What lens do you shot portraits with?

[ProfJohn]

Have been looking at a 50mm Nikon, just over a $100. Seems like a good deal.

But at the same time I am looking at the 60mm micro/macro lens and am wondering if I could use that for portraits as well.

Why buy both if the 60mm will do the job by itself.
Just wondering what the more serious hobbyists thought.

 

[montanafan]

I like the Canon nifty-fifty for portraits. I've used the Canon 85mm f/1.8 as well.

 

[IeraseU]

I use the 17-55, 50 f/1.8 or 70-200VR for portraits.

Example of 17-55 portrait

I do not consider the 17-55 better at portraits then the cheap 50 f/1.8......just more convenient because it's a zoom. The 70-200VR is better because it delivers nicer bokeh if needed.

Of course the 85 f/1.8 , 85 f/1.4 , 105 f/2 DC are well known portrait lenses which I think would be hard to top (cream of the crop, but not as versatile) .

The 35-70 f/2.8 is a good budget zoom that delivers good portraits also.

 

[sdifox]

If you shoot a lot of portrait, I would say you need a 100mm.

 

[blurredvision]

A lot of people prefer to use a longer lens to shoot portraits. The 50/1.8 you are looking at will be great, but you typically have to be damned close to the person to take the shot, something a lot of people are uncomfortable with. Therefore, a longer lens is used, most times the 85mm or even the 105mm.

It's personal preference, though, as the 50/1.8 will still take great portraits.

 

[Zenmervolt]

On film I use a 135mm F/2.8 when I can. I wouldn't consider anything less than 85mm (on 35mm film) for a portrait so you'll be looking at a lens of at least 60mm on digital.

The problem with using a shorter lens is that when you're close to your subject, the perspective changes and you end up with photos that exaggerate features (usually the nose). Ideally you want to be at least 6 feet away, 10 feet is better. If you want to fill the frame with someone's face, a 135mm lens is definitely the way to go.

ZV

 

[GTaudiophile]

On an APS-C camera, I would personally not use anything longer than the EF 85 F1.8 USM. The Canon EF 35 F1.4L makes a pretty good portait lens as well.

What I really want is a EF 50 F1.4 MkII USM.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: montanafan
I like the Canon nifty-fifty for portraits. I've used the Canon 85mm f/1.8 as well.

Second the 85mm f/1.8 unless you are space limited. Very, very sharp lens.. at least my copy anyway. USed this lens in portrait class and you would not beleive some of the skin defects that would show up.

 

[foghorn67]

I use my 17-55 2.8 like 75% of the time. The 85 1.8 for another 20%, and sometimes outdoors, the 70-200 2.8.
I don't bother with my nifty fifty anymore. Great value lens, but I can't stand it's AF.

 

[jpeyton]

80-200/2.8 & 50/1.8

 

[randomlinh]

If I did more portraits, I'd use my 85mm f/1.8 (1.6x crop camera) I love this thing, but don't use it enough.

 

[virtuamike]

I use almost everything I have - 35/1.4 AIS, 50/1.4 AF, 17-55/2.8, 85/1.4 AF, 105/2 DC, 180/2.8. It all depends on what type of portrait I want to take and what mood I'm in. Do I want compression and isolation? Do I want environmental/contextual? Do I want a classical smooth look compared to the modern contrasty stuff?

The 50/1.8 you're looking at is a decent lens, and you can probably learn a lot about your preferences from there. If you'd like to play with other focal lengths and you're ok with using manual lenses, then you should also take a look at the 105/2.5 AI and the 35/2 AI.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: blurredvision
A lot of people prefer to use a longer lens to shoot portraits. The 50/1.8 you are looking at will be great, but you typically have to be damned close to the person to take the shot, something a lot of people are uncomfortable with. Therefore, a longer lens is used, most times the 85mm or even the 105mm.

It's personal preference, though, as the 50/1.8 will still take great portraits.

I've never found the working distance of a 50 to be uncomfortable for my subjects. When working with people, I'd rather be closer than far away. You can't really get a feel for your subjects from 10-20' back.

 

[Anubis]

the "typicial" polrtrait range is IIRC 85-135 and there are specefic lenses in that range designed for portraits like the 135 DC 85 1.4 ect, the nikon 180 F/2.8 is also 1 hell of a portrait lens, a bit on the long side but gives great isolation, shortel lensed liek the 50 can be used but you have to get pretty close to your subject and sometimes they dont like that, on a digital cam with a crap factor a 50 is like a 75 so it works out great

I took this with the Nikon 105 F/2.8 Macro

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Anubis
the "typicial" polrtrait range is IIRC 85-135 and there are specefic lenses in that range designed for portraits like the 135 DC 85 1.4 ect, the nikon 180 F/2.8 is also 1 hell of a portrait lens, a bit on the long side but gives great isolation, shortel lensed liek the 50 can be used but you have to get pretty close to your subject and sometimes they dont like that, on a digital cam with a crap factor a 50 is like a 75 so it works out great

I took this with the Nikon 1.5 F/2.8 Macro

So you're saying 53.125mm to 85.375mm on an APS-C?

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Anubis
the "typicial" polrtrait range is IIRC 85-135 and there are specefic lenses in that range designed for portraits like the 135 DC 85 1.4 ect, the nikon 180 F/2.8 is also 1 hell of a portrait lens, a bit on the long side but gives great isolation, shortel lensed liek the 50 can be used but you have to get pretty close to your subject and sometimes they dont like that, on a digital cam with a crap factor a 50 is like a 75 so it works out great

I took this with the Nikon 1.5 F/2.8 Macro

So you're saying 53.125mm to 85.375mm on an APS-C?

if you wanna think of it like that then yes i guess, really anything over 50 mm works on a digital, but then it comes down to prefrence,
tho even on a digital a 135 f/2.0 DC is still a lens to die for when doing portraits

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Anubis
the "typicial" polrtrait range is IIRC 85-135 and there are specefic lenses in that range designed for portraits like the 135 DC 85 1.4 ect, the nikon 180 F/2.8 is also 1 hell of a portrait lens, a bit on the long side but gives great isolation, shortel lensed liek the 50 can be used but you have to get pretty close to your subject and sometimes they dont like that, on a digital cam with a crap factor a 50 is like a 75 so it works out great

I took this with the Nikon 1.5 F/2.8 Macro

So you're saying 53.125mm to 85.375mm on an APS-C?

if you wanna think of it like that then yes i guess, really anything over 50 mm works on a digital, but then it comes down to prefrence,
tho even on a digital a 135 f/2.0 DC is still a lens to die for when doing portraits

I guess my question is, is 85-135 the typical portrait range on FF/35mm?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Anubis
the "typicial" polrtrait range is IIRC 85-135 and there are specefic lenses in that range designed for portraits like the 135 DC 85 1.4 ect, the nikon 180 F/2.8 is also 1 hell of a portrait lens, a bit on the long side but gives great isolation, shortel lensed liek the 50 can be used but you have to get pretty close to your subject and sometimes they dont like that, on a digital cam with a crap factor a 50 is like a 75 so it works out great

I took this with the Nikon 1.5 F/2.8 Macro

Which lens? The 60mm the 105mm etc.
Or am I missing something?

I am going to hang with my niece and nephew tomorrow so I'll play with the 50mm setting and see if I like it.

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Anubis
the "typicial" polrtrait range is IIRC 85-135 and there are specefic lenses in that range designed for portraits like the 135 DC 85 1.4 ect, the nikon 180 F/2.8 is also 1 hell of a portrait lens, a bit on the long side but gives great isolation, shortel lensed liek the 50 can be used but you have to get pretty close to your subject and sometimes they dont like that, on a digital cam with a crap factor a 50 is like a 75 so it works out great

I took this with the Nikon 1.5 F/2.8 Macro

Which lens? The 60mm the 105mm etc.
Or am I missing something?

I am going to hang with my niece and nephew tomorrow so I'll play with the 50mm setting and see if I like it.

the 105 i misstyped that

 

[Anubis]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Anubis
the "typicial" polrtrait range is IIRC 85-135 and there are specefic lenses in that range designed for portraits like the 135 DC 85 1.4 ect, the nikon 180 F/2.8 is also 1 hell of a portrait lens, a bit on the long side but gives great isolation, shortel lensed liek the 50 can be used but you have to get pretty close to your subject and sometimes they dont like that, on a digital cam with a crap factor a 50 is like a 75 so it works out great

I took this with the Nikon 1.5 F/2.8 Macro

So you're saying 53.125mm to 85.375mm on an APS-C?

if you wanna think of it like that then yes i guess, really anything over 50 mm works on a digital, but then it comes down to prefrence,
tho even on a digital a 135 f/2.0 DC is still a lens to die for when doing portraits

I guess my question is, is 85-135 the typical portrait range on FF/35mm?

and yes for film

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Anubis

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: Anubis
the "typicial" polrtrait range is IIRC 85-135 and there are specefic lenses in that range designed for portraits like the 135 DC 85 1.4 ect, the nikon 180 F/2.8 is also 1 hell of a portrait lens, a bit on the long side but gives great isolation, shortel lensed liek the 50 can be used but you have to get pretty close to your subject and sometimes they dont like that, on a digital cam with a crap factor a 50 is like a 75 so it works out great

I took this with the Nikon 1.5 F/2.8 Macro

So you're saying 53.125mm to 85.375mm on an APS-C?

if you wanna think of it like that then yes i guess, really anything over 50 mm works on a digital, but then it comes down to prefrence,
tho even on a digital a 135 f/2.0 DC is still a lens to die for when doing portraits

I guess my question is, is 85-135 the typical portrait range on FF/35mm?

Typical, yes. But do you really want to be tied down to typical?

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: virtuamike
I use almost everything I have - 35/1.4 AIS, 50/1.4 AF, 17-55/2.8, 85/1.4 AF, 105/2 DC, 180/2.8. It all depends on what type of portrait I want to take and what mood I'm in. Do I want compression and isolation? Do I want environmental/contextual? Do I want a classical smooth look compared to the modern contrasty stuff?

The 50/1.8 you're looking at is a decent lens, and you can probably learn a lot about your preferences from there. If you'd like to play with other focal lengths and you're ok with using manual lenses, then you should also take a look at the 105/2.5 AI and the 35/2 AI.

:thumbsup:

 

[jamesbond007]

I am with virtuamike and shoot nearly everything I have. However, I would say I use my 24-70 about 90% of the time simply because it's great for close-ups, keeps me in communication with the person so I can pose them, and it also allows me to go a little wide to include the environment. Plus, it shows very little to no barrel distortion, so features are not exaggerated.

The 135L is my other favorite portrait lens, but it's a bit long on a 1.6x crop body. It really puts you at a distance, especially if you want to try and fit 2 or 3 people in the shot and have half or full bodies in there.

The 50mm 1.8 variants are *GREAT* starter lenses. They're pretty sharp, good for low-light shooting, and it's a great middle-ground focal range to kind of learn what your shooting style is. Some people enjoy UWA shots for up-close footage, some like to shoot from afar and be candid, and then you have shooters like me, who shoot at varying ranges.

Good luck!