How is 24-70/2.8 for head and shoulder shots?

[anuragagnihotri]

Does a better minimum focussing distance help?

regards,

anurag

[kohanmike]

<p>What camera are you using? For full frame, the long standing focal length for head shots is 105mm, which is more flattering because it "flattens" the image nicely. Many people use 135mm to 180mm. On a Dx camera, that would be 70mm, 202.5mm, 270mm. If you're using a Dx camera, the 24-70mm set at 70mm would be fine. On my D300s Dx I use a Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 zoom (equivalent to 75-225) so I can have the versatility of various focal lengths.</p>

[kylebybee]

<p>Hey Michael, I have a D7000 with the Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Nikon 35 f/1.8, Tamron 70-300 f/4-5.6, and last the Tokina 11-16. I'm going FF in the next 6 months or so and was wondering about the 50-150 and how you like it on portraits. I'm going FF for portrait work and don't know if I should invest in anymore DX lenses, but that Sigma does intrigue me.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>I use the 24-70 for full body, couples and singles, 2/3 and 1/2 body shots but not head and shoulders, for which I think 85mm or 105mm is more appropriate (my favorite is 105mm but I often use the 85mm); this is on FX. For DX I think the 24-70 would be appropriate for even head and shoulders portraits (as well as ones showing more of the subject). On FX you'd probably want to crop somewhat if you want a tight head and shoulders shot from a comfortable distance; on the D800(E) this isn't so much a problem but still I prefer to use a slightly longer lens.</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

Thanks.

I shoot FX.

[luke_kaven]

<p>The 24-70 does focus close enough for a full-face portrait at 70mm. I do not recommend using this lens for portraits, though -- (i) 70mm is not long enough for a flattering perspective, (ii) it has pincushion distortion, (iii) it has substandard bokeh. The lens is very sharp though, and has excellent contrast. But it isn't a portrait lens in any "pretty" sense. The 85/1.8g is a good tool for head-and-shoulders portraits (and a real bargain for a lens that performs in the upper tier). The 105/2 DC is a classic portrait lens. At closest focus, it would be a little shorter than 105mm. </p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>(i) 70mm is not long enough for a flattering perspective</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Why is it necessary to have a "flattering perspective"? Should everyone shoot with the exact same "flattering perspective"?</p>

[luke_kaven]

<p>I didn't say anything about what "everyone" ought to do. The OP asked about head-and-shoulders portraits, presumably with the intent to do many of them. I have to factor distortion into the formula, as well as social working distance. A better 70mm might do well, but it isn't exactly a bold departure from common practice! I've never thought a great 70mm would give me something I couldn't already get. Feel free to suggest alternatives.</p>

<p>The 24-70 at 70mm close: pincushion distortion + nervous bokeh = looks very bad to my eye. I've made it work, but I wouldn't reach for it first.<br>

The 60mm AF-s micro: no distortion + good bokeh = looks great for fashion, etc., but less practical for head-and-shoulders<br>

The 85/1.8G: negligible distorion + good bokeh = great all-around for head-and-shoulders</p>

[eric_arnold]

<p>i prefer the 70-200 or 85mm. the 24-70 is a great lens, but it's just a little short for portraits. i dont find its bokeh as bad as luke does, but i also have better lenses for that, if that's what i'm after.</p>

[kohanmike]

<p>Kyle, let's not hijack this thread, you really should post your own question about using the Sigma 50-150.</p>

[pete_s.]

<p>It depends on how you frame your shot.</p>

<p>Do you want to take shots like the one you did here?<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/10937546</p>

<p>Then the 24-70 is way too short because you need to be very close to the subject.<br>

Also if you're doing paid work you might need a backdrop and it has to be larger when you use a wider lens.</p>

<p>The 70-200 would be the most flexible lens if you want a zoom. Otherwise I consider the 105mm to be the minimum starting point.</p>

 

[anuragagnihotri]

Hi, i asked this because every review of this lens mentions

that it is great for portraits. I also see many photographers

actually using it for the same.

As someone mentioned it, Ikka?, if framed a bit loosely, it

can be cropped.

[luke_kaven]

<p>Perhaps you could tell us more about what you want to do? For me, the 24-70 is an event lens to use when I don't have time to change lenses. Otherwise, for portraits, I always use a prime. The 70-200 is much better as a zoom that can be used for portraits than the 24-70. I'm not sure why loose framing and cropping is a good approach for you, unless you think you already want this lens and are looking for support for a decision you've already made. </p>

[anuragagnihotri]

Luke, just want to avoid too many purchases.

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>The 24-70 would be suitable for situations where you'd be mostly doing full body, half body portraits and possible event coverage, and then you'd sometimes just take the head shot by framing as closely as you can without being too close to the subject for distorted facial perspective and cropping in post to finalize the framing. But if you plan to do mostly head and shoulders shots and not event / full body / environmental portait shots then the 24-70 is not a good choice for the specialized work of head and shoulders shots.</p>

[pablito_pistola]

<p>The distortion is easily remedied, but yeah for head shots a longer lens is better...</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I use a 28-70 with a full-frame camera for most things, but not head shots. It's just too short, so you have to work too close for good perspective.</p>

<p>Why do you have to have a flattering perspective? You don't if you are shooting to please yourself. However, if your objective is to make your subjects feel good about themselves, big noses and receding ears probably won't be well received. For that matter, why use an off-camera flash, or flash at all? Make everyone look like Rahm Emanual.</p>

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>I use a 28-70 with a full-frame camera for most things, but not head shots. It's just too short, so you have to work too close for good perspective. It's a monster, but I use a 70-200, because I seldom carry a separate lens in the 90-105 category.</p>

<p>Why do you have to have a flattering perspective? You don't if you are shooting to please yourself. However, if your objective is to make your subjects feel good about themselves, big noses and receding ears probably won't be well received. For that matter, why use an off-camera flash, or flash at all? Make everyone look like Rahm Emanual.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>Edward, why don't you post a few examples of portraits you've taken so we can see what you are talking about. Personally, I've never had a problem with paid portraits, portraits taken for myself, with 24-70 lenses and with flash. But it would really help to see what you are talking about. (Some of mine can be seen at www.spirer.com)</p>

[anuragagnihotri]

Hi Edward,

I wasn't thinking about the head shots at all when i asked the

question. I was thinking about "head and shoulder"/waist up

shots. I guess situation changes a bit then?

Also, If a 24-70 is used on a crop body, then you are

effectively shooting at 105mm...dof apart, the perspective

should then be flattering perhaps, even for head shots.

[Ed_Ingold]

<p>Perspective is a function of distance, not focal length or format size. A 24-70 works perfectly well for waist-up shots, because you would shoot from at least 6' away. An head and shoulder shot at 70mm on a full-frame camera would be from about 3', which (IMO) moves the ears toward the back of the head and exaggerates the nose.</p>

[rastislav__virik]

<p>You can shoot portraits with almost any focal lenght, depends on what suits your style</p>