What lens to get a close crop, good separation

[horacekenneth]

I'm looking for the right 35mm format lens to get a very close crop on the head (no shoulders, just the top of the neck) and decent separation from the ears if possible. Preferably nikon f mount but not necessarily.

I've taken a few with a 50 1.4, wide open focused very close, with the eyes in focus the ears are soft. It's the look I'm going for except the distortion is pretty bad.

I've considered a 105 2.5 and an 85 1.4 or 1.8. Both look like nice lenses but the minimum focus (4ft and 3ft respectively) seems too far back to get a close crop.

Any suggestions? I can post a photo of what I've gotten so far if that helps. Would an extension tube possibly do it for me?

Thanks!

 

[Sirius Glass]

Any lens will do the job as long as the photographer handles composition and moves in closer.

 

[cliveh]

90mm to 135mm.

 

[ww12345]

That 105 will do the trick perfectly. One of my favorite headshot lenses.

 

[horacekenneth]

That 105 will do the trick perfectly. One of my favorite headshot lenses.

I was hoping someone would say that, but with a minimum focus of 4ft isn't that only close enough for head and shoulders with 100mm?

 

[frank]

85-135mm with short extension tube if closest focus isn't close enough.

 

[MattKing]

An extension tube or low power close up filters would most likely give you the r3sult you wa t.

You may want to check third party lenses as well. I seem to recall a 90mm Vivitar Series One with a close focus capability.

You have the advantage that you are specifically not looking for sharp, corner-to-corner performance.

 

[wiltw]

I was hoping someone would say that, but with a minimum focus of 4ft isn't that only close enough for head and shoulders with 100mm?

Precisely the issue I was going to raise to your attention, after reading the other replies!

Even with 135mm FL, a head shot framed 12" x 18" requires a relatively close 72" shooting distance...right on the hairy edge. A 100mm takes 54" shooting distance for same framing. This web site shows that 100mm captures just a touch of induced perspective distortion.
http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/index.htm

While we, as photographers who do not have close familiarity with our subjects, might find that acceptable, the mother of the subject will NOT find close shooting distances to result in photos which please THEM. Mothers have written on photography forums about exactly that issue!

 

[horacekenneth]

An extension tube or low power close up filters would most likely give you the r3sult you wa t.

You may want to check third party lenses as well. I seem to recall a 90mm Vivitar Series One with a close focus capability.

You have the advantage that you are specifically not looking for sharp, corner-to-corner performance.

Thanks Frank, Matt and Wilt! I did some research on extension tubes and close up filters. It looks like the first will slightly impact my maximum aperture and the second will decrease my focal length. They both sound like reasonable options.

I'm having a really hard time calculating what extension tube length or filter diopter number I will need for a 105mm (or any kens for that matter). Can anyone help or point me in the right direction?

I think I need to start by figuring out what magnification I need to add but I'm not sure how to calculate that.

Thanks

 

[MattKing]

Start by figuring out what subject to camera distance gives you the the perspective and modeling appeals to you.
Then figure out what lens gives you the cropping you want.
Then, if necessary, figure out what extension or diopter gives you the close focussing capability (if any) you need.
The first step is the most often overlooked.

 

[frank]

You mentioned Nikon gear. Nikon extension tubes can be bought in sets of 3. Each one is a different length and they can be used in combination/stacked. I think that the shortest tube will work, if not then the second longest one will.

 

[horacekenneth]

I just discovered the 105 2.8 ais micro-nikkor. Focuses down to almost 1 foot. Provided that I'm okay with the distortion from a 105 this close, this would be the lens to use without any adapters, wouldn't it?

 

[Xmas]

Hi Matt

Im with you you need to be 4m away to kill perspective distortion, depends in how sensitive you are...

200mm will do but most sitters will complain about their spots etc., ~

 

[horacekenneth]

I just discovered the 105 2.8 ais micro-nikkor. Focuses down to almost 1 foot. Provided that I'm okay with the distortion from a 105 this close, this would be the lens to use without any adapters, wouldn't it?

So doing some more research it sounds like the answer to my own question is yes. The 105 2.5 is considered to have a prettier bokeh than the 2.8 micro and one is considered sharper than the other depending on who you talk to, but at the end of the day it sounds like they are very similar and the 2.8 micro is very capable as a multi-purpose lens.

Now I would love to see a comparison of the 2.5 with extension tubes vs the 2.8 micro.

 

[wiltw]

I did some research on extension tubes and close up filters. It looks like the first will slightly impact my maximum aperture and the second will decrease my focal length.

The time when extension tubes 'impact maximum aperture' is when MAGNIFICATION reaches a certain threshold...between 1/10 and 1/5 (extension / FL), exposure increase is +0.5EV. At between 1/4 and 1/3 magnification, exposure needs to be increased by +1.0EV! (magnification = length of extension / FL of lens)

• So with a 25mm extension + 50mm lens, 25/50 = 1/2, and you need +1.5EV added to exposure
• but with 25mm extension + 250mm lens, 25/250 = 1/10, and you need +0.5EV
• but with 25mm extension + 500mm lens, 25/500 = 1/20 and you need no increase in exposure

....all with the same 25mm extension tube.

And while exposure has increased (25mm extension with 50mm lens) is it NOT due to the aperture size being smaller, it is merely because macro is capturing a smaller fraction of the total image circle cast by the lens...the aperture of the lens is unaffected.

 

[horacekenneth]

The time when extension tubes 'impact maximum aperture' is when MAGNIFICATION reaches a certain threshold...between 1/10 and 1/5 (extension / FL), exposure increase is +0.5EV. At between 1/4 and 1/3 magnification, exposure needs to be increased by +1.0EV! (magnification = length of extension / FL of lens)

• So with a 25mm extension + 50mm lens, 25/50 = 1/2, and you need +1.5EV added to exposure
• but with 25mm extension + 250mm lens, 25/250 = 1/10, and you need +0.5EV
• but with 25mm extension + 500mm lens, 25/500 = 1/20 and you need no increase in exposure

....all with the same 25mm extension tube.

And while exposure has increased (25mm extension with 50mm lens) is it NOT due to the aperture size being smaller, it is merely because macro is capturing a smaller fraction of the total image circle cast by the lens...the aperture of the lens is unaffected.

Oh, interesting! So my relative depth of field at 2.5 shouldn't be affected with an extension?

 

[frank]

Depth of field decreases with increased magnification/added extension.

 

[wiltw]

Oh, interesting! So my relative depth of field at 2.5 shouldn't be affected with an extension?

The major point from my prior post was that MAGNIFICATION is determinant of change of exposure at macro magnification.
Magnification is also the determinant of DOF!

• 105mm lens with 50mm extension, 50 / 105 = 1: 2.1 magnification (with infinity focus on lens), DOF at f/8 is 479 - 482mm (3mm deep) at effective focus distance of 480mm
• 50mm lens with 23.8mm extension, 23.8 / 50 = 1:2.1 magnification (with infinity focus on lens), DOF at f/8 is 227 - 230mm (3mm deep) at effective focus distance of 230mm

 

[Sirius Glass]

The time when extension tubes 'impact maximum aperture' is when MAGNIFICATION reaches a certain threshold...between 1/10 and 1/5 (extension / FL), exposure increase is +0.5EV. At between 1/4 and 1/3 magnification, exposure needs to be increased by +1.0EV! (magnification = length of extension / FL of lens)

• So with a 25mm extension + 50mm lens, 25/50 = 1/2, and you need +1.5EV added to exposure
• but with 25mm extension + 250mm lens, 25/250 = 1/10, and you need +0.5EV
• but with 25mm extension + 500mm lens, 25/500 = 1/20 and you need no increase in exposure

....all with the same 25mm extension tube.

And while exposure has increased (25mm extension with 50mm lens) is it NOT due to the aperture size being smaller, it is merely because macro is capturing a smaller fraction of the total image circle cast by the lens...the aperture of the lens is unaffected.

A built in light meter takes care of the exposure compensation.