# Best lens for 12+ family portrait?



## sactown024

I know I have been posting on here a lot, boarderline annoying... but i get a lot of good info here.

I am doing a family shoot (fml) 2 weeks from now outside at a park. there is 4 kids 8 adults i think and I want to rent a lens that is going to give me good bokeh with that many people in the shot. is this possible? maybe something like this...

http://pinkfogphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/family-photography2.jpg


----------



## sactown024

wait, i just noticed this was a painting of some sort, wtf? anyways I think you know what I am after


----------



## JAC526

That link....not so sure about that.  You shoot nikon or canon?

I know the Canon 24 1.4 has got good reviews.  That would only really be wide angle on full frame though.


----------



## swiftparkour94

I think this thread will do better in the Canon or Nikon sections. Regardless of the brand, primes will probably be the best option to go. If you find yourself zooming in a lot then get a sharp zoom if you don't always want to change lenses. If your a Canon user you can't go wrong with a 50mm, I think they are the most used and loved prime lenses. If you have a crop body then take the change of focal length into consideration.....not sure if you already know all of it but I assume you may so I'm saying this anyways


----------



## sactown024

Canon, crop sensor


----------



## sactown024

I have a 50mm 1.8, but I dont think I will get the bokeh standing that far back to get everyone in the frame would I?


----------



## JAC526

Going to be hard to get bokeh with wide angle lens.  The shorter the focal length the deeper the depth of field is.  That's why I recommended the 24 1.4  you need that fast aperture to get separation.  But then you have to worry about getting everyone in focus if they are different distances from the camera.


----------



## orljustin

Get the 400mm with a 2x extender and stand back about 1/2 a mile.


----------



## fjrabon

Crop frame, shooting 12+, your best bet is probably the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8.  You'll probably want to shoot at 16mm and somewhere between f/2.8 and f/4.  Have your background as far behind the family as possible.  

The amount of background blur is decided by the following:

1) f/stop.  
2) focal length (the greater the focal length, the greater the background blur)
3) distance from subject to background
4) distance from camera to subject

If it's possible to pose them in a 3-4-5 configuration, you might be able to use a 24mm or 35mm prime and still get everybody in the frame.  

Something like 3 small kids in front, 4 teenagers/young adults knelt in a second row, and 5 adults standing in between the shoulders of the second row.  However, it's likely that this configuration wouldn't work very well.  

Your biggest concern with a family portrait though isn't going to be a blurred background, it's going to be lighting everybody properly and having everybody posed.  Background blur is like the 129387th most important thing in a shot like this.    

Your worries should be something like:

1) getting them lined up in a natural pose that's not absurdly wide.  Left to their own devices, most families in a shot like this end up trying to do something like 8 grownups standing shoulder to shoulder and maybe 3-4 small children in front.  Try to get them in at least a couple of rows, if you can, three rows will really help with 12+.  Also tell them to get close, until they think it's too close, and then get just a bit closer to one another.  

2) getting everybody's face clearly lit and clearly in the picture

3) having everybody in a comfortable pose

4) everybody's eyes open and looking at the camera

5) everybody in focus

6) No distracting background elements

7) pretty background

8) background out of focus

But really, 1,2 and 3 are 99.99% of getting the shot.  

You'll probably need a step ladder, because 12 people is usually a shot that will need to be shot a bit downwards to avoid covering people's faces up.  Look for stairwells, as they always help out a bit in raising the back rows and can generally be pleasing in their own regards.  If you're going to use lights, you'll either need a really big softbox or two lights, or otherwise risk having drastically uneven lighting and/or shadows on faces.  If complexions vary, put the darker complexions more towards the center, and the lighter complexions more towards the edge.  Otherwise arrange based on height and/or 'familial rank'


----------



## Robin_Usagani

You need a long lens.  Probably 85 or longer.  Since it is outdoor, space is a non issue.  This one is 135mm at f/2.8 and full frame.  Pretty blurred background I think.


----------



## o hey tyler

The image you posted was definitely shot at a long focal length. You're in a park, what exactly is your space constraint? Rent a 70-200mm F/2.8 II and shoot at f/3.2-3.5 to give you adequate DoF. Or rent a 135/2L and do the same thing. Shooting a family with a wide angle lens will lead do a feeling of disconnect IMO. Longer focal lengths are much more flattering and give an appearance of unity. Wide lenses are great if you are capturing an activity with a group of people... But you're shooting a portrait, so I'd suggest you use a portraiture focal length.


----------



## fjrabon

o hey tyler said:


> The image you posted was definitely shot at a long focal length. You're in a park, what exactly is your space constraint? Rent a 70-200mm F/2.8 II and shoot at f/3.2-3.5 to give you adequate DoF. Or rent a 135/2L and do the same thing. Shooting a family with a wide angle lens will lead do a feeling of disconnect IMO. Longer focal lengths are much more flattering and give an appearance of unity. Wide lenses are great if you are capturing an activity with a group of people... But you're shooting a portrait, so I'd suggest you use a portraiture focal length.



Yeah, good point.  Though the issue I always have with telephotos and big groups is that if you're that far away, they tend to lose their pose very easy and it's harder to direct.  

Also somewhat depends on exactly how many 12+ is, and what individuals make up the 12+.  13 grown adults and 2-3 kids is wildly different from 5 adults and 7 kids.


----------



## o hey tyler

fjrabon said:
			
		

> Yeah, good point.  Though the issue I always have with telephotos and big groups is that if you're that far away, they tend to lose their pose very easy and it's harder to direct.
> 
> Also somewhat depends on exactly how many 12+ is, and what individuals make up the 12+.  13 grown adults and 2-3 kids is wildly different from 5 adults and 7 kids.



I generally find that if you shout loud enough (if you happen to be far away) and have a commanding voice, even small children will listen. That's just been my method.


----------



## mjhoward

This thread is full of win!  Several recommendations to shoot portraiture with an UWA lens, really???  

For the OP, aperture size is going to play less of a role in your DOF than the the distance from you to your subject and the subject to background distance. If you are actually talking about bokeh, the quality of the out of focus area, then look for a high number of rounded aperture blades.


----------



## o hey tyler

mjhoward said:
			
		

> This thread is full of win!  Several recommendations to shoot portraiture with an UWA lens, really???



And then Robin and I roll in with almost identical advice... Just like clockwork.


----------



## JAC526

You guys are right.  If your in a park all you gotta do is back up.  I am an idiot.


----------



## MLeeK

o hey tyler said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, good point.  Though the issue I always have with telephotos and big groups is that if you're that far away, they tend to lose their pose very easy and it's harder to direct.
> 
> Also somewhat depends on exactly how many 12+ is, and what individuals make up the 12+.  13 grown adults and 2-3 kids is wildly different from 5 adults and 7 kids.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I generally find that if you shout loud enough (if you happen to be far away) and have a commanding voice, even small children will listen. That's just been my method.
Click to expand...

I have one of those air horn things you have to have on a boat! It works wonders to get everyone's attention. Although it can cause havoc with little ones. My grand daughter LOVES it, most don't! 
I do know you can buy cheaper knock offs that aren't so loud in the Dollar General party stuff. I'd venture to guess you could get them in Party City or anything of the sort.


----------



## MLeeK

sactown024 said:


> I know I have been posting on here a lot, boarderline annoying... but i get a lot of good info here.
> 
> I am doing a family shoot (fml) 2 weeks from now outside at a park. there is 4 kids 8 adults i think and I want to rent a lens that is going to give me good bokeh with that many people in the shot. is this possible? maybe something like this...
> 
> http://pinkfogphotography.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/family-photography2.jpg



Bokeh is going to be the lens, of course, but it's also going to have a LOT to do with your distance to the subjects being closer than your distance to the background you want to go all circly on you. You want them to be further from the background than the distance between you and them. Probably a fair bit too. 
You are going to need to  use a bit smaller aperture compared to the guidelines I gave you about the # of people and aperture. Totally doable. Be very careful of the desire to use a very wide aperture to get that bokeh. If they're all near the same plane as in Robin's shot you are probably fine at f/3.5 and MAYBE even 2.8. If they are a bit more spread apart from front to back you will need to be at maybe 5.6. F/4 at 28mm and 10 feet from camera to subject you have a DOF of about 6 feet front to back on a crop sensor. I'd bank on about 5 of that being acceptable to me. Safe zone. Spend some time with the DOF calculator to make sure you are prepared for that part of it. You can get a DOF calculator on any smart phone too, so if  you need it on the fly it's there. 
For the bokeh part you are going to want to use the narrowest aperture you can and still achieve good focus. So, first back to the aperture for focus, then choose the lowest aperture you are feeling safe using. 

As to what lens: I'd use my 28mm for this one. I prefer to be as close as I can to the subjects without major distortion problems. Really I could use my 70-200 and still get a stunning image, I just know that I am going to produce an image like that to hang in a HUGE print piece, so I want every. damn. little. nose. hair. If I were producing it for your canvas size in the other post I wouldn't be so finicky about the closest possible distance. 
I know that many like the 35mm and the 24mm primes. There's always the 24-70 which would give you some excellent quality along with some flexibility for this shoot. If I had to depend upon one lens that'd be the one I go to.


----------



## fjrabon

mjhoward said:


> This thread is full of win!  Several recommendations to shoot portraiture with an UWA lens, really???
> 
> For the OP, aperture size is going to play less of a role in your DOF than the the distance from you to your subject and the subject to background distance. If you are actually talking about bokeh, the quality of the out of focus area, then look for a high number of rounded aperture blades.



16mm on a crop body isn't really UWA though.  that's basically 24mm on a full frame, which has been a fairly standard length for large groups over the years.  Now that I think about it, 12 isn't quite as wide as my head had it, but you'd still ahve to see how they looked when put together.  Having one focal length and making it work no matter what probably isn't a great idea.  I think a lot depends on just how big this group is.  12+ adults is a vastly different framing than 5 adults and 7 children.  I think 35 on a crop is about my personal ideal for a large group.  That's a FOV of 50mm on a FF, which is a pretty standard portraiture length even for individuals, let alone groups.  Like I said, if that fits it in, that's the focal length I'd personally go with.

Also, with groups I do like to have some depth to the family, so it doesn't look like they're all cardboard cutouts pasted to one another.  I'm definitely not a fan of really long lengths with a group. Though I guess that's more a personal style thing than a 'definite don't'.  To me, it just looks really artificial and the people seem to have no life in them.  In some ways it might be more flattering, but to me at too great of an expense of killing the character.  It's the same reason I prefer 60mm on a crop frame for individual portraits.  Sure, you could get more compression at 130mm, but you lose a lot of depth and character to their face as well.


----------



## sactown024

Glass and gear doesn't carry the 24-70 2.8, but then again I prolly won't be shooting at less than f4.

Space is not an issue so that being said would a prime give me a sharper image and better bokeh than a zoom?


----------



## sactown024

8 adults

1 year old
2 YO
6YO
10YO


----------



## MLeeK

sactown024 said:


> Glass and gear doesn't carry the 24-70 2.8, but then again I prolly won't be shooting at less than f4.
> 
> Space is not an issue so that being said would a prime give me a sharper image and better bokeh than a zoom?


Primes are THE sharpest lenses. There is no compromise as there is across a zoom. 
Glass and gear carries the 24-70 Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM - Glass and Gear - Photographic and Entertainment Equipment Rental


----------



## sactown024

MLeeK said:


> sactown024 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glass and gear doesn't carry the 24-70 2.8, but then again I prolly won't be shooting at less than f4.
> 
> Space is not an issue so that being said would a prime give me a sharper image and better bokeh than a zoom?
> 
> 
> 
> Primes are THE sharpest lenses. There is no compromise as there is across a zoom.
> Glass and gear carries the 24-70 Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM - Glass and Gear - Photographic and Entertainment Equipment Rental
Click to expand...


stand corrected

Should I dare use my 50mm 1.8?

so if space is not an issue, there is no advantage of a 24-70 over say a 35 1.4 or a 85mm, right?


----------



## KmH

Bokeh is not adjustable, but depth-of-field is.


----------



## fjrabon

so with 8 grown adults, they're probably not going to be willing to have two rows of adults.  So you're looking at 8 wide adults and 4 kids up front (or maybe the 1YO is held?).

Your first decision lens wise is how much compression you want.  This is much more important than bokeh concerns.  Do you want the very flattering compression, or do you want a bit more depth?  That's where I'd start.  do you want a very flattering, 'distant looking' photo or a slightly more alive, slightly less flattering 'close looking' portrait?  

If your background is far enough back, the bokeh will take care of itself if you have even a half decent lens.  

Longer and shorter focal lengths are somewhat going to cancel each other out as far as background blurriness goes, because with the longer lengths you'll be forced to be farther away, with the shorter ones you'll be closer.  Your background will be plenty creamy with a 35mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.4.  Just as it will be plenty creamy with a 135mm f/2.8

How close you are to your subject, how far away your background is are the two most important things.  Then you worry about f/stop and focal length.


----------



## fjrabon

sactown024 said:


> MLeeK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sactown024 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Glass and gear doesn't carry the 24-70 2.8, but then again I prolly won't be shooting at less than f4.
> 
> Space is not an issue so that being said would a prime give me a sharper image and better bokeh than a zoom?
> 
> 
> 
> Primes are THE sharpest lenses. There is no compromise as there is across a zoom.
> Glass and gear carries the 24-70 Canon EF 24-70 f/2.8L USM - Glass and Gear - Photographic and Entertainment Equipment Rental
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> stand corrected
> 
> Should I dare use my 50mm 1.8?
> 
> so if space is not an issue, there is no advantage of a 24-70 over say a 35 1.4 or a 85mm, right?
Click to expand...


Compression v. depth.


----------



## o hey tyler

fjrabon said:
			
		

> Longer and shorter focal lengths are somewhat going to cancel each other out as far as background blurriness goes, because with the longer lengths you'll be forced to be farther away, with the shorter ones you'll be closer.  Your background will be plenty creamy with a 35mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.4.  Just as it will be plenty creamy with a 135mm f/2.8.



Sorry but this is not true. Shooting a 135/2L is going to produce a much "creamier" background than a 35/1.4L with the same subject framing.


----------



## fjrabon

o hey tyler said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Longer and shorter focal lengths are somewhat going to cancel each other out as far as background blurriness goes, because with the longer lengths you'll be forced to be farther away, with the shorter ones you'll be closer.  Your background will be plenty creamy with a 35mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.4.  Just as it will be plenty creamy with a 135mm f/2.8.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry but this is not true. Shooting a 135/2L is going to produce a much "creamier" background than a 35/1.4L with the same subject framing.
Click to expand...


Sure, it will be creamier, but probably to the point of not being able to notice.

This was shot with a 35mm f/1.8




DSC_0160 by franklinrabon, on Flickr

I think that's plenty creamy enough, and the background was only about 20 feet away.  Sure, it won't be AS creamy, but being able to stand about twice as close will make up a lot of the focal length blur effects.

and furthermore, with a group, creaminess is going to be dictated more by the DoF you need to have everybody in the group in focus, more than the max aperture or focal length of your lens.  Any decent lens you get of the ones that have been discussed in this thread is going to be able to have such thin DoF that being able to get a blurred background will be much more a function of how far away the background is, because of the necessity of having at least 3-4 feet of sharp focal depth for the group.

So even if the 135mm does give a creamier background, it won't matter, because you won't be able to max it out without making some of the people appear a little soft.  The background creaminess will almost entirely be dictated by the distance of the background.


----------



## sactown024

well since I am shooting 12 people, shooting at 1.4 isnt going to be happening right? In order to have everyone in focus ill be looking at at least f4?


----------



## fjrabon

sactown024 said:


> well since I am shooting 12 people, shooting at 1.4 isnt going to be happening right? In order to have everyone in focus ill be looking at at least f4?



Depends on your focal length, how close you are and how wide the group is spread out.  but probably you'll need about f/2.8-4 or thereabout.


----------



## o hey tyler

You were within 5 feet of that dog, probably closer to 3. The amount of background separation you will get from a longer focal length on a group portrait will be a massive difference. Trust me. I've been there, with a 35mm f/1.4 and 135/2.


----------



## sactown024

i think ill try the 85mm, worst case ill break out the nifty fifty. thanks guys


----------



## fjrabon

o hey tyler said:


> You were within 5 feet of that dog, probably closer to 3. The amount of background separation you will get from a longer focal length on a group portrait will be a massive difference. Trust me. I've been there, with a 35mm f/1.4 and 135/2.




My greater point is this: your creaminess is going to be more dictated by the necessary DoF to have the entire group sharp and the distance of the background more so than the characteristics of the lens.  A 35mm f/1.4 will give you much more creaminess than you'd need.  In fact, it would give you much more than you could even use.  Same for a 135mm f/2.  You wouldn't even be able to use it for a 12 person group at f/2 without somebody being soft.

edit: and how close I was was sort of the point.  That's what a wider FoV allows you to do, get closer, which, like I said, takes away _some _of the advantages of a longer focal length.


----------



## o hey tyler

135/2L




35/1.4L



Very different.


----------



## fjrabon

o hey tyler said:


> 135/2L
> 
> View attachment 24677
> 
> 35/1.4L
> 
> View attachment 24678
> 
> Very different.



It's not the same framing.  In the first you're as close as you could get without cutting people out.  In the second you've left substantially more empty space around the edges.  Comparing apples to oranges.


----------



## sactown024

makes me want the 135  how far away from your subjects were you with the 135?


----------



## fjrabon

by the way tyler, I'm assuming these were shot FF?  so for OP, that's like comparing roughly a 24mm and an 85mm.


----------



## o hey tyler

fjrabon said:
			
		

> by the way tyler, I'm assuming these were shot FF?  so for OP, that's like comparing roughly a 24mm and an 85mm.



Sensor size is irrelevant if its consistent throughout the shoot though. There's a large difference between a 24/1.4 and an 85/1.4 as well in terms of background distance.

The photo you posted was comparing an apple to nothing. There is no frame of reference for the dog photo. My shots are close enough for you to see the difference in background separation. 

Not trying to be a dick,  but I've been there/done that, etc. Its fine if you don't agree with me, we can agree to disagree. I know what I've shot and seen the differences first hand, so that's what I work from.  No hard feelings. 

Sactown, I was probably 20 or so feet away with a full frame camera.


----------



## fjrabon

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> Sensor size is irrelevant if its consistent throughout the shoot though. There's a large difference between a 24/1.4 and an 85/1.4 as well in terms of background distance.
> 
> The photo you posted was comparing an apple to nothing. There is no frame of reference for the dog photo. My shots are close enough for you to see the difference in background separation.
> 
> Not trying to be a dick,  but I've been there/done that, etc. Its fine if you don't agree with me, we can agree to disagree. I know what I've shot and seen the differences first hand, so that's what I work from.  No hard feelings.
> 
> Sactown, I was probably 20 or so feet away with a full frame camera.



My point in mentioning full frame was for the OP to realize 135 wouldn't look like that on his camera, not specifically in arguing the point at that time. Just clarifying for OP who may or may not have known you were shooting on FF. 

Sure, I never debated that greater focal length gives more separation. My point was, for a 12 person group, your limitation is going to be that if you get too much separation with a 12 person group shot, people will be out of focus. Your separation is going to be dictated by the DoF you MUST HAVE and not the max separation the lens can give. OP's photo is going to be 8 adults and 4 kids. Not 5 people, he's going to need more DoF than you had. It's not going to matter if he has a 85 f/1.8 or a 35mm f/1.4. He's not going to be able to use either wide open most likely. 

OP simply needs to pick a background and have them stand a few hundred feet in front of it and all the creamy background worries will be moot. That allows him to pick a focal length for purely compositional reasons, which are really more important anyway.


----------



## MOREGONE

Really glad I saw this thread. I have a similar shoot coming up with a large family. Probably 3 households of families and then one large group photo of all of them.

As it stands I am planning to use my 70-200 on the short side around F4. Might need to break out my 35 prime or 17-50 for the group photo.


----------



## o hey tyler

fjrabon said:


> My point in mentioning full frame was for the OP to realize 135 wouldn't look like that on his camera, not specifically in arguing the point at that time. Just clarifying for OP who may or may not have known you were shooting on FF.



I agree, it would look totally different on a FF camera. 



> Sure, I never debated that greater focal length gives more separation. My point was, for a 12 person group, your limitation is going to be that if you get too much separation with a 12 person group shot, people will be out of focus.



That's dependent on your DoF and what you deem acceptable. You can still stop down a 135/f2 and get an acceptable DoF with a much SHORTER DoF than with a wider lens/same subject framing. There's not such thing as "too much separation." Yes, there is a difference in inadequate depth of field, and proper depth of field, but when it comes to portraiture, rarely do shots with an in focus background "work" unless it's a direct contributing factor to the shot at hand. 



> Your separation is going to be dictated by the DoF you MUST HAVE and not the max separation the lens can give. OP's photo is going to be 8 adults and 4 kids. Not 5 people, he's going to need more DoF than you had. It's not going to matter if he has a 85 f/1.8 or a 35mm f/1.4. He's not going to be able to use either wide open most likely.



8 Adults and 4 kids will fit comfortably within a frame when posed correctly, and not even at that crazy of a distance with a long lens. 30-40 feet with a 135/2L on a crop frame camera. Not that far of a distance. He shouldn't consider using any lens wide open IMO (and I think we're on the same page for that one.)



> OP simply needs to pick a background and have them stand a few hundred feet in front of it and all the creamy background worries will be moot. That allows him to pick a focal length for purely compositional reasons, which are really more important anyway.



I also agree on the fact that there needs to be a good distance between subject and background. There does not, however, necessitate a UWA lens.


----------



## fjrabon

o hey tyler said:
			
		

> I agree, it would look totally different on a FF camera.
> 
> That's dependent on your DoF and what you deem acceptable. You can still stop down a 135/f2 and get an acceptable DoF with a much SHORTER DoF than with a wider lens/same subject framing. There's not such thing as "too much separation." Yes, there is a difference in inadequate depth of field, and proper depth of field, but when it comes to portraiture, rarely do shots with an in focus background "work" unless it's a direct contributing factor to the shot at hand.
> 
> 8 Adults and 4 kids will fit comfortably within a frame when posed correctly, and not even at that crazy of a distance with a long lens. 30-40 feet with a 135/2L on a crop frame camera. Not that far of a distance. He shouldn't consider using any lens wide open IMO (and I think we're on the same page for that one.)
> 
> I also agree on the fact that there needs to be a good distance between subject and background. There does not, however, necessitate a UWA lens.



I think we're mostly on the same page. My point was that if he picks his background distance wisely he can pick his focal length based on how he wants his subjects to look, instead of how he wants his background to look. In my view starting with your background is sort of backwards. You start with how you want your subjects to look, and then pick your focal length and background based on that. That's all I was really trying to convey to the OP. if your background is 100 feet away, you can choose if you want the compositional effects and angle of view of a moderate wide angle or a telephoto or somewhere in between. Instead of having it dictated by DoF concerns.


----------



## mjhoward

fjrabon said:


> mjhoward said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is full of win!  Several recommendations to shoot portraiture with an UWA lens, really???
> 
> For the OP, aperture size is going to play less of a role in your DOF than the the distance from you to your subject and the subject to background distance. If you are actually talking about bokeh, the quality of the out of focus area, then look for a high number of rounded aperture blades.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 16mm on a crop body isn't really UWA though.  that's basically 24mm on a full frame, which has been a fairly standard length for large groups over the years.
Click to expand...


16mm is on a crop body is not 'basically' 24mm on full frame.  There can be big differences in barrel distortion, perspective, DoF, etc.


----------



## Derrel

A few lenses I know of would make that shot look great....105mm f/2, 135 f/2, 180mm f/2.8, 200mm f/2. At about 35 feet with the 105, and about up to 60 feet with the 200mm f/2. Stop down to f/3.2 to f/3.5, and on a FF sensor, ANY of those fine primes would make a beautiful shallow DOF 12-person group shot.

In terms of "sharpness", a modern 70-200/2.8 pro zoom is going to be quite amply sharp. A prime is NOT needed, really.


----------

