matter as much as the blemishes in the skin can be photoshopped out, if desired. But I still love the DC Nikkors for their rendering.</p>

[lalon_karim]

<p>Copied from another forum in which I posted:<br /> "I personally think that, for showing a face on a photograph to represent how the face is recalled/ remembered by us, we have to shoot that person from a distance that is equal to the height of of his/ her eye level (from the ground). This is only a theory, and not a scientific one, so there is no proof available to me. This theory implies that the shorter a person, the closer the distance from which u have to shoot to show the face as-is. It means thet we have to shoot children from a closer distance than adults. [bTW, the goal of photography (art) is not showing things as-is, a photographer (artist) has complete freedom of how he wants to show a person's face. This theory is for u only if u want to show a person's face as-is]."<br /> And here is a demonstration of the effect of subject distance for portrait:<br /> <a href="../leica-rangefinders-forum/00YXLF?start=60">http://www.photo.net/leica-rangefinders-forum/00YXLF?start=60</a></p>

[Paul Lewis1664881697]

<p>I have shot portraits with 24mm, 50mm and 85mm lenses, but the reason I prefer the 85mm F1.4 Nikkor lens when shooting head and shoulders portraits is because of the sharpness and the ability to isolate the subject from the background when shooting wide open. However, from my perspective this isn't always desirable... sometimes I want the environment to be included, so I need to either have a lot of light with the 85mm, or switch to the 50mm or 24mm.</p>

[bmm]

<p>The other side of this conversation of course, as it relates to 85mm lenses, is that their being stereotyped as 'portrait lenses' ignores their absolute excellence in certain conditions at taking landscape, nature, architecture or (non-people) urban images. With my 85/1.4 in fact I would guess only 25-30% of images taken are of people. The rest of the time I use it as an absolutely marvellous short-mid general purpose tele.</p>

[brendan_hohls]

<p>Something that is also important for me in lens choice for portrait work in my small home studio is how much I have to fight with my background to stop it from intruding.<br>

When I am shooting a full body shot then I don't have as many options and am forced to go wider (probably to a 50mm f/1.8 or sometimes the long end of a 20-35mm f/2.8), but I always battle to get a composition where something that I don't want in the background (edge of the 3 metre wide backdrop etc.) doesn't intrude. When I can shoot a tighter portrait then I can go for an 85mm and spend more time getting the model's facial expression right without worrying as much about what might be intruding.<br>

I always have a range of lenses at my disposal just in case, but I find it least stressful to be able to go to either a 85mm or 105mm focal length.<br>

An environmental portrait is obviously a different kettle of fish and wider often is easier - not to say that a mild telephoto lens won't be usable though.</p>