Portrait Lens Alternative?

**germar** · 11-21-2007, 07:02 AM

Folks:

After reviewing several threads about portrait lenses and what length is best, it seems many users like something in the 85 mm area. This agreement seems to be backed up by obvious price spike on 85 mm glass on the auction sites.

I understand the reasons why a longer lens like 85mm is used for portraits, but considering the 1.5x change introduced by non full frame sensors, it seems that 85 is really 128 mm and much longer than what portrait shooters really want.

My question is this: Pentax made a 55mm 1.8 SMC Takumar lens that (I think) rivals any of the fast 50s in image quality and contrast. Figuring in the smaller sensor, the 55mm should shoot like a 82mm lens on a full frame 35.

The 55 mm relatively cheap on ebay, perhaps because it's an "oddball" length. It's a nice lens and is just a few mm short of the magic 85mm that many target for portraits figuring 1.5x. Is there some other quality that makes "real" 85s preferable over a low cost alternative like the Takumar SMC 55mm 1.8 for portrait work?

Thanks,

germar

truonganh · 12-13-2007, 10:13 PM

It's a concept that's often misunderstood. The reason 85+ is chosen is because of perspective and depth of field for human subject. the smaller digital sensor simply perform a "crop", it does not change the perspective & DOF at all. Hope that helps.

Mechan1k · 12-14-2007, 03:35 AM

I am actually finding my Tamron 90mm quite a nice longer portait lens

RBellavance · 12-14-2007, 05:49 AM

Perspective depends only on the distance to the subject.

The angle of view of a 55mm on a 1.5 crop camera is the same as that of an 85mm on a "full frame" camera.

Therefore, you will be at the same distance with either kit.

Ergo, the perspective will be the same.

Or is there something I misunderstood ?

Matt Miller · 12-14-2007, 06:21 AM

Originally posted by RBellavance

Perspective depends only on the distance to the subject.

So are you saying that if I take a photo with a 16mm lens and a 200mm lens, both 4 feet from a subject, that the perspective will be the same? I don't think so.

RBellavance · 12-14-2007, 07:32 AM

It's somewhat counterintuitive, but it's true:

Perspective distortion (photography) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Groundloop · 12-14-2007, 01:31 PM

I'm glad this came up. The confusion that swirls around focal lengths on different formats seems to have gotten worse since most of us (and I include myself, as well as many manufacturers) have stopped using the term "equivalent angle of view", and defaulted to the easier to understand, but less accurate "equivalent focal length". As was mentioned previously, angle of view is just a part of what makes a particular focal length 'look' the way it does.

As a sidebar, I just looked at the exif data for a portrait shoot I did of my friend Paula last month. Using the DA 50-200 all of the head and shoulders shots were done at focal lengths between 80mm and 115mm, averaging just shy 100mm.

**Lowell Goudge** · 12-14-2007, 03:26 PM

Originally posted by RBellavance

Perspective depends only on the distance to the subject.

The angle of view of a 55mm on a 1.5 crop camera is the same as that of an 85mm on a "full frame" camera.

Therefore, you will be at the same distance with either kit.

Ergo, the perspective will be the same.

Or is there something I misunderstood ?

You are pretty close.

As someone has stated, perspective is a function of image to lens distance. What people forget is that when they look in a view finder, to get the same image size (in the view finder) with a shorter lens, then they move in closer. it is that movement that alters perspective. If, on the otherhand, you shoot both a 55 (with ASP-C sensor) and 85 (on film) from the same distance and print the images on the same size paper, they will be identical in terms of size and perspective.

You can also take a telephoto and a wide angle, shoot something from the same distance and then enlarge and crop the wide angle shot to show the same field of view and again the perspective will tbe the same (it is just that that moch crop and enlargement produces a really bad image,

m8o · 12-14-2007, 07:07 PM

Matt, this link as well serves to support everyone explaining that/how perspective is only a function of distance from the subject and nothing else:
Perspective: Optical: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review

This link above states that if the 16mm and 200mm lenses were in the same position and you cropped the picture taken with the 16mm so the subject is the same size as the subject taken with the 200mm lens, they would be the same perspective. ... that is what this page says, and shows, too.

benjikan · 12-14-2007, 08:27 PM

Originally posted by germar

Folks:

After reviewing several threads about portrait lenses and what length is best, it seems many users like something in the 85 mm area. This agreement seems to be backed up by obvious price spike on 85 mm glass on the auction sites.

I understand the reasons why a longer lens like 85mm is used for portraits, but considering the 1.5x change introduced by non full frame sensors, it seems that 85 is really 128 mm and much longer than what portrait shooters really want.

My question is this: Pentax made a 55mm 1.8 SMC Takumar lens that (I think) rivals any of the fast 50s in image quality and contrast. Figuring in the smaller sensor, the 55mm should shoot like a 82mm lens on a full frame 35.

The 55 mm relatively cheap on ebay, perhaps because it's an "oddball" length. It's a nice lens and is just a few mm short of the magic 85mm that many target for portraits figuring 1.5x. Is there some other quality that makes "real" 85s preferable over a low cost alternative like the Takumar SMC 55mm 1.8 for portrait work?

Thanks,

germar

Why not the DA 50 1.4 Lens. It is awesome for portraits. Medium telephoto, fast, sharp and compact.

Ben

Mike Cash · 12-14-2007, 09:22 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

Why not the DA 50 1.4 Lens. It is awesome for portraits. Medium telephoto, fast, sharp and compact.

Ben

You're going to start another uproar.....

**Canada_Rockies** · 12-15-2007, 01:29 AM

Originally posted by Matt Miller

So are you saying that if I take a photo with a 16mm lens and a 200mm lens, both 4 feet from a subject, that the perspective will be the same? I don't think so.

As long as both lenses are rectilinear (the 16 is not a fisheye), the perspective will be exactly the same. Even in the fisheye, the perspective is the same, it is just camouflaged by the distortions introduced by the lens design.

axl · 12-15-2007, 02:19 AM

Interresting reading here, very usefull, thanx for the info and links guys...

11-21-2007, 07:02 AM	#1
germar Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: North Palm Beach, Florida Photos: Gallery Posts: 728	Portrait Lens Alternative? Folks: After reviewing several threads about portrait lenses and what length is best, it seems many users like something in the 85 mm area. This agreement seems to be backed up by obvious price spike on 85 mm glass on the auction sites. I understand the reasons why a longer lens like 85mm is used for portraits, but considering the 1.5x change introduced by non full frame sensors, it seems that 85 is really 128 mm and much longer than what portrait shooters really want. My question is this: Pentax made a 55mm 1.8 SMC Takumar lens that (I think) rivals any of the fast 50s in image quality and contrast. Figuring in the smaller sensor, the 55mm should shoot like a 82mm lens on a full frame 35. The 55 mm relatively cheap on ebay, perhaps because it's an "oddball" length. It's a nice lens and is just a few mm short of the magic 85mm that many target for portraits figuring 1.5x. Is there some other quality that makes "real" 85s preferable over a low cost alternative like the Takumar SMC 55mm 1.8 for portrait work? Thanks, germar

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Alternative to kit lens	LucyGoosey	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	71	08-26-2010 02:23 PM
lost 31 lens cap - any alternative?	nostatic	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	10	07-20-2009 07:16 PM
pentax p-fa 35mm f/2 alternative lens hood	architorture	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	0	12-28-2008 01:55 AM
penta 16-50mm lens alternative	vincentgargano	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	12	05-05-2008 02:10 PM
Pentax 110 Slr Lens 50mm F2.8 Portrait Lens	danahauk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	12-19-2007 08:18 AM

12-13-2007, 10:13 PM	#2
truonganh Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Bay area, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 194	It's a concept that's often misunderstood. The reason 85+ is chosen is because of perspective and depth of field for human subject. the smaller digital sensor simply perform a "crop", it does not change the perspective & DOF at all. Hope that helps.

12-14-2007, 03:35 AM	#3
Mechan1k Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Sydney, Australia Posts: 2,891	I am actually finding my Tamron 90mm quite a nice longer portait lens

12-14-2007, 05:49 AM	#4
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	Perspective depends only on the distance to the subject. The angle of view of a 55mm on a 1.5 crop camera is the same as that of an 85mm on a "full frame" camera. Therefore, you will be at the same distance with either kit. Ergo, the perspective will be the same. Or is there something I misunderstood ?

12-14-2007, 06:21 AM	#5
Matt Miller Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Cambridge, Iowa Photos: Gallery Posts: 339	Originally posted by RBellavance Perspective depends only on the distance to the subject. So are you saying that if I take a photo with a 16mm lens and a 200mm lens, both 4 feet from a subject, that the perspective will be the same? I don't think so.

12-14-2007, 07:32 AM	#6
RBellavance Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Near Montréal, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,716	It's somewhat counterintuitive, but it's true: Perspective distortion (photography) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

12-14-2007, 01:31 PM	#7
Groundloop Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Toronto, Canada Photos: Gallery Posts: 236	I'm glad this came up. The confusion that swirls around focal lengths on different formats seems to have gotten worse since most of us (and I include myself, as well as many manufacturers) have stopped using the term "equivalent angle of view", and defaulted to the easier to understand, but less accurate "equivalent focal length". As was mentioned previously, angle of view is just a part of what makes a particular focal length 'look' the way it does. As a sidebar, I just looked at the exif data for a portrait shoot I did of my friend Paula last month. Using the DA 50-200 all of the head and shoulders shots were done at focal lengths between 80mm and 115mm, averaging just shy 100mm.

12-14-2007, 03:26 PM	#8
Lowell Goudge Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Toronto Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 17,888	Originally posted by RBellavance Perspective depends only on the distance to the subject. The angle of view of a 55mm on a 1.5 crop camera is the same as that of an 85mm on a "full frame" camera. Therefore, you will be at the same distance with either kit. Ergo, the perspective will be the same. Or is there something I misunderstood ? You are pretty close. As someone has stated, perspective is a function of image to lens distance. What people forget is that when they look in a view finder, to get the same image size (in the view finder) with a shorter lens, then they move in closer. it is that movement that alters perspective. If, on the otherhand, you shoot both a 55 (with ASP-C sensor) and 85 (on film) from the same distance and print the images on the same size paper, they will be identical in terms of size and perspective. You can also take a telephoto and a wide angle, shoot something from the same distance and then enlarge and crop the wide angle shot to show the same field of view and again the perspective will tbe the same (it is just that that moch crop and enlargement produces a really bad image,

12-14-2007, 07:07 PM	#9
m8o Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: 40°-55'-44" N / 73°-24'-07" W [on LI] Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,092	Matt, this link as well serves to support everyone explaining that/how perspective is only a function of distance from the subject and nothing else: Perspective: Optical: Glossary: Learn: Digital Photography Review This link above states that if the 16mm and 200mm lenses were in the same position and you cropped the picture taken with the 16mm so the subject is the same size as the subject taken with the 200mm lens, they would be the same perspective. ... that is what this page says, and shows, too.

12-14-2007, 08:27 PM	#10
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308	Originally posted by germar Folks: After reviewing several threads about portrait lenses and what length is best, it seems many users like something in the 85 mm area. This agreement seems to be backed up by obvious price spike on 85 mm glass on the auction sites. I understand the reasons why a longer lens like 85mm is used for portraits, but considering the 1.5x change introduced by non full frame sensors, it seems that 85 is really 128 mm and much longer than what portrait shooters really want. My question is this: Pentax made a 55mm 1.8 SMC Takumar lens that (I think) rivals any of the fast 50s in image quality and contrast. Figuring in the smaller sensor, the 55mm should shoot like a 82mm lens on a full frame 35. The 55 mm relatively cheap on ebay, perhaps because it's an "oddball" length. It's a nice lens and is just a few mm short of the magic 85mm that many target for portraits figuring 1.5x. Is there some other quality that makes "real" 85s preferable over a low cost alternative like the Takumar SMC 55mm 1.8 for portrait work? Thanks, germar Why not the DA 50 1.4 Lens. It is awesome for portraits. Medium telephoto, fast, sharp and compact. Ben

12-14-2007, 09:22 PM	#11
Mike Cash Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Japan Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,950	Originally posted by benjikan Why not the DA 50 1.4 Lens. It is awesome for portraits. Medium telephoto, fast, sharp and compact. Ben You're going to start another uproar.....

12-15-2007, 01:29 AM	#12
Canada_Rockies Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 12,385	Originally posted by Matt Miller So are you saying that if I take a photo with a 16mm lens and a 200mm lens, both 4 feet from a subject, that the perspective will be the same? I don't think so. As long as both lenses are rectilinear (the 16 is not a fisheye), the perspective will be exactly the same. Even in the fisheye, the perspective is the same, it is just camouflaged by the distortions introduced by the lens design.

12-15-2007, 02:19 AM	#13
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	Interresting reading here, very usefull, thanx for the info and links guys...