What is the Best Focal Length for a Portrait Lens?

tuco · 12-12-2011, 05:42 PM

Another reason for a mild telephoto for head shot portraits, historically, is to not over-exaggerate large facial features such as noses.

Parallax · 12-12-2011, 05:42 PM

I interpret the results as being "anything between 28 and 135". i.e. there is no ideal or "best" FL.

audiobomber · 12-12-2011, 06:57 PM

ideal focal length for portraits - Google Search

liukaitc · 12-12-2011, 07:12 PM

Originally posted by Parallax

I interpret the results as being "anything between 28 and 135". i.e. there is no ideal or "best" FL.

ye..agree..
with my 50-135..I feel it cover most potrait focal length..but I still feel 28-50 would be more useful for indoor

Drom · 12-12-2011, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by RioRico

I just tabulated the recommendations above.
They're overwhelmingly for 50-55mm. Your mileage may vary.

Drom · 12-12-2011, 07:37 PM

It's interesting that most people are using the 50-55mm. When I look at the series of head shots that a few people here mentioned, the sample photos by Stephen Eastwood, I like the ones with a little more distance; 100mm+. But I suppose quite a lot of it has to do your subject. I think her face looked wider, more open and more attractive with the longer length.

It seems to me that for a head shot specifically, that perspective is critical. Perhaps not so much for different types of portraits, but if you are taking a close detailed, photo of someone's face, that you would want to eliminate any distortion and use the longer focal length.

All really great information-thanks very much.

liukaitc · 12-12-2011, 07:42 PM

actually..I like the look of 200mm a lot (135mm for aps-c)
but the 70mm (50mm for aps-c) look nice too..I mean really can not say which focal length look better....

ps: this is not my photo...

Last edited by liukaitc; 06-02-2013 at 12:04 PM.

audiobomber · 12-12-2011, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by Drom

It's interesting that most people are using the 50-55mm. When I look at the series of head shots that a few people here mentioned, the sample photos by Stephen Eastwood, I like the ones with a little more distance; 100mm+.

You need the D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR; portraits, fast telephoto, 1:1 macro, weather resistant, rounded aperture blades, metal construction, sharp, superb colour and contrast. Brilliant lens!

Drom · 12-12-2011, 08:08 PM

Originally posted by audiobomber

You need the D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR; portraits, fast telephoto, 1:1 macro, weather resistant, rounded aperture blades, metal construction, sharp, superb colour and contrast. Brilliant lens!

Well, you know, I have the FA 100mm 2.8 Macro. Just got it a few weeks back. I might try it out for some head shots and see what I come up with.

But that wouldn't give me any excuse to buy a new, sharp portrait lens.

twitch · 12-12-2011, 08:25 PM

DA*50-135 is a fantastic range for portraits.

fuent104 · 12-12-2011, 08:40 PM

The results from the 200 are beautiful. There are some practical concerns, though:

1. Will you be in a large enough space to create the distance between yourself and the subject?

2. Will you be using a tripod? This this focal length, you may have trouble holding the camera still enough if your subject is moving.

audiobomber · 12-12-2011, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by Drom

Well, you know, I have the FA 100mm 2.8 Macro. Just got it a few weeks back. I might try it out for some head shots and see what I come up with.

Definitely, go for it.

m42man · 12-13-2011, 12:29 AM

Originally posted by Parallax

I interpret the results as being "anything between 28 and 135". i.e. there is no ideal or "best" FL.

Well, I'd say that the wider end of that should be reserved purely for head+torso shots - if you get any closer (for a head+shoulders shot) you'll exaggerate facial features, and your subject won't be pleased (especially if he/she has a big nose!). Minimum FL for a head+shoulders shot would be not much below 50mm, really.

And the longer end should really be reserved for when you don't want to get too close, or if you deliberately want to play down facial features (like if the subject has that big nose again!).

RioRico · 12-13-2011, 03:31 AM

Originally posted by m42man

Well, I'd say that the wider end of that should be reserved purely for head+torso shots - if you get any closer (for a head+shoulders shot) you'll exaggerate facial features, and your subject won't be pleased (especially if he/she has a big nose!). Minimum FL for a head+shoulders shot would be not much below 50mm, really.

And the longer end should really be reserved for when you don't want to get too close, or if you deliberately want to play down facial features (like if the subject has that big nose again!).

Other reasons to go with a shorter lens: Context shots, where background or surroundings complement the subject(s). Or for interesting effects, like shooting the subject and their reflection. Or sometimes that big nose demands exaggeration, eh?

Other reasons to go with a longer lens: To concentrate on just part of a face, not a full face. Or to exploit a distant background, especially if the lens gives good bokeh. Or sometimes the togger and the subject just aren't comfortable near each other.

TOUGEFC · 12-13-2011, 04:16 AM

The problem with using macro lenses is that their flat field sharpness isnt really desired for portrait, and will odften lack the "pop" of
a specialised portrait lens.

12-12-2011, 07:37 PM	#36
Drom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210 Original Poster	It's interesting that most people are using the 50-55mm. When I look at the series of head shots that a few people here mentioned, the sample photos by Stephen Eastwood, I like the ones with a little more distance; 100mm+. But I suppose quite a lot of it has to do your subject. I think her face looked wider, more open and more attractive with the longer length. It seems to me that for a head shot specifically, that perspective is critical. Perhaps not so much for different types of portraits, but if you are taking a close detailed, photo of someone's face, that you would want to eliminate any distortion and use the longer focal length. All really great information-thanks very much. Last edited by Drom; 12-12-2011 at 08:22 PM.

12-12-2011, 08:08 PM	#39
Drom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210 Original Poster	Originally posted by audiobomber You need the D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR; portraits, fast telephoto, 1:1 macro, weather resistant, rounded aperture blades, metal construction, sharp, superb colour and contrast. Brilliant lens! Well, you know, I have the FA 100mm 2.8 Macro. Just got it a few weeks back. I might try it out for some head shots and see what I come up with. But that wouldn't give me any excuse to buy a new, sharp portrait lens. Last edited by Drom; 12-20-2011 at 04:33 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

12-12-2011, 05:42 PM	#31
tuco Pentaxian Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Pugetopolis Posts: 11,026	Another reason for a mild telephoto for head shot portraits, historically, is to not over-exaggerate large facial features such as noses.

12-12-2011, 05:42 PM	#32
Parallax Senior Moderator Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: South Dakota Photos: Gallery Posts: 19,332	I interpret the results as being "anything between 28 and 135". i.e. there is no ideal or "best" FL.

12-12-2011, 06:57 PM	#33
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	ideal focal length for portraits - Google Search

12-12-2011, 07:12 PM	#34
liukaitc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,008	Originally posted by Parallax I interpret the results as being "anything between 28 and 135". i.e. there is no ideal or "best" FL. ye..agree.. with my 50-135..I feel it cover most potrait focal length..but I still feel 28-50 would be more useful for indoor

12-12-2011, 07:25 PM	#35
Drom Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 210 Original Poster	Originally posted by RioRico I just tabulated the recommendations above. They're overwhelmingly for 50-55mm. Your mileage may vary.

12-12-2011, 07:42 PM	#37
liukaitc Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: New York Photos: Albums Posts: 1,008	actually..I like the look of 200mm a lot (135mm for aps-c) but the 70mm (50mm for aps-c) look nice too..I mean really can not say which focal length look better.... ps: this is not my photo... Last edited by liukaitc; 06-02-2013 at 12:04 PM.

12-12-2011, 07:54 PM	#38
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Drom It's interesting that most people are using the 50-55mm. When I look at the series of head shots that a few people here mentioned, the sample photos by Stephen Eastwood, I like the ones with a little more distance; 100mm+. You need the D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR; portraits, fast telephoto, 1:1 macro, weather resistant, rounded aperture blades, metal construction, sharp, superb colour and contrast. Brilliant lens!

12-12-2011, 08:25 PM	#40
twitch Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,571	DA*50-135 is a fantastic range for portraits.

12-12-2011, 08:40 PM	#41
fuent104 Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2011 Location: California Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,356	The results from the 200 are beautiful. There are some practical concerns, though: 1. Will you be in a large enough space to create the distance between yourself and the subject? 2. Will you be using a tripod? This this focal length, you may have trouble holding the camera still enough if your subject is moving.

12-12-2011, 08:50 PM	#42
audiobomber Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Sudbury, Ontario Photos: Albums Posts: 6,806	Originally posted by Drom Well, you know, I have the FA 100mm 2.8 Macro. Just got it a few weeks back. I might try it out for some head shots and see what I come up with. Definitely, go for it.

12-13-2011, 12:29 AM	#43
m42man Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Southern England Posts: 623	Originally posted by Parallax I interpret the results as being "anything between 28 and 135". i.e. there is no ideal or "best" FL. Well, I'd say that the wider end of that should be reserved purely for head+torso shots - if you get any closer (for a head+shoulders shot) you'll exaggerate facial features, and your subject won't be pleased (especially if he/she has a big nose!). Minimum FL for a head+shoulders shot would be not much below 50mm, really. And the longer end should really be reserved for when you don't want to get too close, or if you deliberately want to play down facial features (like if the subject has that big nose again!).

12-13-2011, 03:31 AM	#44
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by m42man Well, I'd say that the wider end of that should be reserved purely for head+torso shots - if you get any closer (for a head+shoulders shot) you'll exaggerate facial features, and your subject won't be pleased (especially if he/she has a big nose!). Minimum FL for a head+shoulders shot would be not much below 50mm, really. And the longer end should really be reserved for when you don't want to get too close, or if you deliberately want to play down facial features (like if the subject has that big nose again!). Other reasons to go with a shorter lens: Context shots, where background or surroundings complement the subject(s). Or for interesting effects, like shooting the subject and their reflection. Or sometimes that big nose demands exaggeration, eh? Other reasons to go with a longer lens: To concentrate on just part of a face, not a full face. Or to exploit a distant background, especially if the lens gives good bokeh. Or sometimes the togger and the subject just aren't comfortable near each other.

12-13-2011, 04:16 AM	#45
TOUGEFC Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Brisbane Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,561	The problem with using macro lenses is that their flat field sharpness isnt really desired for portrait, and will odften lack the "pop" of a specialised portrait lens.