# Best Studio Lens for Full Body shots?



## Samerr9

Hi all.. 

I have always wondered what is the best lens for full body shots in studio? if it should be long.. what is the minimum required for both full frame and crop bodies? 

Thank you for you help.


----------



## Robin Usagani

I say 85mm.. but there are people who shoot with 200mm


----------



## mjhoward

How big is your studio.


----------



## Samerr9

Schwettylens said:


> I say 85mm.. but there are people who shoot with 200mm


 
is 50mm in a croped body not good?



mjhoward said:


> How big is your studio.



15x15 but I have more space to move backwords through the kitchen passage 

I used this sketch before in another threat, it is in Meters not feet


----------



## Robin Usagani

50 mm is not bad, but I think 85 would be better.  You can see the distortion with 50mm (crop body or full frame).  Let me try and find you this link.


----------



## Robin Usagani

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


----------



## Robin Usagani

I think 50mm looks horrible.  85 and longer is best.


----------



## Samerr9

Schwettylens said:


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



This is really nice link.. Thanks

I am moving next week to the new house and I ordered the paper backgrounds with the on wall hanger (works like a curtain to make the background come down). I will post some photos as soon I start taking shots there.. Thank you


----------



## Samerr9

Schwettylens said:


> I think 50mm looks horrible.  85 and longer is best.



I see you moved your lenses to sigma! so you recommend the 85 as I cant afford the 85 1.2 L. I was planning to get the 24-70 soon.


----------



## tirediron

I wouldn't worry about the getting the 1.2; either the 1.4 or 1.8 will do nicely, and FWIW, I agree with Robin; 85 and up is best.  You can use 50 on a crop-body, but it's not going to be as good for this sort of work as slightly longer glass.


----------



## Samerr9

tirediron said:


> I wouldn't worry about the getting the 1.2; either the 1.4 or 1.8 will do nicely, and FWIW, I agree with Robin; 85 and up is best.  You can use 50 on a crop-body, but it's not going to be as good for this sort of work as slightly longer glass.



Thank you Tirediron. I will use the kit lens on 85mm after I move and if it works I will decide on which is the next lens.


----------



## mjhoward

I think you're going to have a hard time using 85mm for a FULL BODY shot in a 15'x15' room.  By the time you add a backdrop and some space between it and your model,  you're gonna have 10-12' to work with with your back against the wall.  On the 60D, your field of view at 12' away is only 3'2" x 2'1".  Even if you had the full 15', you're only going to fit the full body of a 3'11" person in portrait orientation.

If you drop down to 50mm, you're going to be limited to 5'5" height (portrait orientation) at 12' and 6'9" for the 15' foot length of the room.  You're going to either have to get a FF camera, a larger studio, use an abnormally short focal length, or forget about doing full body shots.


----------



## jamesbjenkins

Schwettylens said:


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



I know a lot of models that would pay thousands for the 19mm shot.  :lmao:


----------



## jamesbjenkins

Samerr9 said:


> Hi all..
> 
> I have always wondered what is the best lens for full body shots in studio? if it should be long.. what is the minimum required for both full frame and crop bodies?
> 
> Thank you for you help.



On either crop body or full frame, the 85mm focal length is the shortest option with almost zero distortion.  You can go longer than that, as many do, but if your space is limited for now, that's obviously not going to happen.

With the space limitations you listed, you won't be able to get a full body shot at a focal length that will provide zero distortion. You'll need to shoot in a different location, or adjust your expectations to waist up shots or headshots...


----------



## Solarflare

Schwettylens said:


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


 Thats not a full body shot, so whats the value of that ?

AFAIK the recommented full frame lenses for face are 135mm and for full body 50mm. Or, much easier to memorize: the optimal distance to the person of which you want a portrait is about 5m.

I certainly have no problem with people on my 35mm on DX (which, thanks to the 1.5 crop factor, is about 50mm for full frame). I just keep 5m distance to my subjects and they look natural.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Solarflare said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image31.png
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not a full body shot, so whats the value of that ?AFAIK the recommented full frame lenses for face are 135mm and for full body 50mm. Or, much easier to memorize: the optimal distance to the person of which you want a portrait is about 5m.I certainly have no problem with people on my 35mm on DX (which, thanks to the 1.5 crop factor, is about 50mm for full frame). I just keep 5m distance to my subjects and they look natural.
Click to expand...


----------



## jamesbjenkins

Solarflare said:
			
		

> Thats not a full body shot, so whats the value of that ?
> 
> AFAIK the recommented full frame lenses for face are 135mm and for full body 50mm. Or, much easier to memorize: the optimal distance to the person of which you want a portrait is about 5m.
> 
> I certainly have no problem with people on my 35mm on DX (which, thanks to the 1.5 crop factor, is about 50mm for full frame). I just keep 5m distance to my subjects and they look natural.



Are you just trying to be rude, or do you not understand the purpose of Robin's link was simply showing distortion caused by focal length? Distortion effects full body shots the same way as headshots, if not as obviously...

And the OP doesn't have 5m to step away from the subjects.  SMH.


----------



## Samerr9

mjhoward said:


> I think you're going to have a hard time using 85mm for a FULL BODY shot in a 15'x15' room. By the time you add a backdrop and some space between it and your model, you're gonna have 10-12' to work with with your back against the wall. On the 60D, your field of view at 12' away is only 3'2" x 2'1". Even if you had the full 15', you're only going to fit the full body of a 3'11" person in portrait orientation.
> 
> If you drop down to 50mm, you're going to be limited to 5'5" height (portrait orientation) at 12' and 6'9" for the 15' foot length of the room. You're going to either have to get a FF camera, a larger studio, use an abnormally short focal length, or forget about doing full body shots.



Sad to know but it is a good reason to move to FF 



jamesbjenkins said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image31.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know a lot of models that would pay thousands for the 19mm shot. :lmao:
Click to expand...


What is your secret ? 



jamesbjenkins said:


> Samerr9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all..
> 
> I have always wondered what is the best lens for full body shots in studio? if it should be long.. what is the minimum required for both full frame and crop bodies?
> 
> Thank you for you help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On either crop body or full frame, the 85mm focal length is the shortest option with almost zero distortion. You can go longer than that, as many do, but if your space is limited for now, that's obviously not going to happen.
> 
> With the space limitations you listed, you won't be able to get a full body shot at a focal length that will provide zero distortion. You'll need to shoot in a different location, or adjust your expectations to waist up shots or headshots...
Click to expand...


Now it is very clear to me, to avoid distortion I need a min of 85mm. I am sorry, but will I be able to fix distortion in post if using 50mm taking in consideration the space!



Solarflare said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.holesinthenet.co.il/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/image31.png
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not a full body shot, so whats the value of that ?
> 
> AFAIK the recommented full frame lenses for face are 135mm and for full body 50mm. Or, much easier to memorize: the optimal distance to the person of which you want a portrait is about 5m.
> 
> I certainly have no problem with people on my 35mm on DX (which, thanks to the 1.5 crop factor, is about 50mm for full frame). I just keep 5m distance to my subjects and they look natural.
Click to expand...


If using 35, good care has to be taken in regard of the hight and angle of the camera. right?


----------



## Samerr9

By the way, I have the 70-300 IS also.. So if by anychance the focal length worked, I will try shooting with this lens. But honestly I don't like it as I feel the images are soft.


----------



## Solarflare

jamesbjenkins said:


> Are you just trying to be rude, or do you not understand the purpose of Robin's link was simply showing distortion caused by focal length.


 Which is my point.

There is no "distortion by focal length".

If you check the picture that got posted - the face is always about the same size. That means the photographer moved closer and closer and closer.

But if you keep 5m distance to your subject, you wont get distortion, no matter what focal length you use. The issue is simply how much of the person you photograph will be on the picture. At about 50mm, you get full body, while 135mm gives you the face.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Solarflare said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just trying to be rude, or do you not understand the purpose of Robin's link was simply showing distortion caused by focal length.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is my point.
> 
> There is no "distortion by focal length".
> 
> If you check the picture that got posted - the face is always about the same size. That means the photographer moved closer and closer and closer.
> 
> But if you keep 5m distance to your subject, you wont get distortion, no matter what focal length you use. The issue is simply how much of the person you photograph will be on the picture. At about 50mm, you get full body, while 135mm gives you the face.
Click to expand...


OK.. just keep shooting with your 35mm man.


----------



## jamesbjenkins

Samerr9 said:


> Sad to know but it is a good reason to move to FF



There are a lot of reasons to move to full frame, assuming you can afford to.  In my experience, the only reason to shoot a crop sensor body other than finances is if you're trying to get extra reach out of a tele lens.  Apart from that, full frame is better in every case, IMO.



Samerr9 said:


> Now it is very clear to me, to avoid distortion I need a min of 85mm. I am sorry, but will I be able to fix distortion in post if using 50mm taking in consideration the space!



Unfortunately, it's just about impossible to fully fix distortion caused by the focal length of a lens and the distance to your subject.  Image editors like Photoshop and Lightroom are capable of removing some distortion and vignetting via their built-in lens profiles.  However, there's really no substitute for using the right tool for the right job.



Samerr9 said:


> By the way, I have the 70-300 IS also.. So if by anychance the focal length worked, I will try shooting with this lens. But honestly I don't like it as I feel the images are soft.



The softness issue is a problem for both the Nikon and Canon versions of the 70-300 IS / VR.  It's an inexpensive, versatile lens, but it definitely has its weaknesses.  The Nikon 28-300 is quite a bit sharper, but it has some wicked distortion and vignetting instead.  There's always a give and take unless you're talking about the top of the line pro-grade lenses.  They're pretty much perfect at what they're intended to do.



Solarflare said:


> There is no "distortion by focal length".



I don't have time to explain to you the basic fundamentals of photography, but you are dead wrong.  It's simple physics.  Just because you don't perceive it in a particular image doesn't mean it's not there.

And regardless of that point, the OP doesn't have 5 meters to step off from his subject!  Seriously, are you even reading these posts?

-

Hope that helps, OP.  Post again if you want to continue this...


----------



## Samerr9

jamesbjenkins said:


> Hope that helps, OP.  Post again if you want to continue this...



Thanks a million James for the detailed reply. Very helpful. 

I will post again as soon as I move in, hopefully by next week. I will send photos of how the studio came out and what focal lenghtes I could reach.


----------



## JClishe

Samerr9 said:


> By the way, I have the 70-300 IS also.. So if by anychance the focal length worked, I will try shooting with this lens. But honestly I don't like it as I feel the images are soft.



I own that lens and wouldn't use it in the studio.

I own 50mm and 85mm primes and a 50D and 5D3, as well the 24-105L. Today I used all 3 lenses on my 5D3 for some glamour work, there is a time and place for everything. The 85 1.8 is usually too long on my 50D unless you have a lot of space to back up, but HANDS DOWN it is the sharpest of the bunch. The 85 on a full frame for glamour work is pure goodness. It's my go to lens and I only switch to the 50 or 24-105 if conditions necessitate it.


----------



## Buckster

JClishe said:


> Samerr9 said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, I have the 70-300 IS also.. So if by anychance the focal length worked, I will try shooting with this lens. But honestly I don't like it as I feel the images are soft.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I own that lens and wouldn't use it in the studio.
> 
> I own 50mm and 85mm primes and a 50D and 5D3, as well the 24-105L. Today I used all 3 lenses on my 5D3 for some glamour work, there is a time and place for everything. The 85 1.8 is usually too long on my 50D unless you have a lot of space to back up, but HANDS DOWN it is the sharpest of the bunch. The 85 on a full frame for glamour work is pure goodness. It's my go to lens and I only switch to the 50 or 24-105 if conditions necessitate it.
Click to expand...

Same here, except my bodies are 40D, 7D and 5DMKII.  For portraits, my go-to is the 85mm on the 5DMKII, followed by the 24-105mm, then the 50mm.


----------



## DiskoJoe

You could use a 50mm. It would probably work best for your space limitation. Longer focal length is always better but work with what you have and Im sure it will be just fine. 

I shot this with my 50mm from about 2-3 meters away. 



 ripped fishnets by DiskoJoe, on Flickr


----------



## Helen B

Solarflare said:


> jamesbjenkins said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just trying to be rude, or do you not understand the purpose of Robin's link was simply showing distortion caused by focal length.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is my point.
> 
> There is no "distortion by focal length".
> 
> If you check the picture that got posted - the face is always about the same size. That means the photographer moved closer and closer and closer.
> 
> But if you keep 5m distance to your subject, you wont get distortion, no matter what focal length you use. The issue is simply how much of the person you photograph will be on the picture. At about 50mm, you get full body, while 135mm gives you the face.
Click to expand...


Thank goodness there's one person posting in this thread that has a good understanding of the subject.


----------



## Helen B

jamesbjenkins said:


> Solarflare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not a full body shot, so whats the value of that ?
> 
> AFAIK the recommented full frame lenses for face are 135mm and for full body 50mm. Or, much easier to memorize: the optimal distance to the person of which you want a portrait is about 5m.
> 
> I certainly have no problem with people on my 35mm on DX (which, thanks to the 1.5 crop factor, is about 50mm for full frame). I just keep 5m distance to my subjects and they look natural.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you just trying to be rude, or do you not understand the purpose of Robin's link was simply showing distortion caused by focal length? Distortion effects full body shots the same way as headshots, if not as obviously...
> 
> And the OP doesn't have 5m to step away from the subjects.  SMH.
Click to expand...


We should be very clear about this: the composite image in the link _does not show distortion caused by focal length per se_ - it shows 'distortion' caused by proximity to the subject, which is a consequence of the focal length if you keep the framing the same. Two very different effects. It's only a mismatch between the taking distance and the viewing distance/distance which we are accustomed to when looking into other people's faces.


----------



## greybeard

Boy do people disagree on this one.  It has been my experience shooting full body shots demands a lens with "normal" perspective.  For a full frame that would be a 50mm and for a APC-C it would be a 35mm.   Longer lenses can create an uncomfortable if not unworkable working distance.  

Flame on.........lol


----------



## Helen B

If it was opinion-based I could understand 'disagreement', but it isn't. I'd love to hear any rational argument, or see any evidence, that supports the notion that lens focal length and not distance to subject affects this type of distortion. Take two images from the same postion, one with a 200 mm lens and one with a 28 mm lens (for example) and overlay them after changing the magnification. Apart from any pincushion/barrel distortion caused by lens defects (which are a feature of the particular lens design, not of all lenses of that focal length) they will be identical.


----------



## jamesbjenkins

Helen B said:
			
		

> If it was opinion-based I could understand 'disagreement', but it isn't. I'd love to hear any rational argument, or see any evidence, that supports the notion that lens focal length and not distance to subject affects this type of distortion. Take two images from the same postion, one with a 200 mm lens and one with a 28 mm lens (for example) and overlay them after changing the magnification. Apart from any pincushion/barrel distortion caused by lens defects (which are a feature of the particular lens design, not of all lenses of that focal length) they will be identical.



Take an hour or two researching the basic physics of light and photographic technology then come back here and correct yourself. Any fool with two eyes can look at a picture, not perceive distortion and then claim there is none unilaterally. Again, just because you can't see distortion in a particular image doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Perspective distortion caused by a combination of subject distance and focal length will always affect the image, regardless of whether those differences are small enough to be imperceptible.

For instance, my 14-24 will ALWAYS distort a room I'm shooting, regardless of how close I am to the walls. The differences between a 50mm and a 85mm are much les noticeable unless you're too close to your subject, but they're most definitely there. You can't fool physics.


----------



## Helen B

jamesbjenkins said:


> Take an hour or two researching the basic physics of light and photographic technology then come back here and correct yourself.
> ...
> 
> Perspective distortion caused by a combination of subject distance *and focal length* will always affect the image, regardless of whether those differences are small enough to be imperceptible.
> 
> ...
> You can't fool physics.



I've spent rather more than two hours researching the basic physics of light and photographic technology. Please enlighten me and explain the physics behind what you are claiming, or point me to a website. Thanks.

Edit: Perhaps I should add my version of the physics.
Situation: 
Two lenses of different focal lengths (flA and flB) with their entrance pupils in the same position relative to the subject.
Distance between entrance pupil and front nodal point small with respect to all other distances.

Consider:
Relative magnification of two zones of the subject, at different distances (ie how big things appear relatively, depending on how far they are away). Let's say the tip of the nose is at So1 and the ears are at So2.
Image distance for lens with flA is SiA, image distance for lens with flB is SiB.

Relative magnification of nose with respect to ears, lens A:
SiA/So1 / (SiA/So2)         ie the magnification of the nose divided by the magnification of the ears
=So2/So1

Relative magnification of nose with respect to ears, lens B:
SiB/So1 / (SiB/So2)         
=So2/So1

As you can see, the image distance cancels out. Only the subject distance is important.


----------



## Robin Usagani

You lost me HelenB.  What is the difference between So1 and SiA ?  I am trying to follow your explanation.  What is So1 and So2?

My understanding is that your FOV is similar between 35mm lens on crop vs 50mm on FF when you are focused on infinity.  But once you come closer to portrait distance, the difference is quite noticeable and the FOV of the 35 on crop will be wider.  If the FOV is wider then the angle of FOV is wider.  That means something farther from the focusing point will get smaller a lot quicker. So if you are focusing on the nose, then the ears will be smaller on the 35+crop.  Isnt this what we are talking about?  Best studio lens? We probably want to fill the subject in most of the frame?


----------



## Helen B

Schwettylens said:


> You lost me HelenB.  What is the difference between So1 and SiA ?



So1 is an *o*bject distance (in this case to the tip of the nose) and SiA is the *i*mage distance for lens A. (Object distances are measured from the front nodal point to the object; image distances are measured from the rear nodal point to the image.)



> I am trying to follow your explanation.  What is So1 and So2?



They are object distances, 1 to the tip of the nose, 2 to the some point on the ears. The lenses are the same distance from the objects, so the object distances for lenses A and B are the same - we are trying to show the effect on perspective of focal length itself, not of distance, so the object distances are the same.



> My understanding is that your FOV is similar between 35mm lens on crop vs 50mm on FF when you are focused on infinity.  But once you come closer to portrait distance, the difference is quite noticeable and the FOV of the 35 on crop will be wider.



True. Let's quantify an example.

Suppose the 35 mm lens has exactly the same diagonal FOV at infinity focus as a 50 mm lens on 24x36. That would be 46° 48' (all values to the nearest minute).

Now focus to 1 m instead of infinity. The FOV of the 50 mm on FF is now 44° 41' and the FOV of the 35 mm on crop is 45° 19'. A difference of 38', or a shade over half a degree. Not a lot, but not zero either.



> That means something farther from the focusing point will get smaller a lot quicker. So if you are focusing on the nose, then the ears will be smaller on the 35+crop.  Isnt this what we are talking about?



Yes, slightly smaller - but the nose will also be slightly smaller, and the nose and ears will be in the exact same proportion as they are with the longer lens, if the two lenses are in the same position ( strictly speaking it is their entrance pupils that are in the same position).


----------



## greybeard

I have to agree with the contention that perspective is solely the product of camera to subject distance.


----------



## Samerr9

I am enjoying reading all the detials and physics! HelenB you really took me back to the school days with your posts 

I would like to add something although I know less than most of you. I am not talking physics but it is just what I see in my photos and I will stick to in studio photos. Wide angle lenses by its nature will capture more area (or background) than tele at the same position. This is a disadvantage for wide lenses as you might see light stands or the cieling in the photo, while the tele will show less background i.e. only the backdrop.

Furthermore, if we take in consideration the fisheye lens (which is an extreme wide angle). By its nature it will make things in a circle shape thus humans will look compressed in the top and the bottom which is not bad depending on the purpose of the shot. But for studio shots it is not flatering for the final product of a fashion or beauty full body shot in studio. To prove that distortion is not always bad, I read that some erotic photographers use 24mm when shooting ladies to make some parts of their bodies more dominant.

Before I read the physics above, I was kind of convinced that I need to shoot at 85mm, it made sence to me. Lets see where this will lead and I am open to any conclusion.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Samer, fisheye is a different ballgame since it is a non linear lens.

The argument was not about capturing more ceiling and background.  I think we all can agree the longer lens will look better if you compare it with the same body.  The argument is 35mm with a crop body vs 50mm with a full frame body.  You will have almost the same about of FOV so your working distance will be close.



Samerr9 said:


> I am enjoying reading all the detials and physics! HelenB you really took me back to the school days with your posts
> 
> I would like to add something although I know less than most of you. I am not talking physics but it is just what I see in my photos and I will stick to in studio photos. Wide angle lenses by its nature will capture more area (or background) than tele at the same position. This is a disadvantage for wide lenses as you might see light stands or the cieling in the photo, while the tele will show less background i.e. only the backdrop.
> 
> Furthermore, if we take in consideration the fisheye lens (which is an extreme wide angle). By its nature it will make things in a circle shape thus humans will look compressed in the top and the bottom which is not bad depending on the purpose of the shot. But for studio shots it is not flatering for the final product of a fashion or beauty full body shot in studio. To prove that distortion is not always bad, I read that some erotic photographers use 24mm when shooting ladies to make some parts of their bodies more dominant.
> 
> Before I read the physics above, I was kind of convinced that I need to shoot at 85mm, it made sence to me. Lets see where this will lead and I am open to any conclusion.


----------



## Samerr9

Schwettylens said:


> Samer, fisheye is a different ballgame since it is a non linear lens.
> 
> The argument was not about capturing more ceiling and background.  I think we all can agree the longer lens will look better if you compare it with the same body.  The argument is 35mm with a crop body vs 50mm with a full frame body.  You will have almost the same about of FOV so your working distance will be close.



This I don't know, I never used FF.

 Maybe someone that have both FF and crop bodies can help us resolve this and post photos as examples to be discussed?!


----------



## Robin Usagani

HelenB, how about when we start talking about barrel distortion?  How does 24mm on crop measure with 35mm on full frame? 

I really need a diagram or sketch hahah.  I cant follow this conversation with only text.  The only time I have ever learned about lenses was when I was in college taking physics I.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Samerr9 said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> Samer, fisheye is a different ballgame since it is a non linear lens.
> 
> The argument was not about capturing more ceiling and background.  I think we all can agree the longer lens will look better if you compare it with the same body.  The argument is 35mm with a crop body vs 50mm with a full frame body.  You will have almost the same about of FOV so your working distance will be close.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This I don't know, I never used FF.
> 
> Maybe someone that have both FF and crop bodies can help us resolve this and post photos as examples to be discussed?!
Click to expand...


Kundalini has done one... maybe someone can find that thread.   The FOV was similar but if I remember correctly, the background is a little different.  However it can be cause by different things.  The location of the sensor was not exactly the same.  I have tried the same test and I cant seem to overlay the 2 images.  I have sold my crop sensor.  Ill see if I can find the thread.


----------



## Robin Usagani

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...rence-between-full-frame-cropped-sensors.html


----------



## greybeard

35mm on a 1.5 crop frame would be like a 52.5mm FF (Nikon) and 35mm on a 1.6 (Canon) would be like a 56mm.  So it depends on your sensor.  You are really splitting hairs.  I've used 35mm FF film for years and the perspective from a 50mm on FF is very similar to 35mm on my crop frame.  DoF however is shallower f/stop for f/stop with the FF 50mm over the APC-C 35mm.  But, back to the OP, using a 35mm with a crop frame camera will give you a natural perspective with a full body portrait.  Natural meaning the nose won't be exaggerated as when you are too close with a wide angle and things won't look too flat as with a really long tele.  The perspective will look similar to the way one would view the scene with the naked eye.


----------



## KmH

I know of no one more technically astute about photography and photography related subjects here at TPF - than Helen B.

When she explains things, pay close attention because you are getting first rate information.


----------



## Robin Usagani

Damn.. I hate to say this... I just want to apologize to solarflare and infidel. After doing an hour of reading after I get back from work I would say the FOV is pretty darn close until your distance is super close.  When I did this test, I shot a subject only 3 ft away and the 35mm on crop sensor was way more distorted.


----------



## Mike_E

Schwettylens said:


> Damn.. I hate to say this... I just want to apologize to solarflare and infidel. After doing an hour of reading after I get back from work I would say the FOV is pretty darn close until your distance is super close.  When I did this test, I shot a subject only 3 ft away and the 35mm on crop sensor was way more distorted.







Circle of confusion is confusing.





Edit:  hey, it sounds good anyway.  LOL


----------



## IByte

It was a good debate and from this one thread I have a much better understanding about the crop and FF well done guys lol.


----------



## Infidel

Schwettylens said:


> Damn.. I hate to say this... I just want to apologize to solarflare and infidel. After doing an hour of reading after I get back from work I would say the FOV is pretty darn close until your distance is super close.  When I did this test, I shot a subject only 3 ft away and the 35mm on crop sensor was way more distorted.



Much appreciated. Optical science is neither simple nor trivial to understand (I learned how ignorant I am by reading Helen's post). You bring to light a lot of practical considerations about how to shoot with a given lens that behoove all of us to learn and understand.


----------



## Samerr9

So what is the conclusion?

Is it agreed that 35mm on crop is almost the same as 50mm on FF?


----------



## Robin Usagani

Yes... But not if you are really close like face shot.


----------



## greybeard

Schwettylens said:


> Yes... But not if you are really close like face shot.


How is the 35mm with a crop  different from a 50mm on FF up close other than DoF for given f/stop?


----------



## 2WheelPhoto

mjhoward said:


> How big is your studio.



^^^huge consideration


----------



## Robin Usagani

greybeard said:


> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... But not if you are really close like face shot.
> 
> 
> 
> How is the 35mm with a crop  different from a 50mm on FF up close other than DoF for given f/stop?
Click to expand...


When you go really close like around 3 ft, the FOV will be very different and you will see more distortion on the 35mm.


----------



## greybeard

Schwettylens said:


> greybeard said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Schwettylens said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes... But not if you are really close like face shot.
> 
> 
> 
> How is the 35mm with a crop  different from a 50mm on FF up close other than DoF for given f/stop?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you go really close like around 3 ft, the FOV will be very different and you will see more distortion on the 35mm.
Click to expand...


OK I've got my d5100 crop frame with 18-55 and the lens is set to 35mm.....I also have my old Nikon n80 with a 50mm f/1.8.  I'm standing about 1.5 ft in front of my wife looking at her with both cameras.  Other than the fact that the n80 has a much bigger viewfinder, I see no difference.


----------



## JClishe

This thread has jumped the shark


----------



## Robin Usagani

maybe you are right.  I dont even know anymore.  I've read and read and I get confused even more.  I tried it a while back when I had a crop from close and the photo was pretty different.  I wish I can find the darn thread.


----------



## Robin Usagani

My apology.  The field of view is still the same.  I misread the information.  It is just saying the angle of view doesnt change much when your focusing distance gets closer on a lens unless you get really close.  To compare the two will be identical.  The only difference is the DOF.  Forget everything I said.


----------



## Robin Usagani

I have an idea.  I will do a test.  Very different than any other test. Stay tuned tomorrow night.


----------



## Samerr9

Schwettylens said:


> I have an idea.  I will do a test.  Very different than any other test. Stay tuned tomorrow night.



Will be waiting


----------



## Robin Usagani

http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/288250-fov-crop-ff.html#post2623091


----------

