What is the Best Focal Length for a Portrait Lens?

Biro · 12-18-2011, 05:11 PM

1) DA* 50-135 if you can afford it and don't mind a lens that big and heavy (or are using a tripod)

2) D FA 100 macro

3) DA 70 Limited

4) DA* 55

SylBer · 12-18-2011, 05:41 PM

I own some of the lens mentioned by pp and her is my tak on them:

DA* 50-135
Excellent overall. Sharp and razor sharp between 70 and 85mm. Bokeh is very good, but not as creamy as I expected. Colors are a little oversaturated, but it can be fixed in PP.

FA 50 1.4
Excellent bokeh and very sharp from f2.0 on. However, I feel it is not quite long enough to completely eliminate the "big nose small ears" effect.

K 85 1.8
Extraordinary bokeh and very sharp from f2.0 on. No "big nose small ears effect". Hard to focus properly because of thin DOF.

Overall, I would say that the DA* 50-135 is my best bet if I don't need super creamy bokeh. It's flexible and reasonably fast.

Velja · 12-19-2011, 01:35 AM

Dear friends!
I found two lenses M42: Jupiter-IIA 136 / 4 and Chinonflex Auto Reflex 28 / 2:8. Kakov is your opinion about them. I have not tested them yet, but considering the written data Jupiter would have to be suitable for portrait photography? It seems to me to Chinon has too much "grip" 28mm?
Regards Velja

beholder3 · 12-19-2011, 04:42 AM

I can add the following:

For face-portraits I think the Sigma 85/1.4 is currently technically the best.
As far as character and fun of use is concerned the FA 77 seems unbeatable.

85mm on Crop is 135 on FF and that seems the upper limit of what usually is ok - but I know that even the 135mm can be handy. I just believe that this is less often so.

In smaller rooms (e.g. restaurants, home) you need to get closer to the subjects and there I found 43-50-55mm to be my friend. If I can walk about freely around groups of people 77-85 seems more handy.

If you have a very tolerating subject even 28 and 35 can produce impressive pictures. I found that if I want to stress the look of the eyes this is even then best way. Remember that 28-35 on crop again are around standard on FF and we all used to use 50mm on film also for portraits...

By the way IMHO the very best comparison of 85mm lenses can be found here:
Test_85mm
Test_85mm_portrait
The text is in french but either you simply understand the language or use Google translate or just have a look at the pictures. I think they are impressive and helpful without the need for any text.

RioRico · 12-19-2011, 05:12 PM

Originally posted by Velja

I found two lenses M42: Jupiter-IIA 136 / 4 and Chinonflex Auto Reflex 28 / 2:8. Kakov is your opinion about them. I have not tested them yet, but considering the written data Jupiter would have to be suitable for portrait photography? It seems to me to Chinon has too much "grip" 28mm?

The Jupiter will be good for headshots and faces from a distance. The 28mm will be good for full-body and group shots. For half-body and torso shots, 50-55mm would be better. For headshots in a small studio, 75-90mm would be better.

Velja · 12-20-2011, 02:04 AM

Hi,
Thanks for the advice. After testing, I will send photos to the expert analysis! By the way I'm still waiting founders of various tips on "wide angle". I would be immensely grateful to you, because they buy something and after that I am not satisfied it would be "a little crazy?"
Regards V

RioRico · 12-20-2011, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Velja

By the way I'm still waiting founders of various tips on "wide angle".

On an APS-C dSLR, 28-30mm is 'normal' or wide-normal; 18-25mm is wide; 16mm or shorter is ultra-wide-angle (UWA). Wide and UWA lenses are used in portraiture for 'context', to show where the subject is and what is around them. I use 28mm for landscapes or small-group shots; 18-24mm for interiors or larger-group shots; 14-16mm for smaller interiors or exaggerated vertical landscapes; and 10-12mm for very tight spaces. Those are just general guidelines. I use whatever works!

whojammyflip · 12-20-2011, 03:24 PM

I find on 35mm that a 100mm lens is ideal for what I want out of a photo, in terms of background to give context, but not too wide so that there is a confusion of information. This would mean something around 70mm on APS-C.

Why not get hold of a cheap zoom and try it out. I used to have a digital bridge and kept finding myself shooting at the equivalent of 135mm for tele shots. You wont miss the shallow depth of field. If you want a sharp photo, you will want to be shooting at f5.6. Even on a moderate tele, at f5.6, you will still get blurring of a background, if the subject is some distance from it.

**Kerrowdown** · 12-22-2011, 02:14 AM

This post caused me to think about my lens usage, I'm lucky enough to have a good lens selection available to me and in a working role I use whichever lens gets the job done. But my photography for pleasure where lens choice is more random, my usage has been quite surprising.

Over time (last few years) a lot more of my shooting has involved me being up close and using wider angles, I guess in my case bearing out Robert Capa's famous quote “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.”

In answer to the portrait focal length question, I'm appearing to go against the flow again here and using 135 & 200mm, but my work is never in studios where space issues would arise with these.

Drom · 12-22-2011, 04:09 AM

Originally posted by hoojammyflip

I find on 35mm that a 100mm lens is ideal for what I want out of a photo, in terms of background to give context, but not too wide so that there is a confusion of information. This would mean something around 70mm on APS-C.

Why not get hold of a cheap zoom and try it out. I used to have a digital bridge and kept finding myself shooting at the equivalent of 135mm for tele shots. You wont miss the shallow depth of field. If you want a sharp photo, you will want to be shooting at f5.6. Even on a moderate tele, at f5.6, you will still get blurring of a background, if the subject is some distance from it.

Thanks! That's exactly what I did. About a week ago I got an F 35-70mm to play around with because I didn't have anything in the 50-100mm range to try out. So this weekend if I have the time I am going to take lots of shots with it and with my FA 100mm macro.

I already took some equestrian portraits last weekend and they turned out surprisingly nice! I have a friend in town and will take some head shots of her and will get some portraits of her with my horses as well.

Drom · 12-22-2011, 04:19 AM

Quite a few of you seem to like the DA 50-135mm. I will have to go read up a bit on that one.

Drom · 04-14-2012, 12:13 PM

This is old thread, but I think I finally, just by chance, found my first real portrait type lens that fits the bill. (that's besides my FA100mm 2.8 which I mostly use for macro)
I was in a local camera store the other day rummaging through their used k mount lens box and one of guys there said, I think I have something for you. He pulled a small lens off of the shelf and handed it to me; an M 50mm 1.4, and it was in pristine condition. Clean as a whistle.They included a skylight filter for me and I snapped it up. This is my first manual lens and I am real excited to use it.

fuent104 · 04-14-2012, 04:23 PM

A used lens BOX? Were the lenses at least placed nicely in the box? I can't even imagine how awesome an M50 1.4 is. I had an M50 1.7, which was stolen, and it was extremely razor sharp. It blew me away.

jimr-pdx · 04-14-2012, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by Drom

Quite a few of you seem to like the DA 50-135mm. I will have to go read up a bit on that one.

A good choice while you decide is a 70-150 zoom. I don't "do" portraits but I really like images from my Rikenon, especially for the money. The SMC-M 75-150 also gets good reviews. A prime will do better work and be faster, but until you know your preferred portrait FL a talented bargain zoom will tide you over, and help you find your 'sweet spot'.

But if you can budget a 50-135, by all means!

Drom · 04-15-2012, 03:41 AM

Originally posted by fuent104

A used lens BOX? Were the lenses at least placed nicely in the box? I can't even imagine how awesome an M50 1.4 is. I had an M50 1.7, which was stolen, and it was extremely razor sharp. It blew me away.

Well, they are in plastic. bags but just laying on their sides in a plastic tote box. The 1.4 was up on the shelf. But they had some interesting old 3rd party k mount lenses in the box. There was Kiron, Tokina, Samyang, Vivitar, Tamron, and some other stuff. They also have lots of M42 lenses. They are a Cannikon store, so it is kind of surprising, but they have used lenses of all kinds there.

12-22-2011, 02:14 AM	#84
Kerrowdown PEG Moderator Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Highlands of Scotland... "Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand" - William Blake Photos: Gallery Posts: 57,863	This post caused me to think about my lens usage, I'm lucky enough to have a good lens selection available to me and in a working role I use whichever lens gets the job done. But my photography for pleasure where lens choice is more random, my usage has been quite surprising. Over time (last few years) a lot more of my shooting has involved me being up close and using wider angles, I guess in my case bearing out Robert Capa's famous quote “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.” In answer to the portrait focal length question, I'm appearing to go against the flow again here and using 135 & 200mm, but my work is never in studios where space issues would arise with these. Last edited by Kerrowdown; 12-22-2011 at 02:28 AM.

12-22-2011, 04:09 AM	#85
Drom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210 Original Poster	Originally posted by hoojammyflip I find on 35mm that a 100mm lens is ideal for what I want out of a photo, in terms of background to give context, but not too wide so that there is a confusion of information. This would mean something around 70mm on APS-C. Why not get hold of a cheap zoom and try it out. I used to have a digital bridge and kept finding myself shooting at the equivalent of 135mm for tele shots. You wont miss the shallow depth of field. If you want a sharp photo, you will want to be shooting at f5.6. Even on a moderate tele, at f5.6, you will still get blurring of a background, if the subject is some distance from it. Thanks! That's exactly what I did. About a week ago I got an F 35-70mm to play around with because I didn't have anything in the 50-100mm range to try out. So this weekend if I have the time I am going to take lots of shots with it and with my FA 100mm macro. I already took some equestrian portraits last weekend and they turned out surprisingly nice! I have a friend in town and will take some head shots of her and will get some portraits of her with my horses as well. Last edited by Drom; 12-22-2011 at 04:14 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Lens Focal Length Rip Off.	normhead	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	48	08-10-2011 05:41 PM
Portrait distance in relation to focal length	HoBykoYan	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	13	03-29-2011 12:44 PM
What is the True Focal Length of your IF lens?	Lowell Goudge	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	28	03-22-2011 04:04 PM
Pls help me find portrait/focal length series	newarts	Photographic Technique	3	01-23-2011 11:49 AM
Dust Alert and lens focal length	BobG	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	05-19-2010 08:47 AM

12-18-2011, 05:11 PM	#76
Biro Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Posts: 1,200	1) DA* 50-135 if you can afford it and don't mind a lens that big and heavy (or are using a tripod) 2) D FA 100 macro 3) DA 70 Limited 4) DA* 55

12-18-2011, 05:41 PM	#77
SylBer Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Quebec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210	I own some of the lens mentioned by pp and her is my tak on them: DA* 50-135 Excellent overall. Sharp and razor sharp between 70 and 85mm. Bokeh is very good, but not as creamy as I expected. Colors are a little oversaturated, but it can be fixed in PP. FA 50 1.4 Excellent bokeh and very sharp from f2.0 on. However, I feel it is not quite long enough to completely eliminate the "big nose small ears" effect. K 85 1.8 Extraordinary bokeh and very sharp from f2.0 on. No "big nose small ears effect". Hard to focus properly because of thin DOF. Overall, I would say that the DA* 50-135 is my best bet if I don't need super creamy bokeh. It's flexible and reasonably fast.

12-19-2011, 01:35 AM	#78
Velja Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Velenje Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 554	Dear friends! I found two lenses M42: Jupiter-IIA 136 / 4 and Chinonflex Auto Reflex 28 / 2:8. Kakov is your opinion about them. I have not tested them yet, but considering the written data Jupiter would have to be suitable for portrait photography? It seems to me to Chinon has too much "grip" 28mm? Regards Velja

12-19-2011, 04:42 AM	#79
beholder3 Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2011 Posts: 3,112	I can add the following: For face-portraits I think the Sigma 85/1.4 is currently technically the best. As far as character and fun of use is concerned the FA 77 seems unbeatable. 85mm on Crop is 135 on FF and that seems the upper limit of what usually is ok - but I know that even the 135mm can be handy. I just believe that this is less often so. In smaller rooms (e.g. restaurants, home) you need to get closer to the subjects and there I found 43-50-55mm to be my friend. If I can walk about freely around groups of people 77-85 seems more handy. If you have a very tolerating subject even 28 and 35 can produce impressive pictures. I found that if I want to stress the look of the eyes this is even then best way. Remember that 28-35 on crop again are around standard on FF and we all used to use 50mm on film also for portraits... By the way IMHO the very best comparison of 85mm lenses can be found here: Test_85mm Test_85mm_portrait The text is in french but either you simply understand the language or use Google translate or just have a look at the pictures. I think they are impressive and helpful without the need for any text.

12-19-2011, 05:12 PM	#80
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Velja I found two lenses M42: Jupiter-IIA 136 / 4 and Chinonflex Auto Reflex 28 / 2:8. Kakov is your opinion about them. I have not tested them yet, but considering the written data Jupiter would have to be suitable for portrait photography? It seems to me to Chinon has too much "grip" 28mm? The Jupiter will be good for headshots and faces from a distance. The 28mm will be good for full-body and group shots. For half-body and torso shots, 50-55mm would be better. For headshots in a small studio, 75-90mm would be better.

12-20-2011, 02:04 AM	#81
Velja Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: Velenje Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 554	Hi, Thanks for the advice. After testing, I will send photos to the expert analysis! By the way I'm still waiting founders of various tips on "wide angle". I would be immensely grateful to you, because they buy something and after that I am not satisfied it would be "a little crazy?" Regards V

12-20-2011, 11:57 AM	#82
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by Velja By the way I'm still waiting founders of various tips on "wide angle". On an APS-C dSLR, 28-30mm is 'normal' or wide-normal; 18-25mm is wide; 16mm or shorter is ultra-wide-angle (UWA). Wide and UWA lenses are used in portraiture for 'context', to show where the subject is and what is around them. I use 28mm for landscapes or small-group shots; 18-24mm for interiors or larger-group shots; 14-16mm for smaller interiors or exaggerated vertical landscapes; and 10-12mm for very tight spaces. Those are just general guidelines. I use whatever works!

12-20-2011, 03:24 PM	#83
whojammyflip Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 417	I find on 35mm that a 100mm lens is ideal for what I want out of a photo, in terms of background to give context, but not too wide so that there is a confusion of information. This would mean something around 70mm on APS-C. Why not get hold of a cheap zoom and try it out. I used to have a digital bridge and kept finding myself shooting at the equivalent of 135mm for tele shots. You wont miss the shallow depth of field. If you want a sharp photo, you will want to be shooting at f5.6. Even on a moderate tele, at f5.6, you will still get blurring of a background, if the subject is some distance from it.

12-22-2011, 04:19 AM	#86
Drom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210 Original Poster	Quite a few of you seem to like the DA 50-135mm. I will have to go read up a bit on that one.

04-14-2012, 12:13 PM	#87
Drom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210 Original Poster	This is old thread, but I think I finally, just by chance, found my first real portrait type lens that fits the bill. (that's besides my FA100mm 2.8 which I mostly use for macro) I was in a local camera store the other day rummaging through their used k mount lens box and one of guys there said, I think I have something for you. He pulled a small lens off of the shelf and handed it to me; an M 50mm 1.4, and it was in pristine condition. Clean as a whistle.They included a skylight filter for me and I snapped it up. This is my first manual lens and I am real excited to use it.

04-14-2012, 04:23 PM	#88
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	A used lens BOX? Were the lenses at least placed nicely in the box? I can't even imagine how awesome an M50 1.4 is. I had an M50 1.7, which was stolen, and it was extremely razor sharp. It blew me away.

04-14-2012, 04:45 PM	#89
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	Originally posted by Drom Quite a few of you seem to like the DA 50-135mm. I will have to go read up a bit on that one. A good choice while you decide is a 70-150 zoom. I don't "do" portraits but I really like images from my Rikenon, especially for the money. The SMC-M 75-150 also gets good reviews. A prime will do better work and be faster, but until you know your preferred portrait FL a talented bargain zoom will tide you over, and help you find your 'sweet spot'. But if you can budget a 50-135, by all means!

04-15-2012, 03:41 AM	#90
Drom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210 Original Poster	Originally posted by fuent104 A used lens BOX? Were the lenses at least placed nicely in the box? I can't even imagine how awesome an M50 1.4 is. I had an M50 1.7, which was stolen, and it was extremely razor sharp. It blew me away. Well, they are in plastic. bags but just laying on their sides in a plastic tote box. The 1.4 was up on the shelf. But they had some interesting old 3rd party k mount lenses in the box. There was Kiron, Tokina, Samyang, Vivitar, Tamron, and some other stuff. They also have lots of M42 lenses. They are a Cannikon store, so it is kind of surprising, but they have used lenses of all kinds there.