[lordson]

Hi guys, I have a Sigma 18-200mm, and take alot of portraits. its 50:50 portaits:landscapes

i've found anything below 35mm creates too much barrel distortion with the person's face

what the best focal length to take portraits with that lens?

and should i pony up for a 50mm 1.4? they're about $300AUD, which is alot of money

whats the best lens for taking portraits with? i would often be indoors in low light situations. i'm not even going to consider an external flash for the time being. although i know i should get one eventually for the portrait work.

cheers fellas

PS. do you guys have any tips for taking portraits? without a full on studio

[roscot]

For 35mm film, the traditional FL range for portraits is between 75 and 135mm. This translates to 50mm to 90mm on your crop sensor DSLR.

[and]

Good current portrait lenses for Pentax are the FA 77 and DA 70.
Id recommend getting a flash first instead though.

[kjao]

If you don't mind manual focus, get an A50/1.7. Very very nice portrait lens! And if you don't mind working with pre-A lenses, look for K55/1.8 and M100/2.8 lenses. They can be found for about US$100~$150.

cheers
Kenny

[Mike Bokeh]

i've found anything below 35mm creates too much barrel distortion with the person's face

what the best focal length to take portraits with that lens?

and should i pony up for a 50mm 1.4? they're about $300AUD, which is alot of money

whats the best lens for taking portraits with? i would often be indoors in low light situations. i'm not even going to consider an external flash for the time being. although i know i should get one eventually for the portrait work.

cheers fellas

PS. do you guys have any tips for taking portraits? without a full on studio

This is what I've found out over the years.

1.) Use a lens you really like, and stick with it.
On my 35mm Canon, I would use either my 100 f2.8 or my 85 f1.8. Both were very good lenses, but I prefered to use the 85 at f2.0, f2.8 or f4.0. I, personally never liked using longer lenses for portraits, but that's just me. Experiment and see what you like.

As for digital, I just bought a 50-200, so I'll see how that works out. I'll probably be using it in the 50-70mm range. It may not be the sharpest lens out there, but I'm not concerned with razor-sharp portraits. (See # 7)

2.) Don't get too close. When I was younger, I would sometimes fill the frame with the person's face. When they saw the print, they would usually remark, "My, that's a real closeup!", which I soon realized meant that they didn't like it. Many people don't like very close pictures of themselves. I usually shoot 3/4 to mid-chest portraits.

3.) Don't cut off limbs at the joints. Either get the full leg, or crop between the knee and the ankle, the hip and the knee, but never right at the knee or elbow or right at the waist. I read this in a book once, and it worked for me.

4.) Try to shoot from slightly above the subject's eye level, so as not to give them a double chin. This I learned myself from screwing up a few early portraits.

5.) As for lighting, I always tried to avoid using fill flash. I prefered shooting in flat lighting, and using a reflector to add light where I wanted it. I never went for the bright, snappy-looking portrait, but rather tried to get my pictures to look as much like paintings as possible. Evening light high-lighting the hair and careful metering was my favorite approach, but naturally I couldn't always do this.

6.) Try using a darker, simpler background as opposed to a lighter, busier one to put more emphasis on the subject. A brick or stone wall or trees always looked better to me than an urban or scenic bachground, which I felt distracted the viewer from the subject. Wood is good! I think it adds a natural, rustic feel to a portrait.


7.) This is completely subjective: Use a soft-focus filter, especially for women, and sometimes for men as well. Which one to use? I would recommend either a Tiffen Soft-FX 1, 2 or 3 filter. Try both the regular and warm versions. All I can say is experiment, and see what you like, or rather what your subjects like best.

8.) Use a tripod whenever you can. Partly to avoid camera shake with slower shutter speeds, but almost as importantly to keep the same composition from shot to shot.

These are my general portrait taking rules, gleaned partly from books, partly from other, more experienced photographers giving me tips and partly from me learning from my mistakes over the years.

By the way, most of these recommendations are for outdoor portraits.

Good luck.

Mike

Here's an example of an available-light portrait taken in the shade of trees midday in July. Fill flash was used. Post exposure in camera digital soft filter effect added.

[ricosuave]

nice composition.

If you dont mind experimenting with an old manual focus... I just picked up a great
M42 S-M-C Takamur 1.4 50mm screwmount for 30 dollars.

At least this week, I like it better than my FA 50 1.4.



And my very first snap with it... in a moving truck no less.

[lordson]

cool thanks guys, just one thing Igiligan,

i've read you should always give your subject space to look into.

for exapme the picture with the toddler there should be more space on the left and the picture ont he bottom there should be space for teh subject to look into on the right

thats just a general rule i read, but they dont have to be followed of course

i think the pictures would have looked better with that

[Chickenhawk]

If you are serious about portraits, that 18-200mm lens will not deliver the best results. You want a reasonably fast lens because the more your background is out of focus, the more attention there is to the face. This is why some lenses are LEGENDARY for portraits, and some - seemingly identical focal-length lenses - are just ordinary. There is more to the lens than speed and focal length; there is also how pleasing it generates the out-of-focus areas. (This is why we STILL use our best and most expensive portrait lenses even when we don't shoot wide open.)

If you want to get serious, get serious equipment.

This is how I rate portrait lenses:

- The 77mm Limited and the 43mm Limited are the hands-down best pair of portrait lenses made by anyone at any price, for any mount. The 77 is perfect for the head-and-shoulders shot, and the 43 does great 3/4 and full body shots. They compliment each other nicely and deliver almost identical colour rendition and bokeh. Looking at a well-composed and well-focused shot from either of these two lenses is like remembering your first really deep romantic kiss.

- The 40mm and 70mm pancake lenses are okay; there is just something about them I don't like. I have never liked a portrait that I tried with either one, and viewing a portrait from either of these two somehow just reminds me of kissing my sister.

[JamesD]

I think (given your budget constraints) that the 50mm 1.4 would be perfect. It can be purchased in the US for about $175... a steal. I also think that it is not so much the lens but the person behind the viewfinder. I've seen people from my former camera club with all the so-called right lenses, produce very mediocre results. Over against this, I've seen a newbie with only an slr and a 50mm lens make striking images. There are rules of composition (which someone else has already given) that I would learn but once learned just bear in mind that you are free to break them "if" you believe they do not add to your image. I also think that one of the better investments you could make would be a book on learning how to see. Freeman Patterson is one of my favorite photographers. I've always been amazed by his photography which was done with relatively inexpensive equipment. It seems to me that we get far too wrapped up in equipment although it's a given that a short telephoto would be best for portraiture.

All the best.

[lordson]

portraits are definately an area i want to be getting into and wnat to really work on

that 77mm is a thousand bux! and the 44 is 700 bux!

i'm sure they are bloody excelent lenses

i have the opportunity to pick up a Pentax 50mm 1.4 for $200, so i still have to debate that purchase

and shooting in low light with my current lens is a bitch

[JamesD]

Frankly, it seems like a no-brainer: the 50mm is your answer.

[ricosuave]

If you are serious about portraits, that 18-200mm lens will not deliver the best results. You want a reasonably fast lens because the more your background is out of focus, the more attention there is to the face. This is why some lenses are LEGENDARY for portraits, and some - seemingly identical focal-length lenses - are just ordinary. There is more to the lens than speed and focal length; there is also how pleasing it generates the out-of-focus areas. (This is why we STILL use our best and most expensive portrait lenses even when we don't shoot wide open.)

If you want to get serious, get serious equipment.

This is how I rate portrait lenses:

- The 77mm Limited and the 43mm Limited are the hands-down best pair of portrait lenses made by anyone at any price, for any mount. The 77 is perfect for the head-and-shoulders shot, and the 43 does great 3/4 and full body shots. They compliment each other nicely and deliver almost identical colour rendition and bokeh. Looking at a well-composed and well-focused shot from either of these two lenses is like remembering your first really deep romantic kiss.

- The 40mm and 70mm pancake lenses are okay; there is just something about them I don't like. I have never liked a portrait that I tried with either one, and viewing a portrait from either of these two somehow just reminds me of kissing my sister.

how would you rate the a*85 or fa*85 in comparison?

[Papersniper]

Wow, thanks for the portrait tips! Not to mention the great example! <G>

[Jim Royal]

how would you rate the a*85 or fa*85 in comparison?

ricosuave, I have the Takumar 85mm f/1.9. I absolutely love this lens. It is great for head and shoulder shots -- BUT you need a fair amount of room to use it with a DSLR. With the crop factor, it's field of view is fairly narrow, so you need to be a fair distance back to get more than just the subject's head. But it is pin-sharp, and it always flatters the subject,

This is a quickie snap of a co-worker just I took in the office at my desk with the 85mm. Ambient light only, fairly dim.