# Correct lens for the best portaiture



## Tight Knot (Jun 13, 2012)

Will my 100mm EF 2.8 canon macro lens work well for portraiture on a Canon T1i?
And what is the exact size of my 50mm 1.4 lens on the same frame, being that it has a cropped sensor? 80mm?


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 13, 2012)

Tight Knot said:


> Will my 100mm EF 2.8 canon macro lens work well for portraiture on a Canon T1i?
> And what is the exact size of my 50mm 1.4 lens on the same frame, being that it has a cropped sensor? 80mm?



They will both "work" for portraiture, but I would probably go with the 50/1.4 for ease of use and versatility. The 50mm lens will be a 50mm lens on your camera, the FoV will be narrower than on a full frame camera though.


----------



## Tight Knot (Jun 13, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Tight Knot said:
> 
> 
> > Will my 100mm EF 2.8 canon macro lens work well for portraiture on a Canon T1i?
> ...



Thanks tyler,
I've been using the 50mm for portraiture, and it has so far served me very well. However, I've been following Karl Taylor's stuff, and he recommends at least an 85mm or he feels the people in the images will come out fairly "stocky". I haven't seen that with my 50mm, and was wondering if that is because of the crop factor, I am really getting a FOV of 80mm.
Plus, I was wondering on more of a technical note, whether the 100mm EF Macro lens would also be good for portraiture, even though it is designed as a macro (the sole reason I bought it),


----------



## paigew (Jun 13, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Tight Knot said:
> 
> 
> > Will my 100mm EF  2.8 canon macro lens work well for portraiture on a Canon T1i?
> ...



I have been doing a lot of reading about lenses and I have read that the 50 on the crop sensor is comparable with an 85 on a ff. Is that not correct? According to reviews the 28mm on the cs is comparable to what a 50mm would be on the ff sensor. Is that not accurate? I think the 100 would be very tight (at least the way I shoot).


----------



## Tight Knot (Jun 13, 2012)

paigew said:


> I have been doing a lot of reading about lenses and I have read that the 50 on the crop sensor is comparable with an 85 on a ff. Is that not correct? According to reviews the 28mm on the cs is comparable to what a 50mm would be on the ff sensor. Is that not accurate? I think the 100 would be very tight (at least the way I shoot).



Hi Paigew,

The 100 would definitely be tight, unless I'm doing portraiture in an open location. The question though is really more for the knowledge of the actual lenses capability to produce good portraiture.
Theoretically, the 28mm would give +- an equivalent of a 45mm.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 13, 2012)

Yes, I agree.. 85 or longer is best for portraiture.  Does not matter if it is cropped or not.  See these samples.

http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image31.png

All of these discussions about focal length equivalent on crop is very tiring.  You see this discussion like every week.  50mm on crop does not produce the same image as 75mm or 80mm on FF.


----------



## paigew (Jun 13, 2012)

well in that case I have seen some great portraits taken with the 100mm!


----------



## paigew (Jun 13, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> Yes, I agree.. 85 or longer is best for portraiture.  Does not matter if it is cropped or not.  See these samples.
> 
> http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image31.png
> 
> All of these discussions about focal length equivalent on crop is very tiring.  You see this discussion like every week.



When we say crop vs full frame we are (or at least I am) specifically talking about how much I can fit in the frame. What good is a 85mm if you can't get what you want in the shot!


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 13, 2012)

paigew said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Tight Knot said:
> ...



The FoV on a 50mm will be closer to 85mm. It will still will be a 50mm lens, and perform like one. The 28mm you speak of will have a narrower FoV, close to a 50mm on a full frame, but it will have the distortion associated with the 28mm focal length. Not ideal for portraiture, as a matter of fact, it wouldn't be great at all IMO.


----------



## Infidel (Jun 13, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> All of these discussions about focal length equivalent on crop is very tiring.  You see this discussion like every week.  50mm on crop does not produce the same image as 75mm or 80mm on FF.



You are correct, however, for portraiture, camera-to-subject distance plays a critical role in many aspects of the process. The example you linked to varied camera-to-subject distance along with focal length, producing the distortion. As your example clearly shows, camera-to-subject distance powerfully influences perspective distortion.  Also, adequate personal space while still allowing comfortable communication impacts the portrait in a qualitative or even subjective manner. Classic portrait focal lengths are essentially those that produce the most  flattering images while utilizing a reasonable amount of studio space.These aspects translate reasonably well when applying a crop factor adjustment to a shorter lens. The ability to blur backgrounds with narrow depth of field is lost to a notable extent when shooting with a shorter focal length lens on a crop sensor body.

Long ago, member *kundalini* posted a fantastic demonstration of this.


----------



## Infidel (Jun 13, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> The FoV on a 50mm will be closer to 85mm. It will still will be a 50mm lens, and perform like one. The 28mm you speak of will have a narrower FoV, close to a 50mm on a full frame, but it will have the distortion associated with the 28mm focal length. Not ideal for portraiture, as a matter of fact, it wouldn't be great at all.



I think you are incorrect. As I understand, the distortion is inherent to the camera-to-subject distance, not the focal length of the lens.


----------



## paigew (Jun 13, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> paigew said:
> 
> 
> > o hey tyler said:
> ...



bummer. What are your thoughts on the 35 2.0? Better? Or should I get the 50 1.4? I was originally wanting the 35 but the 28 was 'better' quality wise. (sorry to hijack)


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 13, 2012)

Infidel said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > The FoV on a 50mm will be closer to 85mm. It will still will be a 50mm lens, and perform like one. The 28mm you speak of will have a narrower FoV, close to a 50mm on a full frame, but it will have the distortion associated with the 28mm focal length. Not ideal for portraiture, as a matter of fact, it wouldn't be great at all.
> ...



I am with Tyler.  Doesnt matter... 28mm will distort your subject unless of course you only put them in 10% the size of the frame and maybe you wont really notice it.  Full body shot will take most of the frame.  You will get distortion.


----------



## Infidel (Jun 13, 2012)

We're losing track of the issue. 50mm on a 1.5x crop body has the same FoV as 75mm on full frame. Put a 50mm on a crop body and a 75mm on a full frame. USing each set up, compose identical photos (framing-wise). DoF aside and all else otherwise equal, the photos will be identical in terms of perspective distortion, because the camera-to-subject distance is identical. The example you linked to essentially proves my point, as it illustrates how changing FoV requires changing the camera-to-subject distance to achieve the same composition (again, framing-wise).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_(photography)


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 13, 2012)

Nope...  You really think the red bottle looks the same??


----------



## Infidel (Jun 13, 2012)

Did you even read my post? Or the article for that matter? This is the same as the first example you linked to. The focal length changes along with the camera-to-subject distance. It is the latter variable that causes the distortion.


----------



## Infidel (Jun 13, 2012)

On a crop body, 50mm focal length yields the same FoV and thus camera-to-subject distance as 75mm on full frame. Under this scenario, there is no difference in perspective distortion, because the camera-to-subject distance is the same.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 13, 2012)

I know.. you keep making the same point.  Maybe true if you are taking a picture of a one dollar bill lays flat on the wall.  We are taking picture of a person.  I dont understand your argument.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 13, 2012)

paigew said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > paigew said:
> ...



Well, what I say when it comes to portraiture: 

"The longer, the better."


----------



## Infidel (Jun 13, 2012)

Okay, the examples you have cited are using different focal lengths on the same sensor format. In order to achieve the same composition, or field of view, the camera-to-subject distance must also change. This is the factor that will introduce perspective distortion that your examples illustrate so eloquently. 

When using a crop-body camera, the field of view, and therefore camera-to-subject distance of a 50mm lens is the same as a 75mm lens on full frame. In terms of perspective distortion, FoV is what matters, not focal length.

I will look for kundalini's thread. Unfortunately, I don't have a full frame camera with which to perform the demonstration.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 13, 2012)

im tired of arguing with you infidel.  Go use your 18-55mm kit lens and shoot at 18mm.  Find me a picture of a person that does not look distorted.  You keep making the same argument over and over.


----------



## Infidel (Jun 13, 2012)

No need to debate this any further; I'm sorry I couldn't help you. :hug::


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 13, 2012)

Personally for portraiture I'd never go below 85mm.  85-135 is pretty much perfect.  

"the longer the better" doesnt qork for poirtrats because if you start going over 135mm you'll get significant barrel distorton.  

Technically if you want no distortion at all, 85 mil is going to be the best.  I juts like to go up to 135 because I can get a bigger closeup but sometimes you dont need it.  

85mm f/1.2L is the best portrait lens for a reason.


----------



## TheBiles (Jun 13, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> im tired of arguing with you infidel.  Go use your 18-55mm kit lens and shoot at 18mm.  Find me a picture of a person that does not look distorted.  You keep making the same argument over and over.


 
Hey, bro, you're not getting his fundamental argument. A 50mm lens on your crop camera will produce the same image as an 85mm on a full-frame (minus some DoF). We aren't talking about 50 vs 85 on the same body. The perspective distortion to which you are referring is a result of camera-to-subject distance, which would be identical in the above scenario. 

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 13, 2012)

TheBiles said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> > im tired of arguing with you infidel.  Go use your 18-55mm kit lens and shoot at 18mm.  Find me a picture of a person that does not look distorted.  You keep making the same argument over and over.
> ...




Sigh.. It wont produce the same picture!!


----------



## IByte (Jun 13, 2012)

Infidel said:
			
		

> No need to debate this any further; I'm sorry I couldn't help you. :hug::



The one with the hugs wins the love.  I just had to stop in and tell you all that reading this particular thread is freaking awesome, and wonder where the rest of these kinds of posts.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 13, 2012)

paigew said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Tight Knot said:
> ...



Their FOVs would be comparable if your distance to subject does not change.


----------



## jake337 (Jun 13, 2012)

sovietdoc said:


> Personally for portraiture I'd never go below 85mm.  85-135 is pretty much perfect.
> 
> "the longer the better" doesnt qork for poirtrats because if you start going over 135mm you'll get significant barrel distorton.
> 
> ...



Sorry, I don't agree with the past 135mm part...

Shot at 800mm...


http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5048/5295355552_f9b6a0f238_z.jpg


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 13, 2012)

I think 200mm is best .


Daym.. that 800mm shot.. Hawt!


----------



## Tight Knot (Jun 13, 2012)

Thanks all. This has really been a very informative thread for me, unfortunately, I still didn't get an answer as to whether my 100mm macro lens is good for portraiture as well, and if there is any fundamental difference between my 100mm EF Macro lens and a "standard" (not really sure what that means , other than non-macro specific) 100mm lens.

I guess that I can always try a couple of shots with my 50mm and then using the same aperture and the same camera-to-subject distance on my 100mm and see what happens. Once I get the opportunity, I will post the results (although I will blow up the 50mm photo to fill the frame the same as the 100mm shot)


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 13, 2012)

Infidel said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > The FoV on a 50mm will  be closer to 85mm. It will still will be a 50mm lens, and perform like  one. The 28mm you speak of will have a narrower FoV, close to a 50mm on a  full frame, but it will have the distortion associated with the 28mm  focal length. Not ideal for portraiture, as a matter of fact, it  wouldn't be great at all.
> ...



Normally for a standard portrait... you would have  to be much closer to the subject with a 28mm... and that would cause  distortion. If you are at the same distance you would be with a 50..  obviously your subject will be much smaller in the frame. I believe that  is what Tyler was pointing out. 

Wide angles / UWA's are more  prone to distortion than a telephoto for instance, because of the way  light travels into the lens from the sides. Otherwise a fisheye (which  is just an extreme wide angle) would not produce the effect it does. A  telephoto sees light in a much smaller view.. and doesn't have to  attempt to "bend" the light as much as a wide angle does (this is what gives distortion), just to get it  on the sensor. (Difficult to explain simply.. lol!)


----------



## jake337 (Jun 13, 2012)

Tight Knot said:


> Thanks all. This has really been a very informative thread for me, unfortunately, I still didn't get an answer as to whether my 100mm macro lens is good for portraiture as well, and if there is any fundamental difference between my 100mm EF Macro lens and a "standard" (not really sure what that means , other than non-macro specific) 100mm lens.
> 
> I guess that I can always try a couple of shots with my 50mm and then using the same aperture and the same camera-to-subject distance on my 100mm and see what happens. Once I get the opportunity, I will post the results (although I will blow up the 50mm photo to fill the frame the same as the 100mm shot)



Creating great portraits will be more about how you light your subject and how you pose them in relation to your camera/background/foreground.


----------



## Tight Knot (Jun 13, 2012)

jake337 said:


> Tight Knot said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks all. This has really been a very informative thread for me, unfortunately, I still didn't get an answer as to whether my 100mm macro lens is good for portraiture as well, and if there is any fundamental difference between my 100mm EF Macro lens and a "standard" (not really sure what that means , other than non-macro specific) 100mm lens.
> ...



Thanks Jake337,
That much I know, LOL, but it still doesn't answer my  question. I am looking for a technical answer to my question from  someone who knows the different specs and lenses.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Jun 13, 2012)

OP,  yes the 100mm macro is a good lens for portrait.  Here are the advantages and disadvantages of the 100mm macro vs 100 standard:

100mm macro Advantages (aperture probably 2.8):
1. the minimum focusing distance is smaller.  That means you can get closer and get more magnified view (macro)
2. Cant think of anything else lol

100mm standard:
1. More than likely it is a faster lens (aperture 1.8, 1.4 or 1.2).
2. It can focus faster
3. If shot at f/2.8, this one is sharper


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 13, 2012)

Tight Knot said:


> That much I know, LOL, but it still doesn't answer my  question. I am looking for a technical answer to my question from  someone who knows the different specs and lenses.



I have used a Tokina 100mm macro, a Sigma 150mm macro, and a Nikon 105mm macro for portraits. They will all produce sharp, well proportioned images.. if you do your part. The main hindrances are that sometimes the AF is slow, and they tend to hunt a bit, if the subject lacks contrast. Sometimes if they have a focus limit switch.. that can help. 

Are they optimal.. maybe not. Can they produce beautiful images.. yes! Bokeh can vary from lens to lens.. since they are not "designed" for beautiful bokeh.. but they can do well at also.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 13, 2012)

This is a shot from the Sigma 150mm macro






Kara C by CGipson Photography, on Flickr


----------



## Tight Knot (Jun 13, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Tight Knot said:
> 
> 
> > That much I know, LOL, but it still doesn't answer my  question. I am looking for a technical answer to my question from  someone who knows the different specs and lenses.
> ...



Thanks cgipson1. Sounds good. What is the difference though between a macro lens and a standard lens?


----------



## jake337 (Jun 13, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Tight Knot said:
> 
> 
> > That much I know, LOL, but it still doesn't answer my  question. I am looking for a technical answer to my question from  someone who knows the different specs and lenses.
> ...



Most have 9 aperture blades which helps out the bokeh.  I love the tokina 100mm f2.8!


----------



## Tight Knot (Jun 13, 2012)

Schwettylens said:


> OP,  yes the 100mm macro is a good lens for portrait.  Here are the advantages and disadvantages of the 100mm macro vs 100 standard:
> 
> 100mm macro Advantages (aperture probably 2.8):
> 1. the minimum focusing distance is smaller.  That means you can get closer and get more magnified view (macro)
> ...



Just what I was looking for schwettylens, thanks for the detailed answer.


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 13, 2012)

Tight Knot said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Tight Knot said:
> ...



A true macro lens will usually allow very close focusing on small subjects for true 1:1 magnification... lifesize in other words. The focusing element is designed to allow very precise focusing (very small focus movements) when used in this mode. So it has a much wider focusing capability than most standard lenses... which is why a focus limit switch is handy. You can typically put the switch in position to allow only Macro focusing.. or to allow all focusing. Some will also lock it down to just normal (non-macro) focusing... that way it doesn't take as much time (or movement) for it to "find" correct focus.. since it only attempts to focus in the range you set it to.

Does that help?


----------



## Tight Knot (Jun 13, 2012)

cgipson1 said:


> Tight Knot said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Yup, it sure does. Thanks.
My 100mm EF 2.8 Canon macro, just has a switch that allows the closest focusing point to change from +- 0.31m to 0.48m, plus of course AF or MF. I have used it very successfully with macro shots (which is what I purchased it for) especially when used in conjunction with my extenders, but wasn't sure how it would do for portraiture. I'm definitely going to try it out.


----------



## sovietdoc (Jun 13, 2012)

jake337 said:


> sovietdoc said:
> 
> 
> > Personally for portraiture I'd never go below 85mm.  85-135 is pretty much perfect.
> ...



Yes, but I was thinking of half-body portraits or face closeups.  I don't really call this type of shot "portrait"  

Plus good luck shooting with 800mil indoors in a studio


----------



## TheBiles (Jun 13, 2012)

Tight Knot said:


> Thanks all. This has really been a very informative thread for me, unfortunately, I still didn't get an answer as to whether my 100mm macro lens is good for portraiture as well, and if there is any fundamental difference between my 100mm EF Macro lens and a "standard" (not really sure what that means , other than non-macro specific) 100mm lens.
> 
> I guess that I can always try a couple of shots with my 50mm and then using the same aperture and the same camera-to-subject distance on my 100mm and see what happens. Once I get the opportunity, I will post the results (although I will blow up the 50mm photo to fill the frame the same as the 100mm shot)


 
It will be great for portraits where you have some room to move or for head and shoulders shots. Being a macro, it is probably sharper than most standard primes, so there's no problems with portraits. I'd use my 100L for portraits if I didn't have the crazy 135L.

Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201


----------



## BXPhoto (Jun 18, 2012)

TheBiles said:


> Tight Knot said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks all. This has really been a very informative thread for me, unfortunately, I still didn't get an answer as to whether my 100mm macro lens is good for portraiture as well, and if there is any fundamental difference between my 100mm EF Macro lens and a "standard" (not really sure what that means , other than non-macro specific) 100mm lens.
> ...



I also simply loved my 135L for portrait work also. 




The Signorelli's by BX | PHOTO by BX | PHOTO, on Flickr




The Signorelli's by BX | PHOTO by BX | PHOTO, on Flickr


----------



## hukim0531 (Jun 18, 2012)

I love 135L on FF. Lovely shots BX!


----------

