Show me your portraits @35mm!

**d.bradley** · 09-29-2009, 10:35 AM

I started a thread a while back on the suitability of 35mm lenses for portraits. For the second time I went on a camping trip this summer and took only my 35/2 SMC Takumar, and I came out with nice portraits indeed.

Have any portraits at 35mm? Post up with lens info!

Both shot at with the 35/2 SMC Takumar @f2.8 on my K10D

dave9t5 · 10-04-2009, 07:47 AM

35mm (on APS-C) is a nice length for half-body shots and/or environmental portraits.

All with DA 35mm Ltd:

f/3.2, ISO800

f/2.8, ISO800

f/4, ISO1600, 1/10s

f/3.2, ISO800

f/4, ISO800

...and to mix it up, one from 26mm (DA-L 18-55)

f/5.6, ISO400

**d.bradley** · 10-04-2009, 10:03 AM

Nice shots! I really like the composition of the last one! I don't like to go wider than 35 on APS-C. The 35/2.8 macro looks like a reasonable portrait lens. I was worried about not getting shallow enough DOF at f2.8 with that lens...but then again I guess I don't shoot above that aperture with my 35/2 takumar anyway.

Thanks for sharing!

dave9t5 · 10-04-2009, 05:24 PM

Originally posted by d.bradley

Nice shots! I really like the composition of the last one! I don't like to go wider than 35 on APS-C. The 35/2.8 macro looks like a reasonable portrait lens. I was worried about not getting shallow enough DOF at f2.8 with that lens...but then again I guess I don't shoot above that aperture with my 35/2 takumar anyway.

Thanks for sharing!

Thanks for your kind comments.

Focal length is highly over-rated for portraits for 2 reasons.

First, distance to subject is more important.

For most of the shots above, if I cropped the images by 50% (i.e. cropping the subjects to head & shoulders), then the resulting FOV would be equal to shooting the same subject from the same distance at 70mm (or 52mm for the last image) which is a typical 'portrait' FL on APS-C.

Second, typical long 'portrait' FL's (such as 70~135mm) are chosen to de-exaggerate the subjects' facial features...which is a Euro-centric approach.

Longer FL's are fine for flattening a more European head (or any ethnicity) that has a narrow face + large nose. But many of my Asian subjects' faces are the opposite, wide-faces + small eyes and nose, and too long an FL further flattens their faces. I find wider FL's give more depth and character to Asian (or any wide/flat face).

For example, these 2 images were composed with the same subject size, only one at 18mm (left) and the other at 55mm (a moderate 'portrait' length) right. The latter does flatten but does not flatter the subject who already has an unusually wide face.

The longer FL does crop the distractions out of the background nicely.

hanamai · 10-04-2009, 05:58 PM

Very interesting and informative. It just makes sense and your photos emphasize your points very well. While the first photo doesn't have that typical separation from b/g that's common in portraits, the subject definately pops right out in the photo. The second one, well... there's the separation from b/g, but unfortunately very much at the cost of flattering the subject. I love that first one! And I love her expression in the second.

Originally posted by dave9t5

Thanks for your kind comments.

Focal length is highly over-rated for portraits for 2 reasons.

First, distance to subject is more important.

For most of the shots above, if I cropped the images by 50% (i.e. cropping the subjects to head & shoulders), then the resulting FOV would be equal to shooting the same subject from the same distance at 70mm (or 52mm for the last image) which is a typical 'portrait' FL on APS-C.

Second, typical long 'portrait' FL's (such as 70~135mm) are chosen to de-exaggerate the subjects' facial features...which is a Euro-centric approach.

Longer FL's are fine for flattening a more European head (or any ethnicity) that has a narrow face + large nose. But many of my Asian subjects' faces are the opposite, wide-faces + small eyes and nose, and too long an FL further flattens their faces. I find wider FL's give more depth and character to Asian (or any wide/flat face).

For example, these 2 images were composed with the same subject size, only one at 18mm (left) and the other at 55mm (a moderate 'portrait' length) right. The latter does flatten but does not flatter the subject who already has an unusually wide face.

The longer FL does crop the distractions out of the background nicely.

**d.bradley** · 10-04-2009, 06:05 PM

It's amazing the perception that 35mm is too wide, even on APS-C, for portraits. I've used 50mm on film a bunch, I personally love the length for people shots!

dave9t5 · 10-05-2009, 11:05 AM

Originally posted by hanamai

Very interesting and informative. It just makes sense and your photos emphasize your points very well. While the first photo doesn't have that typical separation from b/g that's common in portraits, the subject definately pops right out in the photo. The second one, well... there's the separation from b/g, but unfortunately very much at the cost of flattering the subject. I love that first one! And I love her expression in the second.

Thanks for your comments. Using the wide-angle lenses, I have to pick the background a bit more carefully. With long lenses, I get her to turn her head about 30-45 degrees from head-on which brings makes her cheeks look narrower as well as adding depth to her face.

She is a ham indeed, one of my best subjects.

dave9t5 · 10-05-2009, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by d.bradley

It's amazing the perception that 35mm is too wide, even on APS-C, for portraits. I've used 50mm on film a bunch, I personally love the length for people shots!

Heck, let's not stop at 35mm...

K24mm lens on 135 film (16mm in APS-C FOV)

Zenitar 16mm fisheye on digital (~14mm in rectilinear FOV)

(too bad about the exposure, the RTF does not play well with that lens).

PrimeObjectif · 10-06-2009, 08:36 AM

d.bradley, this thread was the stimulus for my lates photo blog entry--thanks!!! I think 35mm lenses are perfectly suitable for portraits among plenty of other photos.

The first two were taken with a K10D/FA 35; the others are with a K20D/DA35.

(1/50, f/2, ISO 400)

(1/15, f/2, ISO 400)

(1/30, f/3.5, ISO 200)

(1/500, f/2.8, ISO 200)

(1/13, f/3.5, ISO 400--focus is off, I know

)

(1/1250, f/4, ISO 100)

a a i b · 10-06-2009, 10:15 AM

DA 35, f/4, 1/60

djbrown · 10-13-2009, 06:44 AM

nice shots.... good job.

twilight_samurai · 10-14-2009, 08:46 PM

Dunno if you'd consider the first photo as a portrait but I like the perspective. Also, both images were cropped to focus more on the subject.

heliphoto · 10-14-2009, 09:43 PM

A couple from chasing my son around with the DA 35mm on the K-7...

f/5

f/2.8

**ramair455** · 10-14-2009, 10:47 PM

Brandy beauty head shot
SMC-M 35 2.0 @ f8 K10
22" Norman pan with silver chin reflector/white seemless

09-29-2009, 10:35 AM	#1
d.bradley Site Supporter	Show me your portraits @35mm! I started a thread a while back on the suitability of 35mm lenses for portraits. For the second time I went on a camping trip this summer and took only my 35/2 SMC Takumar, and I came out with nice portraits indeed. Have any portraits at 35mm? Post up with lens info! Both shot at with the 35/2 SMC Takumar @f2.8 on my K10D

10-13-2009, 06:44 AM	#11
djbrown New Member	hi nice shots.... good job.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version E-mail to a Friend	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Pentax and Samsung a "no show" at the photo show	Nightman	Pentax News and Rumors	16	08-15-2010 07:32 PM
Full Length Portraits 31mm or 35mm	lawjbm	Photographic Technique	9	09-25-2009 06:51 AM
Houston Auto Show (self portraits) 2 imgs	rfortson	Post your photos!	1	03-07-2009 06:55 AM
Air show or should I say Tank Show	jbrowning	Post your photos!	4	10-05-2008 09:59 PM
Car Show "abstracts" Greenwich Show	mutley	Post your photos!	16	06-22-2007 10:59 AM

10-04-2009, 07:47 AM	#2
dave9t5 Senior Member	35mm (on APS-C) is a nice length for half-body shots and/or environmental portraits. All with DA 35mm Ltd: f/3.2, ISO800 f/2.8, ISO800 f/4, ISO1600, 1/10s f/3.2, ISO800 f/4, ISO800 ...and to mix it up, one from 26mm (DA-L 18-55) f/5.6, ISO400

10-04-2009, 10:03 AM	#3
d.bradley Site Supporter	Nice shots! I really like the composition of the last one! I don't like to go wider than 35 on APS-C. The 35/2.8 macro looks like a reasonable portrait lens. I was worried about not getting shallow enough DOF at f2.8 with that lens...but then again I guess I don't shoot above that aperture with my 35/2 takumar anyway. Thanks for sharing!

10-04-2009, 05:24 PM	#4
dave9t5 Senior Member	Originally posted by d.bradley Nice shots! I really like the composition of the last one! I don't like to go wider than 35 on APS-C. The 35/2.8 macro looks like a reasonable portrait lens. I was worried about not getting shallow enough DOF at f2.8 with that lens...but then again I guess I don't shoot above that aperture with my 35/2 takumar anyway. Thanks for sharing! Thanks for your kind comments. Focal length is highly over-rated for portraits for 2 reasons. First, distance to subject is more important. For most of the shots above, if I cropped the images by 50% (i.e. cropping the subjects to head & shoulders), then the resulting FOV would be equal to shooting the same subject from the same distance at 70mm (or 52mm for the last image) which is a typical 'portrait' FL on APS-C. Second, typical long 'portrait' FL's (such as 70~135mm) are chosen to de-exaggerate the subjects' facial features...which is a Euro-centric approach. Longer FL's are fine for flattening a more European head (or any ethnicity) that has a narrow face + large nose. But many of my Asian subjects' faces are the opposite, wide-faces + small eyes and nose, and too long an FL further flattens their faces. I find wider FL's give more depth and character to Asian (or any wide/flat face). For example, these 2 images were composed with the same subject size, only one at 18mm (left) and the other at 55mm (a moderate 'portrait' length) right. The latter does flatten but does not flatter the subject who already has an unusually wide face. The longer FL does crop the distractions out of the background nicely.

10-04-2009, 05:58 PM	#5
hanamai Senior Member	Very interesting and informative. It just makes sense and your photos emphasize your points very well. While the first photo doesn't have that typical separation from b/g that's common in portraits, the subject definately pops right out in the photo. The second one, well... there's the separation from b/g, but unfortunately very much at the cost of flattering the subject. I love that first one! And I love her expression in the second. Originally posted by dave9t5 Thanks for your kind comments. Focal length is highly over-rated for portraits for 2 reasons. First, distance to subject is more important. For most of the shots above, if I cropped the images by 50% (i.e. cropping the subjects to head & shoulders), then the resulting FOV would be equal to shooting the same subject from the same distance at 70mm (or 52mm for the last image) which is a typical 'portrait' FL on APS-C. Second, typical long 'portrait' FL's (such as 70~135mm) are chosen to de-exaggerate the subjects' facial features...which is a Euro-centric approach. Longer FL's are fine for flattening a more European head (or any ethnicity) that has a narrow face + large nose. But many of my Asian subjects' faces are the opposite, wide-faces + small eyes and nose, and too long an FL further flattens their faces. I find wider FL's give more depth and character to Asian (or any wide/flat face). For example, these 2 images were composed with the same subject size, only one at 18mm (left) and the other at 55mm (a moderate 'portrait' length) right. The latter does flatten but does not flatter the subject who already has an unusually wide face. The longer FL does crop the distractions out of the background nicely.

10-04-2009, 06:05 PM	#6
d.bradley Site Supporter	It's amazing the perception that 35mm is too wide, even on APS-C, for portraits. I've used 50mm on film a bunch, I personally love the length for people shots!

10-05-2009, 11:05 AM	#7
dave9t5 Senior Member	Originally posted by hanamai Very interesting and informative. It just makes sense and your photos emphasize your points very well. While the first photo doesn't have that typical separation from b/g that's common in portraits, the subject definately pops right out in the photo. The second one, well... there's the separation from b/g, but unfortunately very much at the cost of flattering the subject. I love that first one! And I love her expression in the second. Thanks for your comments. Using the wide-angle lenses, I have to pick the background a bit more carefully. With long lenses, I get her to turn her head about 30-45 degrees from head-on which brings makes her cheeks look narrower as well as adding depth to her face. She is a ham indeed, one of my best subjects.

10-05-2009, 11:11 AM	#8
dave9t5 Senior Member	Originally posted by d.bradley It's amazing the perception that 35mm is too wide, even on APS-C, for portraits. I've used 50mm on film a bunch, I personally love the length for people shots! Heck, let's not stop at 35mm... K24mm lens on 135 film (16mm in APS-C FOV) Zenitar 16mm fisheye on digital (~14mm in rectilinear FOV) (too bad about the exposure, the RTF does not play well with that lens).

10-06-2009, 08:36 AM	#9
PrimeObjectif Veteran Member	d.bradley, this thread was the stimulus for my lates photo blog entry--thanks!!! I think 35mm lenses are perfectly suitable for portraits among plenty of other photos. The first two were taken with a K10D/FA 35; the others are with a K20D/DA35. (1/50, f/2, ISO 400) (1/15, f/2, ISO 400) (1/30, f/3.5, ISO 200) (1/500, f/2.8, ISO 200) (1/13, f/3.5, ISO 400--focus is off, I know ) (1/1250, f/4, ISO 100)

10-06-2009, 10:15 AM	#10
a a i b Veteran Member	DA 35, f/4, 1/60

10-14-2009, 08:46 PM	#12
twilight_samurai Senior Member	Dunno if you'd consider the first photo as a portrait but I like the perspective. Also, both images were cropped to focus more on the subject.

10-14-2009, 09:43 PM	#13
heliphoto Veteran Member	A couple from chasing my son around with the DA 35mm on the K-7... f/5 f/2.8

10-14-2009, 10:47 PM	#14
ramair455 Site Supporter	Brandy beauty head shot SMC-M 35 2.0 @ f8 K10 22" Norman pan with silver chin reflector/white seemless