50mm 1.2 or 35mm 1.4 Which is best for Portraits

[eric_charpentier2]

<p>Right on Matt Laur !</p>

<p>Any picture taken witout good lihting will sucks ! therfore, being technical about f/something or focal lenght is irrelevent. Any lens from 28 to 200 mm will make great portrait if lighting is well controled.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<blockquote>

<p>" the nicely proportioned semi telephoto shot or the distorted wide angle shot*. ........<br>

.......<br />*<strong>And you get this effect irrespective of the distance of the camera from the subject</strong>, it is just not so obvious, so it is not a question about head and shoulder shots or not."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am shocked that anybody that claims to have worked as a cameraman and editor in film and TV for most of their life can say such inaccurate and incorrect rubbish.</p>

<p>Lenses do not make perspective, subject distance does. You can shoot a portrait with a 3mm lens on a phone but the perspective looks the same as a 50mm on a dslr because it is shot from the same distance. You can shoot a person with a 17 mm or a 200 mm lens on a dslr and if the subject distance is the same and you crop the 17 shot to give you the same framing the perspective is identical.</p>

<p>Don't believe me?....................</p><div></div>

[bebu_lamar]

<p>I think the OP got the message and didn't response.</p>

[marklcooper]

<p>While an 11 - 16 f/2.8 would not be my first choice for carefully posed portraiture, it's what I had the day this was taken. Composition sucks. It was a quick, get it while I can before the boys run off type of picture.</p><div></div>