Another look at 50mm

JamieB · Aug 5, 2017

So many posts online about how the 50mm is not a portrait lens. People can get quite irate about it. Their reasoning is that when you move closer to the subject, you get distortion. Especially headshots. I know myself that full body or American cut looks fine, to my eyes. Besides, what if you liked the distortion? 28 and 35 are regularly used in street photography and up close you get much more distortion but that is part of the look. Distortion can oddly create intimacy. Anyone else notice that?
85mm can look a bit too... perfect.. especially if all you do is shoot at the widest aperture to separate the subject from the background and get nice bokeh.
I know any lens can be used for portraits. I am just interested to hear your thoughts on the 50. If you use it for portraits and how you use it.

David Lyga · Aug 5, 2017

It CAN be used as a portrait lens, rendering precise perspective IF you are willing to back off and crop the negative. In fact, with half frame systems this is the BEST portrait lens out there. OK, if you want to photograph a face close up, there is no rule stating that you will, thus, be prosecuted for somewhat of a deviation from 'correct' perspective. That would be deemed 'art', maybe, and that is your call. - David Lyga

Chan Tran · Aug 5, 2017

JamieB said:
So many posts online about how the 50mm is not a portrait lens. People can get quite irate about it. Their reasoning is that when you move closer to the subject, you get distortion. Especially headshots. I know myself that full body or American cut looks fine, to my eyes. Besides, what if you liked the distortion? 28 and 35 are regularly used in street photography and up close you get much more distortion but that is part of the look. Distortion can oddly create intimacy. Anyone else notice that?
85mm can look a bit too... perfect.. especially if all you do is shoot at the widest aperture to separate the subject from the background and get nice bokeh.
I know any lens can be used for portraits. I am just interested to hear your thoughts on the 50. If you use it for portraits and how you use it.

I do agree with you. If you are closed to someone you may see him/her very close and thus you see the person with the upclose perspective then using a short lens and photograph that person upclose.

E. von Hoegh · Aug 5, 2017

JamieB said:
So many posts online about how the 50mm is not a portrait lens. People can get quite irate about it. Their reasoning is that when you move closer to the subject, you get distortion. Especially headshots. I know myself that full body or American cut looks fine, to my eyes. Besides, what if you liked the distortion? 28 and 35 are regularly used in street photography and up close you get much more distortion but that is part of the look. Distortion can oddly create intimacy. Anyone else notice that?
85mm can look a bit too... perfect.. especially if all you do is shoot at the widest aperture to separate the subject from the background and get nice bokeh.
I know any lens can be used for portraits. I am just interested to hear your thoughts on the 50. If you use it for portraits and how you use it.

It depends. Absolutely any lens will make a wonderful portrait, in the right circumstances. St. Ansel used a Voigtlaender process lens for at least one well known portrait, so fuzzy lenses are not necessary. I've made some good head-and-half torso portraits with a 50 and a couple with a 35, so longer lenses are not mandatory. But I have 85 and 105 lenses for 35, and those are my go-to portrait lenses. I've never sought "nice bokeh", the entire concept misses me completely. I want my out of focus areas out of focus, period. When I make a formal portrait in any format I use a featureless background, the background is not part of the portrait, it serves to support the portrait. I would not use a 28mm for a portrait.

Ko.Fe. · Aug 5, 2017

If someone tells what 50mm is not the portrait lens, to me it is act of the gearhead or it comes from photographer who takes photos for passports.
50mm is my portraits lens.

50 as well:

waileong · Aug 5, 2017

Let them be irate then. 50mm can used for portraits, but a lot of 50 mm rangefinder lenses max out at 70 cm or even 1m, so you can't get close enough for a full face headshot. For those lenses which can get close enough, there's always the possibility the nose gets too big.

Anyway, I like 50mm for head and shoulders portraits, and oddly enough, for landscapes. I find 28 mm or other wide lenses quite useless for landscapes as distant mountains look way too small, whereas 50 mm renders them naturally. And I like telephoto lenses for landscapes to bring mountains and other distant features (like lighthouses) closer.

voceumana · Aug 5, 2017

Most "so-called" distortion is not truly distortion, but just the perspective provided by the position of the lens with respect to the subject. Any focal length can be used for a portrait--longer lengths are often chosen because they provide a lens-to-subject distance that provides a perspective that matches what we usually see when we look at people. I've taken lots of portraits with the "normal" lens for the camera I'm using.

The recommendation of about twice the "normal" focal length for portraits is intended for head and shoulder shots. The only real rule I know of for photography is "never fix before developing".

You also have to remember that the camera and the eye see very differently--the camera provides relatively perfect transfer from 3D space to 2D--the eye has only a very narrow central angle of truly sharp vision, and we piece together in the mind the overall image by scanning the subject. It changes the perspective compared to how the camera "sees".

MattKing · Aug 5, 2017

How close do you like to be to your subject when you take a portrait? How much do you like to include in the scene when you take a portrait? What sort of lighting do you like to have for portraits? Do you answer these questions differently for different portrait situations?
I have a moderately large nose. Please don't use a 50mm lens and contrasty light to shoot a head and shoulders portrait of me.
Ko Fe's first image above is an example where a 50mm lens would be a perfect choice. His third image is one where he has used the potentially distorting effect of a very close in camera position to good effect, with a fun subject. I'm not sure I would have made the same choice with the middle image.
If you expect to be constrained in your lens choice at time of exposure, and you expect that at least some of the time you will want to crop close to head and shoulders, you may prefer (and your subjects are quite likely to prefer) if you take your shots from a slightly longer distance, and use a slightly longer lens to fill the frame.

Paul Howell · Aug 5, 2017

I prefer a short tele 85 to 105 just to give the subject a little room, a 135 is a little too long. Other than working distance excellent work has been done 35 and 50mms.

Chan Tran · Aug 5, 2017

Ko.Fe. said:
If someone tells what 50mm is not the portrait lens, to me it is act of the gearhead or it comes from photographer who takes photos for passports.
50mm is my portraits lens.

50 as well:

I must do some investigation but I have the feeling that your photos are cropped.

film_man · Aug 5, 2017

I really like portraits with the 50. When you get close the perspective gives you an intimacy which you don't get with longer lenses. It is like having a conversation with someone up close. Is there distortion? I don't think so, you just need to be a bit more careful how you position yourself, ie try to keep it level or come in from just slightly above.

An 85 or longer is a great lens for portraits but, to me at least, makes the resulting photo feel a bit detached from the viewer.

Depends what type of result you're going for.

JamieB · Aug 5, 2017

film_man said:
I really like portraits with the 50. When you get close the perspective gives you an intimacy which you don't get with longer lenses. It is like having a conversation with someone up close. Is there distortion? I don't think so, you just need to be a bit more careful how you position yourself, ie try to keep it level or come in from just slightly above.

An 85 or longer is a great lens for portraits but, to me at least, makes the resulting photo feel a bit detached from the viewer.

Depends what type of result you're going for.

This is exactly what I was talking about. I agree with all that. The perspective of closer shots with a wider angle have an intimacy that the 85 doesn't have. It's part of the reason 35mm works so well for street photography even when you shoot very close to someone. It makes us feel we are there. On the street and connecting with that person in some personal way. The only problem with portrait headshots might get upset their nose looks big (realising that every lens also has close focusing limitations). I guess the best thing to do is experiment.

ciniframe · Aug 5, 2017

The 50 is a chameleon of a lens. When I first started with a 35mm SLR (a used Miranda D with a 50mm f1.9 Soligor) in 1970 all I had was the 50 for a year, so it just had to be pressed into service for all sorts of pictures. Yeah, sometimes I could not back up enough to get everything in but certainly had no problem with it at head and shoulder distance. Always I have a 50 handy, they are cheap, at least in the f1.7 to f2 range, and mostly good enough optically. Also compact and only a few ounces.

Gerald C Koch · Aug 5, 2017

MattKing said:
How close do you like to be to your subject when you take a portrait? How much do you like to include in the scene when you take a portrait? What sort of lighting do you like to have for portraits? Do you answer these questions differently for different portrait situations?
I have a moderately large nose. Please don't use a 50mm lens and contrasty light to shoot a head and shoulders portrait of me.
Ko Fe's first image above is an example where a 50mm lens would be a perfect choice. His third image is one where he has used the potentially distorting effect of a very close in camera position to good effect, with a fun subject. I'm not sure I would have made the same choice with the middle image.
If you expect to be constrained in your lens choice at time of exposure, and you expect that at least some of the time you will want to crop close to head and shoulders, you may prefer (and your subjects are quite likely to prefer) if you take your shots from a slightly longer distance, and use a slightly longer lens to fill the frame.

+1

It's all in observing the correct distance from the subject. Portrait is a rather loose term. Do one mean a head and shoulders shot or a full length view. I remember a previous thread where the conflict was caused by this misunderstanding.

NB23 · Aug 5, 2017

50mm in 35mm system terms is definitely NOT a portrait lens.
Sure, you can use even a 28mm lens if you wish. But all your portraits will always be inproved with a proper lens, which is >85mm.

Before some people who have shot 0.01% of my total body of work get offended, I would like to underline my pedigree, so far:

Over 400 weddings.
Over 10,000 films shot and developpes
Over 10,000 darkroom prints.
Numerous awards
Numerous exhibitions
Numerous publications.

Ko.Fe. · Aug 5, 2017

Chan Tran said:
I must do some investigation but I have the feeling that your photos are cropped.

No, Watson, Derrick or whatever detective you are , they weren't cropped. I'm only cropping if I print from 6x6 or 135 on full 8x10.
First two are FSU 50 RF lenses taken as usual, but third one is old Leitz 50 RF with Leitz close-up attachment.

Ko.Fe. · Aug 5, 2017

NB23 said:
...my total body....

Ned, is it you? I'm not offended then.
Jane Bown used 85 mm lens with Oly SLR at f2.8. I have her portraits book, but some of the earlier portraits are with 85 lens on ... TLR.

Oh, have you seen "Inner Silence"? Is it bad? It doesn't seems to be all with 90mm lens.

Theo Sulphate · Aug 5, 2017

Ko.Fe. said:
...
50 as well:

Beautifully done.

George Mann · Aug 5, 2017

Theo Sulphate said:
Beautifully done.

But still the wrong focal length!

Theo Sulphate · Aug 5, 2017

George Mann said:
But still the wrong focal length!

When a photo is good, you can't say the focal length is wrong. It's like saying HCB's photos were blurry.

But we know you're just trolling. Those on dpreview do it better, though.

George Mann · Aug 5, 2017

Theo Sulphate said:
When a photo is good, you can't say the focal length is wrong.

So you have no problem with the subject looking like LEMONHEAD?

Theo Sulphate said:
But we know you're just trolling.

At least I know which focal lengths are appropriate!

Theo Sulphate · Aug 5, 2017

George Mann said:
...At least I know which focal lengths are appropriate!

Do not.

George Mann · Aug 5, 2017

Theo Sulphate said:
Do not.

I have forgotten more about photography than you will ever know!

Theo Sulphate · Aug 5, 2017

George Mann said:
I have forgotten more about photography than you will ever know!

So you've forgotten that a portrait with a 50mm lens in 35mm format can look great. Ok.

Since it seems we're not having the Monty Python argument skit, I'll leave the thread alone.

NB23 · Aug 6, 2017

A trained eye will always see the extremely annoying distortion a 50mm does to a face.

But I'm not here to teach anyone. The theory behind focal lengths and distance is clear.

The seeing part comes with extensive practice and a sensitivity to see things as they are.
There is a tremendously high percentage of bad photography on the net, all shared by people who think it's good. So how can you show them they are wrong without soundig like a a'hole because their little feelings are hurt?

I simply gave up. Who cares.

Another look at 50mm

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency