Portrait Lens

OrenMc · 03-24-2009, 04:39 PM

Takumar SMC 85mm f/1.8. Compare with the 77mm limited as to color and sharpness.

soccerjoe5 · 03-24-2009, 10:46 PM

I use all sorts of focal lengths for portraits, each focal length has a look and feel I associate them to.

ultrawide 10-20, i think around 15mm:

21mm:

50mm:

70mm:

50-150mm (around 150mm I think):

estudleon · 03-25-2009, 07:34 AM

Children and young, I like soft touch and so J-9

Old skin, super sharp CZJ 3,5/135.

.

Economic and good.

Inverse way? May be

**Just1MoreDave** · 03-25-2009, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by soccerjoe5

I use all sorts of focal lengths for portraits, each focal length has a look and feel I associate them to.

I think of this set of photos when I read threads about portrait lenses. They are a very impressive set - now I'll try and remember who took them.

I am not nearly as good or creative, so I rely on the conventional. For portraits, I like my K55/1.8, Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9 or Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 105mm f2.8. I will use a 135mm for sneaking candids from across the room. The Pentax-M 135mm f3.5 is great because it doesn't look long enough to be taking a photo at that distance, while the f2.5 looks too serious.

Last edited by Just1MoreDave; 03-25-2009 at 03:15 PM.

soccerjoe5 · 03-25-2009, 02:30 PM

[QUOTE=Just1MoreDave;536621][QUOTE=soccerjoe5;535961]I use all sorts of focal lengths for portraits, each focal length has a look and feel I associate them to.

Quote:

I think of this set of photos when I read threads about portrait lenses. They are a very impressive set - now I'll try and remember who took them.

I am not nearly as good or creative, so I rely on the conventional. For portraits, I like my K55/1.8, Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9 or Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 105mm f2.8. I will use a 135mm for sneaking candids from across the room. The Pentax-M 135mm f3.5 is great because it doesn't look long enough to be taking a photo at that distance, while the f2.5 looks too serious.

Thank you Dave. Well actually all you have to do is push in tight when shooting wide and adjust your shooting height to control the perspective distortion. I love the wider shots for portraits, not as flattering as telephoto shots but quite a bit more interesting.

mer · 03-25-2009, 03:32 PM

My porst 55/1.2 ( which is about 85mm equiv. in 35mm format ) is my perfect lens for portraits.

RioRico · 03-25-2009, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by soccerjoe5

I use all sorts of focal lengths for portraits, each focal length has a look and feel I associate them to.

All fabulous, splendid shots, Diego! All showing great understanding of each lens.

Now let me tell a story. For many years, my father shot with just a 6cm TLR (Rollei, then Yashicamat), primarily on ASA 100 Verichrome Pan. He occasionally used a tele adapter, but mostly just shot with the onboard 80mm. For portraits, to change perspective, he changed position - different distances and angles, with careful attention to light and background. For wide shots, he moved back. For too-close closeups, he enlarged and cropped in the darkroom. Many prints, especially those 8x10" or smaller, were on glossy paper; many others, especially larger prints, were on textured paper, if grain seemed bothersome or the image otherwise called for it. He edited himself carefully, so his product always seemed 'right'.

So I'll inject some heresy here. THERE IS NO CORRECT PORTRAIT LENS. Use what we have, what we know, what we're comfortable with. That may be one lens of one focal length, or a whole kit. We can adjust our usage to gain many different effects and perspectives. The tool-user should be more important than the tool.

I'll also suggest that the medium the image is to reside upon, and its size, and the distance from which it will be viewed, can be more significant than the lens used. THE EYE TRUMPS THE LENS. I've shot 912x1216 monochrome images with a 1mp PNS that look grainless on a 12" LCD monitor (viewing distance: 2-3 feet) or a 25" TV screen (distance: 5+ feet) or 4x5" textured paper (distance: >2 feet). For a larger print, I might want more resolution - unless I know that the print will be viewed from further away. Or if I know that graininess is irrelevant to the image's impact, or may even enhance it.

Or maybe it's an image that would not otherwise have been captured. Years ago I shot Naples, Pompeii, Amalfi Coast, etc. with an old analog camcorder, as that was all I had then. I ported many 200x320 frames into my laptop, garishly PPd the hell out of them, blew them up to 8.5x14" to print on linen paper - and from a few feet away, they are stunning, recognizable, colorful, impressionistic blotches depicting southern Italy. No, they aren't photorealistic. That wasn't necessary. If I'd wanted photorealism, I'd have bought a calendar. If I'd been hired to produce a calendar, I'd have taken a different camera. (And when I return again, I'll use the K20D and my best lenses!)

Of course, with commercial work, it's the client who must be satisfied - we all know this. They'll likely demand a certain resolution. So be it. But the clients who come into a Wild West Village photo studio to dress up like Calamity Jane and Jesse James, shot for what looks like a 'tintype', have a rather different expectation than the dictator sitting for an official portrait to be plastered all over 'his' nation, or than the art director of a perfume ad shoot. There's room for a whole range of resolutions (and lenses) there, I think.

legacyb4 · 03-25-2009, 10:28 PM

His choices of lens versus type of shots makes sense too. My gut feeling is that:

wide angle lens - half body or more type of portrait shots
normal angle lens - head and bust shots
short telephoto - head and shoulder shots
long telephoto - frame filling head shots

work well without the subject feeling like they are being impaled on your lens...

Jeff

Originally posted by RioRico

All fabulous, splendid shots, Diego! All showing great understanding of each lens.

Igilligan · 03-25-2009, 11:19 PM

Diego... I love these. You are amazing with the camera. Nuff said.

Camera lucida · 03-26-2009, 02:39 AM

RioRico wrote:

Quote:

So I'll inject some heresy here. THERE IS NO CORRECT PORTRAIT LENS. Use what we have, what we know, what we're comfortable with. That may be one lens of one focal length, or a whole kit. We can adjust our usage to gain many different effects and perspectives. The tool-user should be more important than the tool.

I so much agree with you. But not only with portraiture - I think this applies to all photography. It is natural, I guess, to want all the 'bells and whistles' newest lenses but how many of us really get the most out of what we have at the moment?

danielchtong · 03-26-2009, 03:16 AM

Originally posted by soccerjoe5

I use all sorts of focal lengths for portraits, each focal length has a look and feel I associate them to.

ultrawide 10-20, i think around 15mm:

I am all for it
Lately I have been using long lens 200mm = 300mm in film for portrait. I would not have busy distraction with a creamy bokeh

135mm at F4

Daniel

legacyb4 · 03-26-2009, 06:42 AM

Probably not; but I think that photography extends beyond just simply owning a camera and a single lens. Part of the joy of the hobby comes from owning a handful of great tools as is the case with any hobby I can think of...

Originally posted by Camera lucida

It is natural, I guess, to want all the 'bells and whistles' newest lenses but how many of us really get the most out of what we have at the moment?

8540tomg · 03-26-2009, 07:54 AM

Diego and Daniel. You guys are really, really good!

Tom G

Wheatfield · 03-26-2009, 09:15 AM

Something that no one seems to have picked up on with using longer lenses for portraiture is controlling the background.
The longer lens is not only more flattering to the subject than a shorter one, but it limits how much background is seen in the picture.
This can be very important if you have a busy background or are shooting in front of a narrow backdrop.
A lot of this old school stuff exists because photographers dedicated their careers to discovering what works best most of the time.
Come up with exceptions if you will, the basic theories of composition still stand, notwithstanding the hubristic approach of the do whatever you like crowd.

estudleon · 03-26-2009, 09:42 AM

I think that in normal way, the definitive thing is the distance to the subject.

With the necessary distance and 85 mm lens (for example) you can obtain the perspective like one 200 mm lens (shoting at 1 m with the 85 mm, is the same that shooting at 2,3 m with the same DOF at the same aperture with the 200 mm) or like a 135 lens (shooting at 1 m with the 85 mm is the same that shooting at 1,6 m with the 135 mm, with the same DOF at the same aperture).

In this way, if you have the necessary distance to the subject, you can blurred or not the background, the foreground or both and in differents intensities with only one lens.

03-25-2009, 03:32 PM	#21
mer Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Greece Posts: 237	My porst 55/1.2 ( which is about 85mm equiv. in 35mm format ) is my perfect lens for portraits. Last edited by mer; 03-25-2009 at 11:49 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Which portrait lens?	Larsenio	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	18	09-08-2010 12:52 PM
Best Portrait Lens?	Goslett	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	56	08-20-2010 10:06 AM
Best Portrait Lens?	Hannican	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	1	08-13-2010 11:14 AM
Lens for Portrait	Aussiegus70	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	3	09-06-2009 09:34 PM
Pentax 110 Slr Lens 50mm F2.8 Portrait Lens	danahauk	Pentax SLR Lens Discussion	2	12-19-2007 08:18 AM

03-24-2009, 04:39 PM	#16
OrenMc Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,901	Takumar SMC 85mm f/1.8. Compare with the 77mm limited as to color and sharpness.

03-24-2009, 10:46 PM	#17
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	I use all sorts of focal lengths for portraits, each focal length has a look and feel I associate them to. ultrawide 10-20, i think around 15mm: 21mm: 50mm: 70mm: 50-150mm (around 150mm I think):

03-25-2009, 07:34 AM	#18
estudleon Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 228	Children and young, I like soft touch and so J-9 Old skin, super sharp CZJ 3,5/135. . Economic and good. Inverse way? May be

03-25-2009, 02:03 PM	#19
Just1MoreDave Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Aurora, CO Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,340	Originally posted by soccerjoe5 I use all sorts of focal lengths for portraits, each focal length has a look and feel I associate them to. I think of this set of photos when I read threads about portrait lenses. They are a very impressive set - now I'll try and remember who took them. I am not nearly as good or creative, so I rely on the conventional. For portraits, I like my K55/1.8, Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9 or Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 105mm f2.8. I will use a 135mm for sneaking candids from across the room. The Pentax-M 135mm f3.5 is great because it doesn't look long enough to be taking a photo at that distance, while the f2.5 looks too serious. Last edited by Just1MoreDave; 03-25-2009 at 03:15 PM.

03-25-2009, 02:30 PM	#20
soccerjoe5 Veteran Member Join Date: May 2008 Location: Philippines Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,343	[QUOTE=Just1MoreDave;536621][QUOTE=soccerjoe5;535961]I use all sorts of focal lengths for portraits, each focal length has a look and feel I associate them to. Quote: I think of this set of photos when I read threads about portrait lenses. They are a very impressive set - now I'll try and remember who took them. I am not nearly as good or creative, so I rely on the conventional. For portraits, I like my K55/1.8, Super-Takumar 85mm f1.9 or Super-Multi-Coated Takumar 105mm f2.8. I will use a 135mm for sneaking candids from across the room. The Pentax-M 135mm f3.5 is great because it doesn't look long enough to be taking a photo at that distance, while the f2.5 looks too serious. Thank you Dave. Well actually all you have to do is push in tight when shooting wide and adjust your shooting height to control the perspective distortion. I love the wider shots for portraits, not as flattering as telephoto shots but quite a bit more interesting.

03-25-2009, 10:03 PM	#22
RioRico Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Limbo, California Posts: 11,263	Originally posted by soccerjoe5 I use all sorts of focal lengths for portraits, each focal length has a look and feel I associate them to. All fabulous, splendid shots, Diego! All showing great understanding of each lens. Now let me tell a story. For many years, my father shot with just a 6cm TLR (Rollei, then Yashicamat), primarily on ASA 100 Verichrome Pan. He occasionally used a tele adapter, but mostly just shot with the onboard 80mm. For portraits, to change perspective, he changed position - different distances and angles, with careful attention to light and background. For wide shots, he moved back. For too-close closeups, he enlarged and cropped in the darkroom. Many prints, especially those 8x10" or smaller, were on glossy paper; many others, especially larger prints, were on textured paper, if grain seemed bothersome or the image otherwise called for it. He edited himself carefully, so his product always seemed 'right'. So I'll inject some heresy here. THERE IS NO CORRECT PORTRAIT LENS. Use what we have, what we know, what we're comfortable with. That may be one lens of one focal length, or a whole kit. We can adjust our usage to gain many different effects and perspectives. The tool-user should be more important than the tool. I'll also suggest that the medium the image is to reside upon, and its size, and the distance from which it will be viewed, can be more significant than the lens used. THE EYE TRUMPS THE LENS. I've shot 912x1216 monochrome images with a 1mp PNS that look grainless on a 12" LCD monitor (viewing distance: 2-3 feet) or a 25" TV screen (distance: 5+ feet) or 4x5" textured paper (distance: >2 feet). For a larger print, I might want more resolution - unless I know that the print will be viewed from further away. Or if I know that graininess is irrelevant to the image's impact, or may even enhance it. Or maybe it's an image that would not otherwise have been captured. Years ago I shot Naples, Pompeii, Amalfi Coast, etc. with an old analog camcorder, as that was all I had then. I ported many 200x320 frames into my laptop, garishly PPd the hell out of them, blew them up to 8.5x14" to print on linen paper - and from a few feet away, they are stunning, recognizable, colorful, impressionistic blotches depicting southern Italy. No, they aren't photorealistic. That wasn't necessary. If I'd wanted photorealism, I'd have bought a calendar. If I'd been hired to produce a calendar, I'd have taken a different camera. (And when I return again, I'll use the K20D and my best lenses!) Of course, with commercial work, it's the client who must be satisfied - we all know this. They'll likely demand a certain resolution. So be it. But the clients who come into a Wild West Village photo studio to dress up like Calamity Jane and Jesse James, shot for what looks like a 'tintype', have a rather different expectation than the dictator sitting for an official portrait to be plastered all over 'his' nation, or than the art director of a perfume ad shoot. There's room for a whole range of resolutions (and lenses) there, I think.

03-25-2009, 10:28 PM	#23
legacyb4 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Tri-Cities, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,784	His choices of lens versus type of shots makes sense too. My gut feeling is that: wide angle lens - half body or more type of portrait shots normal angle lens - head and bust shots short telephoto - head and shoulder shots long telephoto - frame filling head shots work well without the subject feeling like they are being impaled on your lens... Jeff Originally posted by RioRico All fabulous, splendid shots, Diego! All showing great understanding of each lens.

03-25-2009, 11:19 PM	#24
Igilligan Guest	Diego... I love these. You are amazing with the camera. Nuff said.

03-26-2009, 02:39 AM	#25
Camera lucida Forum Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: South Africa Photos: Gallery Posts: 69	RioRico wrote: Quote: So I'll inject some heresy here. THERE IS NO CORRECT PORTRAIT LENS. Use what we have, what we know, what we're comfortable with. That may be one lens of one focal length, or a whole kit. We can adjust our usage to gain many different effects and perspectives. The tool-user should be more important than the tool. I so much agree with you. But not only with portraiture - I think this applies to all photography. It is natural, I guess, to want all the 'bells and whistles' newest lenses but how many of us really get the most out of what we have at the moment?

03-26-2009, 03:16 AM	#26
danielchtong Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Toronto Posts: 885	Originally posted by soccerjoe5 I use all sorts of focal lengths for portraits, each focal length has a look and feel I associate them to. ultrawide 10-20, i think around 15mm: I am all for it Lately I have been using long lens 200mm = 300mm in film for portrait. I would not have busy distraction with a creamy bokeh 135mm at F4 Daniel

03-26-2009, 06:42 AM	#27
legacyb4 Inactive Account Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Tri-Cities, British Columbia Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,784	Probably not; but I think that photography extends beyond just simply owning a camera and a single lens. Part of the joy of the hobby comes from owning a handful of great tools as is the case with any hobby I can think of... Originally posted by Camera lucida It is natural, I guess, to want all the 'bells and whistles' newest lenses but how many of us really get the most out of what we have at the moment?

03-26-2009, 07:54 AM	#28
8540tomg Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Waterloo, Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,461	Diego and Daniel. You guys are really, really good! Tom G

03-26-2009, 09:15 AM	#29
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Something that no one seems to have picked up on with using longer lenses for portraiture is controlling the background. The longer lens is not only more flattering to the subject than a shorter one, but it limits how much background is seen in the picture. This can be very important if you have a busy background or are shooting in front of a narrow backdrop. A lot of this old school stuff exists because photographers dedicated their careers to discovering what works best most of the time. Come up with exceptions if you will, the basic theories of composition still stand, notwithstanding the hubristic approach of the do whatever you like crowd.

03-26-2009, 09:42 AM	#30
estudleon Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2009 Posts: 228	I think that in normal way, the definitive thing is the distance to the subject. With the necessary distance and 85 mm lens (for example) you can obtain the perspective like one 200 mm lens (shoting at 1 m with the 85 mm, is the same that shooting at 2,3 m with the same DOF at the same aperture with the 200 mm) or like a 135 lens (shooting at 1 m with the 85 mm is the same that shooting at 1,6 m with the 135 mm, with the same DOF at the same aperture). In this way, if you have the necessary distance to the subject, you can blurred or not the background, the foreground or both and in differents intensities with only one lens.