# Is 85mm really ideal for portraits?



## adamhiram (Sep 28, 2020)

When I first started learning portraiture, I went out and picked up an 85mm lens.  Everything I read said for headshots and above-the-waist portraits, 85mm was the lens to use.  I eventually picked up a 50mm prime as well for full body shots.  I was happy with the results with both lenses, and used them for years.  The only catch was I was shooting on a crop sensor body, first with a Nikon D5100, then with a D500.  Other than needing more space to shoot, I didn't think much of it.

Having recently switched to full frame (Nikon Z6), I figured the same guidance applied, but I could stand a little closer to my subjects, and obtain a shallower depth of field with the same lenses if desired.  However I decided to take some test shots, and the results weren't quite what I expected.

First, I compared headshots taken at 50mm and 85mm, both on my D500.  I typically don't take tight portraits at 50mm, but also didn't think it would be terrible.  The results were as expected, albeit a bit more exaggerated than I would have thought.  It is pretty clear that the face gets quite distorted shooting this tight with the 50mm.





Since 50mm on a crop sensor is roughly the same field of view as 85mm on full frame (technically 75mm), I figured I would compare the two.  Below, we can see that despite 85mm being the "ideal" focal length for portraits, it isn't all that different from 50mm on a crop sensor in terms of facial distortion.




So does that mean same 85mm lens on both cameras would look significantly different?  It turns out it does, with 85mm on the Z6 showing the same distortion as the 50mm did on the D500.  Note that the D500 was a bit further from the subject to accomplish the same framing.




Thenext logical step was to perform the same test with equivalent focal lengths from the same distance again.  That meant 85mm on the D500, and 135mm (70-300 zoomed to 135) on the Z6.  And look at that, the facial distortion is gone on both.  Please excuse the head position at 135mm, I must have bumped it at some point.




Lastly, I wanted to see if the difference really was so significant between 85mm and 135mm on the Z6. While not quite as pronounced as the difference between 50mm and 85mm on the D500, the facial distortion is still noticeable.




That leaves me with two questions.

Is 85mm really the best focal length for headshots and above-the-waist portraits?  Is the facial distortion something to be concerned about, or is that a normal perspective of how we see people from 4-6' away?
Would a longer focal length be more flattering if I have the space to support it?  I've heard great things about some of Sigma's Art glass, particularly the 135mm f/1.8.  I've also been curious about their 105mm f/1.4 and its comically large size, particularly on a smaller mirrorless body.  It's worth noting that 85mm is currently the longest native Z-mount prime.
I would love to hear from portrait photographers on here - what you typically shoot with, what you would recommend, and your thoughts on whether or not the perspective at these focal lengths is pleasing.


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Sep 29, 2020)

Twice the standard focal length of the camera is considered the "ideal" focal length for portraits. So a 105mm for your camera will do very well. This is because the perspective at this focal length makes people look "natural". At 50mm, the nose tends to look larger, less so at 85mm, but 105mm is the sweet spot. In 120 cameras, a 150mm lens is used and for a 4X5, 180 to 200mm.

Cordially,

Mark


----------



## Quassaw (Sep 29, 2020)

The focal length makes no difference to the distortion - it's the distance between the model and the sensor.  An 85mm allows you to stand a nice distance from the model to fill the frame on a full-frame camera.  With a 50mm you can tend to get too close, and even closer with a 28mm.  However, if you stand the same distance away with the 85mm and the 28mm you will see the same amount of distortion (although you'll have to crop in post for the 28mm shot of course - not what you really want to do).  On a full frame, an 85mm give a pleasingly low amount of distortion.  I tend to like something a little shorter (70mm) for my head shots.  In the old days, some people used to shoot with 135mm, which to me can make the face look a little flat - try standing miles away from the model and shooting with a 500mm for a headshot and you should find that the face doesn't look too good.


----------



## Soocom1 (Sep 29, 2020)

Actually the distortion factor is something I have seen multiple times. 

The smaller the senors/ film area, the more distortion it takes to get an image, either through the lens itself or the image. 

This has to do with the registration distance vs. the focal length of the lens itself vs. the image capture area. 

Med. format at 110-185 mm is considered ideal as Pixledawg points out.  The larger the image area the larger the image circle, and ergo a longer focal length to achieve full coverage.  Plus the distance factor. The larger the format the more information collected. 

Standard portrait lenses on a 35mm typ. fall to the 80-105 range because almost all 35mm cameras have a registration distance of around 44 mm +/-. 

In a Med. Format that distance is around 75mm +/-

Perspective control lenses (T/S) are capable of reducing the distortion (ironically by distorting the image), but bellows on a Large Format allows the movement to create the most flattering image.   

Its just that the modern world of photography has not been "focused" (pun intended) on the nuanced aspects of photography because of iPhones.


----------



## wfooshee (Sep 29, 2020)

The notion of 85mm as the "ideal" portrait lens is based on its field of view on a 35mm frame, which your crop-sensor cameras did not have. The 85mm lens on those cameras gave you the field of view of a 130-ish mm lens on a 35mm (or full-frame digital) camera.

Basically, what made the 85 to 105mm length good for portraiture was that at the distance needed for good framing, the perspective was such that facial features were neither exaggerated nor flattened. With a shorter lens placed closer (to get the same framing) features closer to the camera seem enlarged. With a longer lens placed more distant (again, to get the desired framing,) the subject seems flattened. you might get good framing from across the street with a 500mm lens, but it won't be a nice portrait. 

Perspective is a matter of distance from the camera. If you shot a "perfect" portrait with an 85mm lens, then switched to a 50mm lens and shot from the same distance, then cropped the image, you'd have exactly the same portrait. The original 50mm frame has a lot of useless area around the larger field it views, but cutting that out by cropping puts you in the same place that the 85mm lens had you seeing.

Sensor (or film) size is what determines the focal length of the lens you want for portraiture. You need a higher focal length lens when using a larger area to capture your image; that lets you compose your framing such that the subject to camera distance yields a flattering perspective.

In your comparisons, it looks like you moved the camera when changing lenses so you'd have the same framing. If instead, you left the camera where it is and cropped the image created by the shorter lens, you'd see what I'm saying about the perspective not changing.


----------



## Quassaw (Sep 29, 2020)

Soocom1 said:


> Actually the distortion factor is something I have seen multiple times.
> 
> The smaller the senors/ film area, the more distortion it takes to get an image, either through the lens itself or the image.
> 
> ...


 Registration distance has no impact at all - how could it?  My Z6 has a registration distance of 16mm, but a 50mm lens on that gives  exactly the same image as a 50mm lens on a D850, which has a registration distance of 4.5mm.


----------



## Quassaw (Sep 29, 2020)

46.5mm of course!


----------



## Soocom1 (Sep 29, 2020)

Quassaw said:


> Registration distance has no impact at all - how could it?  My Z6 has a registration distance of 16mm, but a 50mm lens on that gives  exactly the same image as a 50mm lens on a D850, which has a registration distance of 4.5mm.



Your not understanding what I am talking about. 

Registration distance is the distance from the focal point to the image plain for those not knowing. 

The image from a 50mm on a SLR vs. a mirrorless will look exactly the same because the mechanical construction of the lens designed for the two need to make an image circle to match the respective reg. distance. You cannot attach a mirrorless lens on a SLR without some kind of optical adapter period. 

The core diff. I am referring to is the distance between a small and med. format. 
They have to be longer on a Med. format or have optical construction that allows for an extremely short distance to create the image circle. 

The resulting image is then constructed to match one another.  
so distance is a major factor.


----------



## Tropicalmemories (Sep 29, 2020)

There's also a cultural dimension to consider.  My 'model' is Asian and she much prefers portraits taken with a low cost 27mm lens on a crop sensor Fuji to ones taken with the 56mm 'portrait' lens that I bought specifically for portraits at a much higher cost!  When I've taken portraits of her friends, they say the same .... 27mm best, 35mm OK, but they are not keen on the 56mm shots.

I think there's two factors here ...... firstly the Asian obsession with caucasian facial features - they all think their noses are too small, almost all the popular models and actresses here are half European or have had nose surgery, and secondly the passion for selfies taken at close range on mobile phones have given people a particular perception of their appearance.

So our views about was an ideal portrait lens may not necessarily be shared by our models.


----------



## AlanKlein (Sep 29, 2020)

Tropicalmemories said:


> There's also a cultural dimension to consider.  My 'model' is Asian and she much prefers portraits taken with a low cost 27mm lens on a crop sensor Fuji to ones taken with the 56mm 'portrait' lens that I bought specifically for portraits at a much higher cost!  When I've taken portraits of her friends, they say the same .... 27mm best, 35mm OK, but they are not keen on the 56mm shots.
> 
> I think there's two factors here ...... firstly the Asian obsession with caucasian facial features - they all think their noses are too small, almost all the popular models and actresses here are half European or have had nose surgery, and secondly the passion for selfies taken at close range on mobile phones have given people a particular perception of their appearance.
> 
> So our views about was an ideal portrait lens may not necessarily be shared by our models.


The same things happens on Zoom or vlog type videos where people sit close to their computers or cellphones.  Their noses are too big for their faces.


----------



## Designer (Sep 29, 2020)

Back in the film era, we always considered 105mm to be the shortest lens for good portraiture, with longer (135mm and up) being preferential.   Yes, that usually means stepping back to get your subject with a little space around him, but that is where the longer lenses belong anyway.


----------



## Soocom1 (Sep 29, 2020)

Remember also FoV aspects. 

The higher the number the narrower the actual capture image is going to be. Not just distance. Typ. speaking, and unless you're using a Macro specific long lens, the overall image begins to get washed out if shooting with a 200mm.  But this is again dependant on the format size.  A 180mm in Med. format is NOT the same as a 180mm in 35mm. 

Then consider speed:  The faster the lens, there is the bokeh aspect that ties directly into the overall FoV. its subjective, but plays an important role in portraiture.


----------



## Quassaw (Sep 29, 2020)

Soocom1 said:


> Quassaw said:
> 
> 
> > Registration distance has no impact at all - how could it?  My Z6 has a registration distance of 16mm, but a 50mm lens on that gives  exactly the same image as a 50mm lens on a D850, which has a registration distance of 4.5mm.
> ...


The distance from the focal point to the image plane is known as (indeed, defined as) as the 'focal length'.  If the object is at infinity then a 50mm lens will focus on the image plane at 50mm from its optical centre.  Nothing at all to do with a camera.  1/v +1/u = 1/f and all that.  A 50mm lens is a 50mm lens - nothing more, nothing less.  Cast an image from a 50mm on to a wall, and you'll get exactly the same image from a lens designed for a m4/3 camera, a crop-sensor camera, a 'full-frame' camera, a 120 camera - indeed any camera, or a 50mm magnifying glass, a 50mm enlarger lens.  Some lenses will vignette more than others, but that's nothing at all to do with the focal length of the lens.

You need to understand that the 'distortion' (the 'big nose' or 'flat features' effect) has got nothing at all to do with the focal length of the lens, it's entirely due to the distance between the optical centre of the lens (or, near enough, the camera) and the model.  Using a bigger or smaller sensor/film, or shorter/longer lens has no effect on the distortion PROVIDED THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE MODEL AND THE CAMERA DOES NOT CHANGE.  Of course, with a 4x5 camera you'll get the frame filled differently than a crop-sensor camera, but that's a different consideration.  A 120 film camera usually had a 'standard' lens of 75mm or so, a 35mm SLR would have a 50mm as standard, and an APS would have a 35mm lens as standard, because all three would fill the frame to a similar amount, so you'd tend to stand the same distance from the model to take the same shot - but it's the distance that determines the perspective, not the length of the lens.  If you still don't understand, try drawing some ray diagrams.


----------



## Soocom1 (Sep 29, 2020)

Quassaw said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > Quassaw said:
> ...




Couple of things here. 

1: The registration distance is the distance from the mounting of the back of the lens to the image plain.  The focal distance is the distance from the image plain to the focal point. 
50mm is 50 mm is 50mm regardless of lens or camera. 

2: The IMAGE CIRCLE also contains a sweet spot where there is least amount of distortion. The closer the focal distance the smaller the sweet spot and thus that sweet spot translates to a smaller area on the subject that can be described as non-or least distorted. This is a simple optical fact. 

3: The registration distance is designed to allow for a full image circle. Thus the further away from the image plane the larger the circle. Again a simple matter of physics here. This also translates to a smaller or larger sweet spot based on the image size vs. focal distance. (Think full frame vs. APS). Or as I have done a great deal of shots with... 
Med. Format lenses on APS C and H sensors. The end result is a highly undistorted image with very wide angle lenses allowing for extremely shallow depth of field and a helluva lot of light.  

Try it some time. 

But go ahead and put a 50mm mirrorless on a SLR or a 50mm SLR lens on a mirrorless without an adapter. 

have fun!


----------



## Quassaw (Sep 29, 2020)

I'm glad you agree with me.  But the registration distance is not really to do with the size of the image circle - Nikon APS and FF SLRs have the same registration distance - most (but not all) DX lenses have a smaller image circle than is needed for FX, but with the same registration distance!  Mirrorless cameras have a shorter registration distance because there is no need for a mirror box.  Crudely, Nikon could make a lens for a Z6 by taking a D850 lens and gluing a bit of aluminium to it, and it would work exactly as it did on the D850.  Indeed, that what the FTZ is - a hollow aluminium tube with some electrical contacts.  Fitting a native Z6 lens on to a D850 is just as easy in theory - all you need is a hacksaw.  However, one big advantage of the mirrorless with its short register distance is that short focal-length lenses don't need as many compromises inherent in retrofocus designs.  But yes, I could remove the mirror box from a D850 with a hacksaw and make a Z6 lens work on it - but it seems a rather expensive project.

But enough of theory - can it be done?  Yes.  I make very crude lenses, and my single-element 72mm lens works on ALL of my (IL) cameras - NEX, Z6, D5100, Petri - completely ignorant of which camera it was designed for (because in reality it's a magnifying glass and a variety of Pringles tubes).  

And if you want a really, really simple proof of what I say, make a pinhole, put it on a camera, and take a picture.  Add some extension tubes, and take the same picture.  The 'focal length' will have changed, but the two pictures will have exactly the same perspective, albeit that the first one will show a bit more of the image.


----------



## Soocom1 (Sep 29, 2020)

Quassaw said:


> I'm glad you agree with me.  But the registration distance is not really to do with the size of the image circle - Nikon APS and FF SLRs have the same registration distance - most (but not all) DX lenses have a smaller image circle than is needed for FX, but with the same registration distance!


which is WHY they are called CROPPED sensors. 




Quassaw said:


> Mirrorless cameras have a shorter registration distance because there is no need for a mirror box.  Crudely, Nikon could make a lens for a Z6 by taking a D850 lens and gluing a bit of aluminium to it, and it would work exactly as it did on the D850.  Indeed, that what the FTZ is - a hollow aluminium tube with some electrical contacts.  Fitting a native Z6 lens on to a D850 is just as easy in theory - all you need is a hacksaw.  However, one big advantage of the mirrorless with its short register distance is that short focal-length lenses don't need as many compromises inherent in retrofocus designs.  But yes, I could remove the mirror box from a D850 with a hacksaw and make a Z6 lens work on it - but it seems a rather expensive project.



OK... 


Quassaw said:


> But enough of theory - can it be done?  Yes.  I make very crude lenses, and my single-element 72mm lens works on ALL of my (IL) cameras - NEX, Z6, D5100, Petri - completely ignorant of which camera it was designed for (because in reality it's a magnifying glass and a variety of Pringles tubes).



I can place a magnifying glass on a camera and make it work.. 
That's not the point. 



Quassaw said:


> And if you want a really, really simple proof of what I say, make a pinhole, put it on a camera, and take a picture.  Add some extension tubes, and take the same picture.  The 'focal length' will have changed, but the two pictures will have exactly the same perspective, albeit that the first one will show a bit more of the image.



The dynamics of lens construction and camera design has specific advantages. 
the reg. distance is based again on the image circle aspect.  There are adapters to fit 35mm lenses on Med. Format mirrorless.  It can create an image circle and work, but in most aspects has no infinity. 

But the aspect here is back to the OP. 
The portrait lens of 85mm in this argument is based on 35mm camera design. (mirrorless or not.) 

85mm has specific design aspects that make it more favorable (as pointed out in another post) mostly to european and Western tastes. 
This includes typ. (though not always) a larger and faster lens, a narrower FoVV and less distortion int he sweet spot but allowing for a larger amount of light. 

Original 85mm lenses from the 1960's have smaller elements and in some cases not as a dynamic range effect.  this is why they are preferred. it makes for a nice compromise. 

Having discovered the 135mm by accident in the 1980's I came to find the overall image quality heads and tails above a standard 50 or even 58mm (Rokkor lens) that I had inherited from the ol' man. 

The problem there is the distance needed to make a clean image. More distance, narrower FoV and a smaller sweet spot translated to a good portrait but alot of lighting adjustments. 

Again, why I prefer Med. Format.


----------



## Rickbb (Sep 29, 2020)

Back in my film days I’d shoot bust shots, (waist up), with a 105 or a zoom at about 120. It looked better and let me get back far enough to make the sitter more at ease. 

I’m pretty much the same on my crop sensor D90, zoomed out to get some distance and flatten the perspective a bit. It just looks better, IMHO.


----------



## adamhiram (Sep 29, 2020)

Quassaw said:


> The focal length makes no difference to the distortion - it's the distance between the model and the sensor.





wfooshee said:


> Perspective is a matter of distance from the camera. If you shot a "perfect" portrait with an 85mm lens, then switched to a 50mm lens and shot from the same distance, then cropped the image, you'd have exactly the same portrait.



This totally makes sense, and I'm a little embarrassed this wasn't obvious to me from the start.  Of course two photos taken from the same distance with the same lens will have the  same perspective; the crop sensor will just be a cropped image.  It actually feels silly even typing this.


----------



## adamhiram (Sep 29, 2020)

Quassaw said:


> On a full frame, an 85mm give a pleasingly low amount of distortion. I tend to like something a little shorter (70mm) for my head shots. In the old days, some people used to shoot with 135mm, which to me can make the face look a little flat





wfooshee said:


> Basically, what made the 85 to 105mm length good for portraiture was that at the distance needed for good framing, the perspective was such that facial features were neither exaggerated nor flattened.





wfooshee said:


> With a longer lens placed more distant (again, to get the desired framing,) the subject seems flattened.





Tropicalmemories said:


> There's also a cultural dimension to consider. My 'model' is Asian and she much prefers portraits taken with a low cost 27mm lens on a crop sensor Fuji to ones taken with the 56mm 'portrait' lens that I bought specifically for portraits at a much higher cost! When I've taken portraits of her friends, they say the same .... 27mm best, 35mm OK, but they are not keen on the 56mm shots.



These are excellent points, which were echoed in some of the reading I did prior to typing this post.  I guess I've gotten so used to the 135mm look (or rather the perspective it gives when standing at the appropriate distance to fill the frame), so the full frame 85mm perspective looked a bit different to me.  It makes sense that the perspective from 12' away would different than 6-8'.

I also didn't think of the cultural preference aspect of it, which is absolutely something important to consider.  You also made an excellent point about the subject appearing in a way that is familiar to them.  I presume that applies to portraiture in general - we typically see people from 6-8' away, so seeing their image flattened from a more distant perspective might not be as familiar or pleasing.  Thanks for sharing!


----------



## adamhiram (Sep 29, 2020)

Pixeldawg1 said:


> Twice the standard focal length of the camera is considered the "ideal" focal length for portraits. So a 105mm for your camera will do very well. This is because the perspective at this focal length makes people look "natural".





Designer said:


> Back in the film era, we always considered 105mm to be the shortest lens for good portraiture, with longer (135mm and up) being preferential.



I am still very interested in trying out 105mm or 135mm on a full frame body.  I've become accustomed to that perspective, and I've gotten used to shooting from that distance using 85mm on a crop sensor, so that's not a big deal either.  The catch is there are no native Z-mount options other than a 70-200, and nothing on Nikon's roadmap.  I am curious how I would like shooting with Sigma's F-mount lenses in this range, although they are quite large and heavy, especially the 105mm.  As I mentioned in my original post, the visual of this monster lens on a small mirrorless body is a bit comical, and I'm not sure it's something I'd want to carry around all day, but for studio work or on a tripod it seems quite usable.  Definitely some food for thought!


----------



## JBPhotog (Sep 29, 2020)

adamhiram said:


> I am still very interested in trying out 105mm or 135mm on a full frame body.  I've become accustomed to that perspective, and I've gotten used to shooting from that distance using 85mm on a crop sensor, so that's not a big deal either.  The catch is there are no native Z-mount options other than a 70-200, and nothing on Nikon's roadmap.  I am curious how I would like shooting with Sigma's F-mount lenses in this range, although they are quite large and heavy, especially the 105mm.  As I mentioned in my original post, the visual of this monster lens on a small mirrorless body is a bit comical, and I'm not sure it's something I'd want to carry around all day, but for studio work or on a tripod it seems quite usable.  Definitely some food for thought!



I suggest you have a look and feel of the Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/1.4E ED as if performs better than the Sigma and isn't as bulky. Some would say it has the same qualities as the Nikkor AF-S 200mm f/2G ED VRII.

Regarding FL for portraits, personally I am a fan of the 105mm for head and shoulders shots as the perspective on facial features produces natural results. However, I have also shot many head and shoulders with my Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G VRII and even my Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G VRII. Don't let anyone tell you you can only use a specific FL, you are the creator do what serves your vision.


----------



## photoflyer (Sep 29, 2020)

If you told nothing else but that I was to go shoot portraits I would take my 85 on full frame for three reasons:

1 I just like it

2 I don't like the 50 for portraits

3 I don't have a 105, 135 or 200 ( and my 70-200 2.8 is just to intrusive for candids but could be great in studio)

Oh, and the 24-105 f 4 is a bit slow 

But, I think you will find others who would much prefer the shorter or longer lenses and have great results to back their preference.  Yes, distortion is a factor but I think we see it because we're looking for it.  Unless it is extreme, l think the average viewer is drawn to other elements of a good image.

Ultimately it is what you're comfortable with and what you have experience with.


----------



## adamhiram (Sep 29, 2020)

JBPhotog said:


> I suggest you have a look and feel of the Nikkor AF-S 105mm f/1.4E ED as if performs better than the Sigma and isn't as bulky. Some would say it has the same qualities as the Nikkor AF-S 200mm f/2G ED VRII.
> 
> Regarding FL for portraits, personally I am a fan of the 105mm for head and shoulders shots as the perspective on facial features produces natural results. However, I have also shot many head and shoulders with my Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8G VRII and even my Nikkor 300mm f/2.8G VRII. Don't let anyone tell you you can only use a specific FL, you are the creator do what serves your vision.



Thank you, I appreciate the insight.  I've read that the Sigma 105mm is a bit sharper and costs about $500 less, so that's interesting that you mention that the Nikon version performs better.  Then again the Sigma is also a lot heavier and the massive front element probably makes it more even intrusive than the 70-200 you commented on.  Hopefully I can get my hands on one or both of these to try out in the next few months and see if it's something I want to pick up.  While I am used to the working distance that comes with 135mm (85mm on 1.5x crop sensor), I never liked being that far away, and in most cases it created a challenge of finding a space that long outside of my home studio.

As a side note, I have always had zooms and they sat on the shelf most of the time anyway.  With the price tag on the Z-mount f/2.8 zooms, I'm certainly in no rush to go that route.


----------



## adamhiram (Sep 29, 2020)

photoflyer said:


> Yes, distortion is a factor but I think we see it because we're looking for it. Unless it is extreme, l think the average viewer is drawn to other elements of a good image.
> 
> Ultimately it is what you're comfortable with and what you have experience with.



Thank you, this is very helpful.  I figured the slight distortion couldn't be a big deal if it is so many people's go-to for portraiture.  I am in the fortunate position of having just switched to full frame, and have the opportunity to reconsider my lens strategy.  I still have my 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 primes, so there's no immediate need to go out and purchase anything, but I am definitely eager to try out some other focal lengths.


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 30, 2020)

As always I enjoyed the in depth approach you take when approaching a question. I dont really have a prefrence, for me it's more a matter of fitting the lens to the application. In studio I don't need fast glass as my aperture rarely drops below f/5.6. With sufficient floor space and FOV I can routinely shoot head and shoulders kids and adults at 105mm. When I get into the more elaborate "set" shots 50mm is my go to. Using a technique I learned from a Joel Grimes video, I'll sometimes use the perspective distortion of a 28mm to "enlarge" the arms, muscle on men. In studio bokeh isnt so much a concern, but sharpness is. 

Outside, it depends on the application, if I'm shooting ambient the legacy f/1.8 135mm is a good choice because of its buttery OOF and smooth transition between zones, as are the FA 100m 2.8, the 77mm f/1.8, LTD, and the legacy 50mm f/1.2. Many times it comes down to a choice based on FOV and space between the subject/subjects.


----------



## AlanKlein (Sep 30, 2020)

The problem with the right lens and distance has to do with converting a 3D image to 2D on paper or a screen.  In our brain, these issues are compensated for naturally.  Noses are still larger than ears closer up than they are far away.  But our brain understand this issue and adjusts accordingly and "sees" the nose at the correct size.  

It just like Keystoning effect on buildings.  When we look up at a building, the top edges are closer to each other than at the bottom.  But our brain sees in 3D and adjusts accordingly mentally.  But once you record that image a a 2D surface, film, screen or print, the lengths look different and the lines seems to converge.  Or the nose seems bigger.  So with noses, you stand further back and zoom in with a longer lens. With Keystoning, we keep the lens and film or sensor surface parallel to the building's surface.


----------



## adamhiram (Sep 30, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> In studio I don't need fast glass as my aperture rarely drops below f/5.6. With sufficient floor space and FOV I can routinely shoot head and shoulders kids and adults at 105mm. When I get into the more elaborate "set" shots 50mm is my go to. Using a technique I learned from a Joel Grimes video, I'll sometimes use the perspective distortion of a 28mm to "enlarge" the arms, muscle on men. In studio bokeh isn't so much a concern, but sharpness is.


You raise a really good point - for studio work I typically live between f/5.6 and f/8 as well.  For the test shots used in this post, I used my variable aperture 70-300 lens, which seems plenty sharp once stepped down.  In fact a number of people still use headshots I took with it a few years ago before I decided to pickup an 85mm prime.  For outdoor use though, I definitely have a use for a wide aperture tele/portrait lens.


----------



## Destin (Sep 30, 2020)

Subjectively, I always much preferred working in the 135mm range on full frame for portrait work. First, I did this with a 70-200 and eventually with a sigma 135 ART. 

Anything below 100mm or so never seemed to give me the results I enjoyed. I don’t have a scientific breakdown of the reasons, though I suspect it relates to longer focal lengths making it easier to obtain background separation. Obviously this doesn’t matter much in the studio, but that was never my domain so I don’t have experience there to speak of. 

If I could only have one lens for portrait work these days, it would be a 70-200 2.8 for the raw versatility that it brings to the table.  

Alas, I don’t shoot portraits any longer so it’s not something I spend much time worrying about.


----------



## paigew (Sep 30, 2020)

Personally, I think it depends on the portrait type. If I am shooting on a typical backdrop 50 is my go-to. (sigma 50 art). I actually photographed a school today and brought both my 85 art and my 50 art....as much as I wanted to use the 85, it was too tight and I switched back to my trusty 50. I have used a 50 for school portraits for over 5 years and I think it's the best for headshot/background shots. I think for outdoor shots or sessions where you have more room to move around I might use my 85. I think its important as a portrait photographer to have a wide variety of focal lengths in your bag


----------



## smoke665 (Sep 30, 2020)

@adamhiram another consideration for you to think about is aspect ratio. You always hear "fill the frame" but what do you do when you've "filled the frame" on a sensor with its 3:2 aspect ratio, and Mom wants an 8x10 (5:4) or an 11x14 (14:11) Your beautiful image is going to be missing something, or you spend some quality time in PS adding length/width, so you can crop to the correct ratio. A better option for me is a little pre-planning (choice of focal length and required FOV) for the anticipated final image so I have room to crop.


----------



## JBPhotog (Sep 30, 2020)

smoke665 said:


> @adamhiram another consideration for you to think about is aspect ratio. You always hear "fill the frame" but what do you do when you've "filled the frame" on a sensor with its 3:2 aspect ratio, and Mom wants an 8x10 (5:4) or an 11x14 (14:11) Your beautiful image is going to be missing something, or you spend some quality time in PS adding length/width, so you can crop to the correct ratio. A better option for me is a little pre-planning (choice of focal length and required FOV) for the anticipated final image so I have room to crop.



There is an easy fix for shooting in 5:4 aspect ratio if the plan is making typically sized prints. Set your Image Area in the Shooting Menu and choose 5:4, crop marks will be visible and your image captured will be cropped to that aspect ratio. Its always a good practise to leave a bit of breathing room around your subject unless of course you are in tight.


----------



## adamhiram (Oct 1, 2020)

Thank you all for the great feedback.

I've been happy with my Nikon *85mm* f/1.8 since I got it a few years ago, and I'm leaning towards replacing it with the Z-mount version, which is significantly sharper, less prone to flare, and does much better with chromatic aberration.
*105mm* seems like a good compromise between longer focal length and comfortable working distance - I've had some challenges using an 85mm on a crop sensor in tighter spaces, which is roughly equivalent to 135mm on full frame.  However the high price of the Nikon lens and the absurdly large size of Sigma's offering probably make this a no-go.
*135mm* seems like a a good 2nd option to have if I hold onto my 85mm.  The lens size (at least for the Sigma) is more reasonable, and I'm pretty used to that working distance.
Thanks again, and I'll try to follow up if I make any decisions in the future.  From everyone's experiences, it sounds like there's really no wrong answer.


----------



## mrca (Oct 2, 2020)

The lens  length does not effect compression, camera subject does.  A 35  mm lens will have the same compression as an 85  at 7 feet.     You can just crop.  Want to see this without a lens, stand at the bathroom sink against the counter.  Look at your nose, take a step back and watch it look smaller.  Take another step back, smaller again, another the same.  What is ideal is what is your vision of compression and what you feel is proper for a particular face.   Only you know your vision.   With my ample italian probiscus, I want you back 10-12 feet. At 15 feet I have a michael jackson nose.  Chose the compression from the distance you like then chose the lens for the angle of view you desire.  This is the same for any other photography but has been forgotten with so many folks using zooms and just standing in the spot they first see the shot, zooming and shooting.   Setting perspective should be done before lens selection if possible.   My choice for a head and shoulders 8-10 feet distance and a 100 or 135.   There is compression but not excessive for my taste.   I trained with 2 photographers who charge 45 grand for a wedding.  They used the 85 for 3/4 couple shots during the day.  I listen to folks that get paid that kind of money.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 2, 2020)

mrca said:


> The lens  length does not effect compression, camera subject does.  A 35  mm lens will have the same compression as an 85  at 7 feet.  ...  I trained with 2 photographers who charge 45 grand for a wedding. * They used the 85 for 3/4 couple shots during the day.*  I listen to folks that get paid that kind of money.



What did they use for a head and shoulder shot of one person?


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Oct 3, 2020)

Quassaw said:


> The focal length makes no difference to the distortion -



Sorry, but this is quite incorrect. To prove it, shoot the subject with them at the same size on-camera at 24mm and then again at 105mm. Huge difference due to the focal length.


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 4, 2020)

Soocom1 said:


> Your not understanding what I am talking about.
> 
> Registration distance is the distance from the focal point to the image plain for those not knowing.



Your definition of registration is different from that I've met all over the place in the past, both on-line & in print, and doesn't describe a constant distance let alone a feature of the lens. Registration is usually used to mean the same as back focal length, the *distance of the image plane from the mounting flange of the lens.*

The minimum distance of the image plane from the focal point (ie along the lens axis) is dependant on the distance being focused and the lenses focal length. When focused at infinity the image plane passes throught the focal point (by definition), When the image size is the same as the subject size (1:1 macro) the image plane is one focal length behind the focal point, by the time the subject is at the front focal point the image distance is at infinity.


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 4, 2020)

Pixeldawg1 said:


> Quassaw said:
> 
> 
> > The focal length makes no difference to the distortion -
> ...


Only as you move to reframe the subject to the same size. It's the movement that makes the difference. 

Leave the camera behind & compare the look of something close up to the same subject at a distance & you'll see close up distorts the perspective due to the relative distances being so different. 
Stand ~10' from someone & their nose & ears are both ~10' away (close enough not to be noticeable) then stand 1' from someone & the roughly 6" distance from nose to ears beomces significant, the ears being 1.5x further from the lens look smaller.


----------



## petrochemist (Oct 4, 2020)

Quassaw said:


> The distance from the focal point to the image plane is known as (indeed, defined as) as the 'focal length'.


No, - it's image plane (at infinity) to the lens. The focal point is where the lens axis meets the image plane when focused at infinity or perhaps more accurately the point where a light source on the lens axis at infinite distance is brought to focus (which means the same thing). 
With simple thin lenses this defintion was easy, but with most photographic lenses we don't know which point on the lens the measurement needs to be made to. I believe it's the 'rear principle point' which doesn't have to be within the physical lens at all - just as well or focal lengths below ~40mm would be impossible on SLRs.
See Focal length - Wikipedia


----------



## Space Face (Oct 4, 2020)

I'm currently having a right good look at the Samyang XP 85mm f/1.2, which seems to equal and even out do the Sigma 85mm Art f/1.4 and the Canon 85mm f/1.2L ii in some respects and at around 1/3 of the price of the latter.  It's MF but certainly the reviews I've seen say it's an astounding piece of glass.


----------



## Soocom1 (Oct 5, 2020)

petrochemist said:


> Soocom1 said:
> 
> 
> > Your not understanding what I am talking about.
> ...


No your correct. I meant to say mounting distance.


----------



## wfooshee (Oct 5, 2020)

Pixeldawg1 said:


> Quassaw said:
> 
> 
> > The focal length makes no difference to the distortion -
> ...



No, the huge difference is due to perspective from different shooting distances. If you shoot both lenses at the same distance, then crop the image from the 24mm to match the 105, you will have the same image, assuming the resolution is still there after the crop.

The distortion comes from subject to camera distance, i.e. perspective, and NOT from the focal length of the lens. When you said "at the same size," you forced a change in the camera to subject distance, which is the cause of the perspective change. The 24mm lens did not cause the exaggeration of facial features, moving closer caused that.

EDIT: I now see that Petrochemist already answered this. Oopsie!


----------



## Pixeldawg1 (Oct 5, 2020)

petrochemist said:


> Pixeldawg1 said:
> 
> 
> > Quassaw said:
> ...



Isn't this what I said? You would have to move the camera and make the subject the same size in both images.


----------



## wfooshee (Oct 6, 2020)

But it's moving the camera that changed the perspective, not the different focal length. The focal length accommodates the camera position.

Shoot an image at 105mm, shoot another at 24mm, without moving the camera, then crop the 24mm image to match the 105. They will be the same, because the camera hasn't moved.

To get the different lenses to show the same size image, you do have to move the camera, but _moving the camera_ is what changes the perspective, not using a different lens. Shooting both at the same distance and cropping the one to match the other will yield _the same image_ (assuming you have enough resolution for the crop.) It's the distance, not the lens, that makes the change in the images.


----------



## greybeard (Oct 11, 2020)

Like my signature says, shoot loose and crop.  Many people don't realize that cropping a picture with from a 50mm will give you the same perspective as an un-cropped  tele.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 11, 2020)

greybeard said:


> Like my signature says, shoot loose and crop.  Many people don't realize that cropping a picture with from a 50mm will give you the same perspective as an un-cropped  tele.


But you lose real estate so enlargements are grainier and not as clear.


----------



## greybeard (Oct 11, 2020)

AlanKlein said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Like my signature says, shoot loose and crop.  Many people don't realize that cropping a picture with from a 50mm will give you the same perspective as an un-cropped  tele.
> ...


That depends on your camera.  With 20-24mp being the norm these days, that isn't as much of an issue as it use to be.


----------



## AlanKlein (Oct 11, 2020)

AlanKlein said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> > Like my signature says, shoot loose and crop.  Many people don't realize that cropping a picture with from a 50mm will give you the same perspective as an un-cropped  tele.
> ...





greybeard said:


> AlanKlein said:
> 
> 
> > greybeard said:
> ...


Sorry.  I should have clarified I was referring to 35mm film.


----------



## Space Face (Oct 11, 2020)

Judging by some of the cropped images I see, it's still a problem on digital camera's and often overdone, rendering on occasion, some quite horrendous IQ.  Sometimes less is more.


----------



## adamhiram (Nov 21, 2020)

Quick update - I decided to go with 135mm, specifically the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 Art lens for Nikon F-mount, adapted to Z-mount for use on a Z6II.  105mm probably would have been more useful for indoor shoots, but I already have an 85mm that I am happy with and I didn't feel like 105mm was enough of a difference in perspective to justify the cost.  I think the longer focal length will be great for outdoor shoots, particularly when maintaining social distance is needed, and the large aperture should come in handy when I want a shallow depth of field.  Thanks for the great discussion!


----------



## mrca (Nov 21, 2020)

I recommend you take a look at the 135 2.o dc.  Rockwell considers it the bokeh king.  Angry photographer considers it only slightly second  best to the 105 dc for portraits and he detests Sigma.   This is a real art lens.   Only 7 elements instead of 13 and it will render depth and a 3d look instead of flat and with way better micro contrast will captures more low energy shadow detail sucked out and reflected away by nearly twice as much glass.  Color of skin is gorgeous based on how the reds are  captured.  Oh, and a used one can be had for less than $700.  They are built like a tank and can be used on your film slrs as well.  It is still made unchanged since 1994 for a reason, because folks that know a killer lens still buy new ones.  I am teaching a class tomorrow and will be shooting outdoor natural light+reflector shots with the backgrounds in my back yard, a 200 yd long pond with docks and trees, an oak tree the size of the Keebler tree, shrubbery and a board fence with character.  The lens is super sharp and renders backgrounds like budda.   One of my favorite lenses.  Don't listen to the folks who don't know how to use it with the CA issues.  CA is minor and can be corrected in post.  Can't add depth rendition, missing shadow detail and that bokeh in post.


----------



## adamhiram (Nov 21, 2020)

mrca said:


> I recommend you take a look at the 135 2.o dc. Rockwell considers it the bokeh king. Angry photographer considers it only slightly second best to the 105 dc for portraits and he detests Sigma. This is a real art lens.


I have been intrigued by the Nikon 135mm f/2 DC for years, and would have considered it for a DSLR.  However it is manual focus only when adapted to work on a Nikon Z body, which made it a non-starter for me.  The only film SLR I still have is a Minolta X-700 that just sits on a shelf looking pretty these days.

I had a chance to try the Sigma 135mm when I picked up my Z6II, and other than being quite heavy, I liked it a lot.  It is incredibly sharp even wide open, albeit a bit clinical, and relatively fast autofocus for f/1.8.


----------



## adamhiram (Nov 28, 2020)

I figured I would follow up with a sample shot after playing around with it for a few days.

Focus is tack sharp when I remember to stop it down enough to match the framing, AF speed is certainly fast enough, and the extreme shallow DoF is going to take some getting used to.  The shot below was taken from about 6' away at f/1.8, giving a DoF of about 3/4".  The eyes are in sharp focus, but as you can see, nothing else is, including the nose and mouth.  I love how it renders and how quickly the background melts away.  However at this distance, I think somewhere around f/5.6 to f/8 would have worked better.  I'll have to keep that in mind for tighter portraits.  Pretty clean for ISO 3200 though!

Nikon Z6II with Sigma 135mm f/1.8
135mm, f/1.8, 1/320s, ISO 3200




20201127-DSC_0306a by adamhiram, on Flickr


----------



## govindvkumar (Jan 23, 2021)

I prefer to use the 85 mm over 135 mm for portraits. The 1.4 version prime lens really does a good job.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 18, 2021)

The shorter the focal length, the bigger the nose and the smaller the ears.  The longer the focal length, the smaller/flatter the nose and the bigger the ears.  To me, 85mm portraits (FF)  look the most natural.  (opinions do vary).

My Wife shopping for shoes D850, 70-200 @ 85mm f/2.8


----------



## mrca (Feb 18, 2021)

Compression is not controlled by lens length.  Take a shot with a 24 and an 85 from 6 feet then crop the 24 to same size and the faces look the same.   But fill the frame with the 24 at say 3 feet and the nose is huge. Perspective is set by subj/camera distance.


----------



## Scott Murphy (Feb 18, 2021)

I use both my 85mm f/1.4 and 105mm f/1.8 AIS Nikkors for indoor portraiture but prefer to use my 180mm f/2.8 ED AIS or even my 200mm f/2 ED IF AIS Nikkors for outdoor photography if I have the room. For outdoor group photography I usually use the 105mm f/1.8.


----------



## greybeard (Feb 19, 2021)

mrca said:


> Compression is not controlled by lens length.  Take a shot with a 24 and an 85 from 6 feet then crop the 24 to same size and the faces look the same.   But fill the frame with the 24 at say 3 feet and the nose is huge. Perspective is set by subj/camera distance.


Compression is controlled by BOTH focal length and camera to subject distance.  One of the reasons a 70-200 f/2.8 is so popular for portrait work because you can control the amount of compression at a variety of working  distances.


----------



## JBPhotog (Feb 19, 2021)

I think the correct terminology would be "perspective" when comparing portrait lens choices. The longer the focal length the further you need to be away from the subject in order to get the same subject framing in the viewfinder. The ratio in distance between the nose and the ears gets smaller and smaller the further you are away which changes the visual perspective of their size.


----------



## mrca (Feb 19, 2021)

Greybeard, the only determinative of perspective is camera to subject distance.  Lens choice is then made to achieve the desired framing but doesn't set perspective.   Using zooms has taken people away from this principle, heck folks don't even think about it anymore, they just stand where they happen to be and twist the zoom. 
 White  beards like me learned  to  because zooms were garbage for decades and even today with 22 pieces of glass, get dusted in image quality by an 8 element 180 2.8 D or 7 element 135 2.0 dc.both of which I can heavily crop with 46 mp.  I don't need to have a 70-200 break my back all day,  the 135 crops with plenty of pixels to spare.


----------



## petrochemist (Feb 19, 2021)

mrca said:


> Greybeard, the only determinative of perspective is camera to subject distance.  Lens choice is then made to achieve the desired framing but doesn't set perspective.   Using zooms has taken people away from this principle, heck folks don't even think about it anymore, they just stand where they happen to be and twist the zoom.
> White  beards like me learned  to  because zooms were garbage for decades and even today with 22 pieces of glass, get dusted in image quality by an 8 element 180 2.8 D or 7 element 135 2.0 dc.both of which I can heavily crop with 46 mp.  I don't need to have a 70-200 break my back all day,  the 135 crops with plenty of pixels to spare.


Zooms actually free up the option of adjusting distance to get the perspective you want. Before zooms photographers changed distance to fill the frame, now many of us pick the perspective & zoom to fill the frame. Yes there are those who only ever shoot from where they are, but their sort often did the same with primes.
The earliest zooms were indeed dire, but by the mid eighties many were quite reasonable. the best of today's zooms are excellent - even with loads of megapixels the longer end of a good 70-200mm will crop further than a 135mm and it lets you shoot wider right down to 70mm - increasing FOV is something I've never managed with cropping.


----------



## smoke665 (Feb 19, 2021)

I have a good selection of  Pentax primes and zooms that cover me from about 18mm through 300mm, including primes in the sweet spots of 50mm, 70mm, 100mm and 135mm. Up until recently my favorite for portraits was a legacy 135mm f/1.8. The sharpness, colors and creamy Bokeh are just fantastic, but the manual focus is getting harder for these old eyes to manage. I recently added the new HD FA 70-200mm f/2.8 this year and can't believe how well this thing performs. The only downside is the size and weight almost 6lbs for the lens alone. A heavy crop from a recent Valentines shoot (200mm, f/7.1, 1/200). The whole set is here Valentines 2021 , check out the details in the eye lashes. and iris.


----------



## mrca (Feb 19, 2021)

Petrochemist, I pick my distance then pick my lens.  Same spread I have used for decades. 35, 85, 135 and 180.   Only thing a zoom saves is a lens change.  The best zooms today, take the 70-200 have lots of light eating glass in them.  It has 22 vs the 6 in my zeiss 85mm planar.  Coatings cut reflection somewhat, but glass still sucks up light as it goes through every element and low energy light  (my zeiss glass has leaded glass elements that transmits even more light, newer nikon canon lenses stopped using lead for pollution reasons) , the shadows go to mud.  The micro contrast it produces   is what has been called Zeiss pop or Leica look  a more 3D rendering, for decades.  I walked into a gallery from an old retired newspaper photog and I looked as his images and I said one word quizically, Leica?   He nodded and smiled with approval.   Yes, new zooms may have great resolution, low vignetting which I add to every image, perhaps less CA, I can remove that in post, but  I can't add shadow detail that was sucked out by all that glass.   I recently won a competition in part because they weren't used to seeing  that level of detail in the large shadow area.   I had  metered and adjusted my lights to place them in an areas I have tested with this paper to hold detail.   No question, a zoom is handy and I still use a 24-70 for events but the lens on the body over my should isn't the beast 70-200 any more, it's the 135 that blows it away in image quality and   since that type of work rarely calls for a large print can  crop it heavily.   In studio, I use it because it loosely fills the frame  set to square at my preferred headshot subject perspective distance.  I don't need a zoom there.  But in a fast paced situation where I can't move forward or back,  definitely that 24-70.  There is a reason that lens has made photographers more many than any other.  But put  a shot with my zeiss 35 mm distagon 2.0 next to it  and no comparison.  Horses for courses.    And if I shoot it at f/11, I can zone focus from say 8 ' to about 14' and not have to focus.


----------

