# Is a 50mm lens worth it for portraits?



## Tbehl1214 (Oct 26, 2016)

I have an older camera, the Nikon D5000. I currently only use the two lens that I received with the kit (18-55, 55-200). I am still working on learning everything, but want to know if the 50mm or 35mm (with the autofocus since that is what works on my camera) would help me improve my portraits. I mainly take pictures of babies, toddlers, and small families...no big groups and mainly outside although I do take pictures of my kids inside. I am trying to take a sharp photo, but would also like to try bokeah. So, my questions are:

1. If I mainly take portraits of kids, etc. outdoors, would the 35mm or 50mm be worth buying?
2. If so, which would be my better option?

I realize that there are better lens out there for portraits, but I cannot afford much at this time since I stay at home with my kids. 

Thank you!

(Also, I realize that there are a TON of forums out there about this, but they are several years old (2011) and everyone has completely different views so I am lost. Thank you for understanding!)


----------



## Designer (Oct 26, 2016)

Typically, portraiture calls for longer lenses to minimize distortion often seen with shorter (wide angle) lenses.  If you compose and frame normally, you're going to be quite close to your subject(s), causing foreshortening and distortion.  For that camera a 50mm lens is probably still too short unless you are shooting group shots from 12-20 feet away.  Your 55-200 would be a more useful focal length, IMO.

Having said that, I will now answer the question posed in the title:

The Nikkor AF-S 50mm 1.8 G can be obtained for a reasonable price, and either new or used, yes, it is "worth it".  Get one.  Just don't expect your portraiture to be at the optimum focal length.


----------



## Tbehl1214 (Oct 26, 2016)

Designer said:


> Typically, portraiture calls for longer lenses to minimize distortion often seen with shorter (wide angle) lenses.  If you compose and frame normally, you're going to be quite close to your subject(s), causing foreshortening and distortion.  For that camera a 50mm lens is probably still too short unless you are shooting group shots from 12-20 feet away.  Your 55-200 would be a more useful focal length, IMO.
> 
> Having said that, I will now answer the question posed in the title:
> 
> The Nikkor AF-S 50mm 1.8 G can be obtained for a reasonable price, and either new or used, yes, it is "worth it".  Get one.  Just don't expect your portraiture to be at the optimum focal length.


Thank you! I have been working a lot with my 55-200, but can't seem to get clear subjects! That is the main reason why I was going to try a different lens for a while.


----------



## dennybeall (Oct 26, 2016)

The D5000 is a cropsensor so the 50mm lens would be the equivalent of 75mm, a pretty good portrait lens setting.
The 18-55 will give the OP a range of approx. 27 to  82mm, from slightly wide, through normal into slightly long.
But that is a kit lens so may not be the best quality.


----------



## Solarflare (Oct 26, 2016)

The AF-S 50mm f1.8 is the usual choice for a portrait lens for Nikon DX cameras. Its the cheapest FX lens with a builtin motor (thus able to autofocus on D3x00 and D5x00 cameras) and optically pretty decent.

As the previous poster pointed out, its a 75mm equivalent on a crop sensor. The classic portrait lenses are 85mm, 105mm, or maybe even 135mm, on full frame. Thus 75mm is pretty close already.

For DX there are only 4 DX prime lenses from Nikon - the fisheye, two macro lenses, and the 35mm f1.8. Every other demand for a prime lens has to be satisfied by using a FX prime lens instead - and for wide angle, this doesnt only get very expensive quickly, but also runs out of options quickly.

Thus it would be really nice if Nikon would ever find it in their heart to produce, say, a 9.5mm f3.5 DX (14mm equiv), 12mm f2.8 DX (18mm equiv), 14mm f1.8 DX (21mm equiv), 16mm f1.4 DX (24mm equiv), 18mm f1.8 DX (28mm equiv), 24mm f1.4 DX (35mm equiv), 58mm f1.4 DX (85mm equiv) and 70mm f1.8 DX (105mm equiv) line of DX prime lenses, additionally to to the already existing 35mm f1.8 DX (53mm equiv) - but so far they seem to rather prefer to create even another dark superzoom instead. Or overpriced poor build quality slow autofocus poor optical performers like the AF-S 16-80mm f2.8-4.0 VR. They even dont really have a good affordable wide angle zoom yet, like Canon does with the EF-S 10-18mm f4.5-5.6 IS.


The kit lens 18-55mm works best if one avoids the focal lenghts extremes and stops the lens nicely down, to about f/8.

The 55-200mm works nicely from about 55mm to about 105mm or some such, even wide open; above that it starts to get soft.


----------



## Designer (Oct 26, 2016)

Tbehl1214 said:


> Thank you! I have been working a lot with my 55-200, but can't seem to get clear subjects! That is the main reason why I was going to try a different lens for a while.


You're welcome!  As to the 55-200, there may be extraneous factors causing the lack of sharpness.  To begin with, it's not what you would call a top-flight lens, so some of the softness could be a fault of the lens itself.  Another factor is; we often find beginners who place a UV filter on the front of each lens, just as the person who sold the filter told you to do.  Is there a filter on the front?  If so, remove it. 

Next; go back into the camera file or use your editing software and turn on the focus area indicator.  That will be a red rectangle.  You should get the focus area in the most critical area of your subject, so for portraits, it is usually considered the closest eye.  If your focus area is not where it should be, then learn how to get that focus area on the person's eye. 

Next; consider the shutter speed.  It should be fast enough to "freeze" camera shake and the natural motion of your models.  Everybody moves.  Models move and photographers move, so maintain a fast shutter speed to capture a smaller moment in time.

Finally, the aperture.  Some lenses, maybe even most lenses will not be sharp at all apertures, and may exhibit a "sweet spot" of sharpness somewhere in the middle range of focal lengths.  Do some testing to try to determine if your lens has a favorite aperture.  And of course, a thin depth of field will show some areas of your subject in focus, while other areas, both behind and in front of the focal plane will be OOF.  When making portraits, it is a good idea to consider the "thickness" of your subject and make sure the DOF will make everything in that area reasonably in focus.  You can check your DOF at various sites online, and I even downloaded one for my smart phone, so I can determine the DOF wherever I am. 

No, really finally:  Just to clarify something about the focal length of lenses and the "crop factor".  Any lens you put on your camera will be whatever focal length that it was made for.  That doesn't change.  Whether zoom or prime, the focal length will not "change" magically into some other focal length when you put it on a DX camera with a APS-C size sensor.  All the sensor size means is that it is gathering light from a PORTION of the image circle.  (The middle part of it)  So a 50mm lens will still be a 50mm lens on your camera.  Just taking a bite out of the middle of the projected image circle doesn't change anything about the focal length of the lens out in front.


----------



## Frank F. (Oct 26, 2016)

Designer said:


> Typically, portraiture calls for longer lenses to minimize distortion often seen with shorter (wide angle) lenses.




Distortion in portaits is caused by to close a subject distance, not by focal length. If you keep your distance (2 to 3 meters in a typical portrait situation), the geometrical result will be the same.

Shorter focal lengths are only more difficult when it comes to composition, A 24mm portrait shot from 3 Meter distance includes a lot of environmental information that can provide a cluttered impression. This compositional aspect leads to people shooting 85mm lenses for portraits. That said the D5000 crops the 50mm angle to a 75mm equivalent.

SO: Keep your distance and the 1.8/50G will be a great portrait lens with bokeh wide open (at aperture f=1.8)

Now the trouble: Shooting @1.8 in bright  daylight will max out the 1/4000 of a secnd even at 1 EV under base ISO (which is 200 ISO in this case). So if you want bokeh shots you might need a neutral density filter...

*


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 27, 2016)

50mm has become a rather modern portrait lens for kids, even on fullframe. Your 200mm at f5.6 will give you better bokeh though than the 50mm f1.8, if you choose the same framing. 
Nevertheless I very much like the look of a 50mm lens shot wide open. What you need to consider though is that you need to stop down the lens for group shots if you want to have all faces in focus.


----------



## spiralout462 (Oct 27, 2016)

I hate 50 mm for portraits!  a fast 85 mm prime is a better choice in my opinion.  even with a crop sensor.


----------



## Frank F. (Oct 27, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> I hate 50 mm for portraits!  a fast 85 mm prime is a better choice in my opinion.  even with a crop sensor.



Indoors you are often "too long" with that. Size does matter here. Outside? Piece of cake!


----------



## Designer (Oct 27, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> I hate 50 mm for portraits!  a fast 85 mm prime is a better choice in my opinion.  even with a crop sensor.


I think the 85mm would work well for H&S portraits around 15 feet or so, and full-body shots from 25-30 ft.  Most people don't have large enough rooms in their house or apartment to accommodate the 85mm.

As I wrote in my post #2 above:  _"If you compose and frame normally, you're going to be quite close to your subject(s), causing foreshortening and distortion."_  the photographer should step back and frame wide with the 50mm to minimize distortion.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 27, 2016)

dennybeall said:


> ...the 50mm lens would be the equivalent of 75mm...


As a  point of order, this is not totally correct.  The 50mm lens will give you the same field of view as that of a 75mm on an FF sensor, but it will still render the image as a 50mm lens.  Focal length is focal length and doesn't change regardless of the  camera's sensor size.  The advantage of an FF lens on a DX body is that the smaller sensor will only use less of the edges of the lens (the area where distortion and softness is most noticeable).



Frank F. said:


> Distortion in portaits is caused by to close a subject distance, not by focal length...


 Yes and no.  A shorter focal length will impart less distortion when used at greater subject-to-camera distances, but the problem is that the greater the subject-to-camera distance, smaller the subject is in the frame. A 24mm lens used at 3m is going to provide a MUCH smaller subject in the frame than a 50 or greater.

I would suggest not buying anything at the moment.  I think what you need to do first is actually determine WHY you're experiencing issues with your current kit.  The two lenses you have are both verycapable, especially when used at middle apertures and focal lengths.  Post some of your images here along with full EXIF data and let's see if we can't see where the cause of the problem lays.


----------



## KmH (Oct 27, 2016)

A 50 mm lens puts the photographer quite close to the limit of a subject's 'comfort zone'.
Many subjects get real uncomfortable having the photographer that close, and it shows in the subject with them looking stiff.

I used a 50 mm prime lens, but rarely. The 50 usually got used in environmental portrait situations where I didn't have sufficient room to get back away from the subject so I could use a longer focal length.

For shooting portraits my go-to focal length, DX or FX, was 200 mm.
My second favorite focal length was 135 mm.
My 3rd choice was 105 mm and my 4th choice was 85 mm.

For many group portraits I used a 300 mm focal length.


----------



## Frank F. (Oct 27, 2016)

KmH: You got spacions environments and a lot of light obviously. On film I shot 90% with an 85mm lens. Even wide open that requires some luck and skill on a 400 ISO film. Northern Eurpe is not a well lit place and I always hated to use flash light, although I do use it if unavoidable (tomorrow I have such a job: Kids & art)...


----------



## Derrel (Oct 27, 2016)

The 55-300 is a slow focuser, and its maximum aperture specifications are poor, compared against a "fast-aperture" lens of f/1.8 maximum. The 50mm AF-S G Nikkor would be a decent lens for portraiture on an APS-C Nikon, and it WILL autofocus on your particular Nikon camera. Sometimes these types of "slow" zoom lenses, especially ones that are not fast focusers, are difficult to use, depending on the light level, the type of shooting environment, and the camera in use (D90 vs say a D500=big,big,big focusing differences), and the user's skill level and how the user is using the autofocusing system.

The thing about consumer zoom lenses is that they offer consumer-level performance; a fast prime lens like a 50/1.8 offers pretty easy one-tap focus acquisition, and with the wide aperture of f/1.8, getting a good solid focus lock is easy in marginal light.

I would not expect "miracles" from the 50mm lens, but it will give you one, single focal length to work with, which will lead you to the point of being able to pre-envision exactly what the images will look like, in normal, everyday portraiture situations. Working distances of six to 20 feet will be the best for that lens on an APS-C camera. Being able to mentally pre-visualize exactly what a picture will look like is one of the major benefits of using single focal length or prime lenses.

Beware of misinformation on what a lens "is" or "what it acts like" when it is used on different format sizes, since there's a lot of misinformation going around.


----------



## Vtec44 (Oct 27, 2016)

I use my 50mm f1.4 on a full frame 98.76% of the time for.  It's very versatile.  I also have a 35 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 105 f2.8, and a 70-200 f2.8 VR2 but always come back to my 50mm.


----------



## Frank F. (Oct 27, 2016)

My point earlier was:

If you want to keep a good geometry in a portrait, keep your distance of 2 to 3 meters independent of you focal length.
A wide angle lens can tempt you to get much nearer to the person which then accounts for "big nose syndrom". A long tele can tempt you to go far far back which results in a "flat nose syndrom".

Also the idea of a portrait seems to differ:

Head and shoulders(business portrait)? Then you need a small to medium angle of view like in a 58mm on DX or 85mm on FX.

Environmental (guy at piano, keyboard and face)? 24mm on DX or 35mm on FX are you friend.

Extemly Environmetal (Onassis sitting on a container stowed on a huge container ship, person size 3 cm in a newspaper double spread)? Go far back & high, take a large format camera and a light wide angle, say 120mm on 4x5 qinch.


----------



## OGsPhotography (Oct 27, 2016)

Welcome back Derrel.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 27, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> My point earlier was:
> 
> If you want to keep a good geometry in a portrait, keep your distance of 2 to 3 meters independent of you focal length.
> A wide angle lens can tempt you to get much nearer to the person which then accounts for "big nose syndrom". A long tele can tempt you to go far far back which results in a "flat nose syndrom".
> ...



You make a valid point! I guess it is time to make it even more complicated, when talking about lenses and portraiture (to make it easy in the end) . 
I think there is no real portrait focal length that works for every portrait. When talking about "big nose syndrome", etc..  Some people have a big nose, others big ears, some are bold, some have hairs not so beautiful hair. Every little aspect of a face sometimes asks for a different focal length, if you want to make emphasize one part of the face (well, or get the attantion away from another part). Sometimes it is better to get a bigger nose rather than getting even more attention to ears, or missing hair. But I hardly ever think photographers are that critical, because more often than not you are limited by the space you can photograph in.
So in the end every lens between 50mm and 200mm is perfect. That said, 50mm 1.8 is usually the cheapest really good lens you can get from any manufacturer.
The crop factor will keep you at a distance to the "model" which some models prefer, but that depends on your skills to talk and communicate with your customers. The latter is one of the most important things in portrait photography, maybe even more than any lens - make them feel comfortable and you nail the shot, no matter how near or far away you are. The majority of people enters the room, telling you that they are not photogenic and how bad they look on images. This is usually where the fun starts, and you can raise their first smile.
AND: it is much easier to get comfortable with your clients when you work as a team with an assistant (usually NOT somebody of their surrounding because people usually don´t like to be photographed when somebody is present that they know).


----------



## Frank F. (Oct 28, 2016)

I tell them that there are no unphotogenic people, only bad photographers and that my aim is to not be one of those.

My Highlight moment was in a 4 days consecutive portrait job an elderly lady came up to me and said: "It needed 74 years till someone took a picture of me that I like. Thank you."

Yes, model interaction is it, but keeping your distance for good proportions is also important. 

Perspective and Geometrical distortion are 0% lens dependend. That is what most people really do not understand.

Lenses make up for lens disortion, crop and drawing including bokeh.

Now that we have confused the TO enough, I will show some real world examples of what the 1.8/50G can do, from dreamy macro shots to architecture. The 163 Euros I paid for it have been a real bargain.


----------



## Frank F. (Oct 28, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> Now that we have confused the TO enough, I will show some real world examples of what the 1.8/50G can do, from dreamy macro shots to architecture. The 163 Euros I paid for it have been a real bargain.



All were taken with a D600 (currently used for 750 Euro @ebay) and the AF-S 1.8/50G (currently 200 Euros new @amazon)

1) dreamy rendering in the near field for flowers etc @f=2.0





2) Highly detailed rendering @f=4.0




3) Bokeh, yes, but not smashing @f=2.0




Overall this is a very sharp lens with highly detailed, soft rendering that can later be edited to high contrast if wished for. 

In portraiture the highly detailed softness can be a real winner.


----------



## Frank F. (Oct 28, 2016)

And last but not least. A portrait and a group shot both with 1.8/50G...



Technical: Nikon D3 (current used price at 800 Euros)


----------



## JonA_CT (Oct 28, 2016)

Since the OP mentioned getting pictures of his family, I'll throw my two cents in too, since a majority of what I use my camera for that purpose.

When I had an cropped sensor camera, I used my 50mm lens a lot, especially outside. It was fast and sharp. When it came time to move inside though, at least in my house, I found the working distances quite limiting, and I ended up using something else most of time (either a 24mm F2.8 or my standard zoom), even with bad lighting. I've convinced a couple friends to throw down the cash on a nice camera after showing them how much nicer the photos are than with a phone, and I've always recommended to them the 35mm DX lens just because I think it is far easier to use.

I also have a young child (my daughter is 15 months), and even with my full frame camera, I find myself going wider a lot of the time just because of how close she wants to be to me. But I also don't mind the perspective distortion from a wide-angle lens close up with kids...to me it makes them look bigger than life, which certainly fits my daughter.


----------



## Tbehl1214 (Oct 28, 2016)

tirediron said:


> dennybeall said:
> 
> 
> > ...the 50mm lens would be the equivalent of 75mm...
> ...


Thank you. I have another post on here trying to figure out why my photos are not clear. They look clear, but when I zoom in they are very blurry. I've been practicing a lot and trying to incorporate everyone advice. Here are a few I took of my sons early this morning. (I have not edited them in any way...these are just RAW files from my camera that I saved to a software so they would compress a bit for uploading purposes. As can see, they are a bit dark.)


Okay so the information for Jamisen B is:
(it won't let me copy/paste...grrr)
Focal length: 55mm
Exposure time: 0.005s (1/200)
F number: f/4.5
ISO: 200
White balance: Auto
There are a few more categories, but not sure those are helpful or not? Thought I would check since I have to type all this out. 

I did not see anything about focus, but I do remember trying to get the focus point in my screen on one of their eyes.


----------



## Designer (Oct 28, 2016)

It would be nice if we could see where the focus was.  I could not read the EXIF data either.

Maybe try an uncompressed JPG file.   

Or if someone wants to see the Raw file, you can send it via e-mail or put it in dropbox or some site that supports full size raw files.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 28, 2016)

Tbehl1214 said:


> tirediron said:
> 
> 
> > dennybeall said:
> ...



Are you using a specific focus point, or are you letting the camera decide?
I'm on an iPad right now, so not the best to judge, but in the first ime the focus is on the door left to your son, on the darkest image, it is the left (rear) eye, and in the third it seems to be on the front shoulder. It doesn't look like a clear front or back focus issue of your camera/lens, that's why I ask for the focus point.


----------



## tirediron (Oct 28, 2016)

Tbehl1214 said:


> Thank you. I have another post on here trying to figure out why my photos are not clear. They look clear, but when I zoom in they are very blurry. I've been practicing a lot and trying to incorporate everyone advice. Here are a few I took of my sons early this morning. (I have not edited them in any way...these are just RAW files from my camera that I saved to a software so they would compress a bit for uploading purposes. As you can see, they are a bit dark.)


These are all missed focus.  Nothing more.  You've been shooting at larger apertures and/or longer focal lengths and it's caught up with you.  In 'Jamisen_B' the child's face is soft, but the red boards behind him are [relatively] sharp.  In Grayson_B1 you an see that parts of the child's shirt are sharper than the face.  In 'Grayson_B2' you can clearly see the fall-off of focus from the child's left shoulder to the tip of his right finger.

When doing this sort of work, I prefer to use a single AF point and place it over the nearest eye.  As well, use an aperture that will provide sufficient depth-of-field to allow for a bit movement.  I would probably want to be at f5.6-8 on an 85mm lens for this.


----------



## chuasam (Oct 28, 2016)

Vtec44 said:


> I use my 50mm f1.4 on a full frame 98.76% of the time for.  It's very versatile.  I also have a 35 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 105 f2.8, and a 70-200 f2.8 VR2 but always come back to my 50mm.


I have the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G, honestly I think it is barely adequate. I use it lots though. I'm deciding whether to sell it and get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART or sell my 85mm f/1.8G and get the 105mm f/1.4E


----------



## Peeb (Oct 28, 2016)

chuasam said:


> Vtec44 said:
> 
> 
> > I use my 50mm f1.4 on a full frame 98.76% of the time for.  It's very versatile.  I also have a 35 f1.4, 85 f1.4, 105 f2.8, and a 70-200 f2.8 VR2 but always come back to my 50mm.
> ...


Barely adequate in what way?  

What are you seeking to improve?


----------



## Frank F. (Oct 28, 2016)

chuasam said:


> I have the Nikkor AF-S 50mm f/1.4G, honestly I think it is barely adequate. I use it lots though. I'm deciding whether to sell it and get the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 ART or sell my 85mm f/1.8G and get the 105mm f/1.4E



I sold mine after ~ 100.000+ clicks because it was not adequate for HiRes (very good on the D3 though) and got myself the 1.8/50G ... much better. Now I am waiting for a used 1.4/58G to replace it.


----------



## chuasam (Oct 28, 2016)

Peeb said:


> chuasam said:
> 
> 
> > Vtec44 said:
> ...



I often shoot wide open. That's the point of a 1,4. 
It's acceptably sharp at f/2 but wide open it's just really unsharp.


----------



## fmw (Oct 28, 2016)

spiralout462 said:


> I hate 50 mm for portraits!  a fast 85 mm prime is a better choice in my opinion.  even with a crop sensor.



There must be only one of portrait then?  The lens doesn't care what the subject is.  It only cares how the photographer uses it.


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 29, 2016)

I just remembered that I did a shooting for our photocourse recently to show the difference between focal lengths in regard to bokeh. It took me a while to figure out how to create an animated gif to show you the exact difference.
It might not be the best example, because the background behind the head changes from white sky to dark trees, but it does show what I was talking about earlier in regard to nose/ear emphasis. In my opinion there is no one perfect focal length for portraiture. 
PLUS: look at the difference in the background. I know if you want a portrait only, you don´t want much to distract, but then you can go into the studio. If you shoot outside, you may want to have the environment in the frame (without distracting too much), and that is why 50mm lenses have become pretty popular for portraits lately. 
Camera is full frame, and the 55 is no typo btw, it´s a sony .


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 29, 2016)

Let me give you a crop of that amazing 55mm, f1.8
it is shot wide open .



and another example for how well a 50mm works for kids portraits:



and the crop (don´t look at the exif - I accidentally shot this image in jpg-mode, I have NO idea why):


----------



## Vtec44 (Oct 29, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> I sold mine after ~ 100.000+ clicks because it was not adequate for HiRes (very good on the D3 though) and got myself the 1.8/50G ... much better. Now I am waiting for a used 1.4/58G to replace it.



I shoot it with my D800 almost every weekend.  The lens has a lot of imperfections, but I love using it over other more expensive lenses.


----------



## Tbehl1214 (Oct 29, 2016)

Designer said:


> It would be nice if we could see where the focus was.  I could not read the EXIF data either.
> 
> Maybe try an uncompressed JPG file.
> 
> Or if someone wants to see the Raw file, you can send it via e-mail or put it in dropbox or some site that supports full size raw files.


----------



## Tbehl1214 (Oct 29, 2016)

Designer said:


> It would be nice if we could see where the focus was.  I could not read the EXIF data either.
> 
> Maybe try an uncompressed JPG file.
> 
> Or if someone wants to see the Raw file, you can send it via e-mail or put it in dropbox or some site that supports full size raw files.


I couldn't figure out how to transfer that data onto here so I wrote out the info for the first photo. I can do the others too, but wasn't sure what is the most helpful information.


----------



## Frank F. (Oct 29, 2016)

photo 1x1: very interesting to test the theoretical predictions against real world examples.

In your pictures (I took the freedom to crop them to H&S for better comparsion) I see the forehead and the chin stand out more in the 55mm shot, while the girl looks more skinny all together in the 200mm shot. I have trouble to see a nose/ear relationship though...


----------



## photo1x1.com (Oct 29, 2016)

Frank F. said:


> photo 1x1: very interesting to test the theoretical predictions against real world examples.
> 
> In your pictures (I took the freedom to crop them to H&S for better comparsion) I see the forehead and the chin stand out more in the 55mm shot, while the girl looks more skinny all together in the 200mm shot. I have trouble to see a nose/ear relationship though...
> 
> View attachment 129484



You are right, I should be able to do better . So I carefully alligned the faces of the two images and here is the result:
I see: forehead, eyes, nose, mouth and chin stand out, and the ears are less pronounced in the 55mm (in fact they are really smaller on both sides, even though she turns her head very slightly to one side). 
It would be better to compare that in studio on white. Maybe I´ll do that on my own face soon . I have a big nose and small ears, and a bald head, that should prove the point in the opposite way .


----------

