why 85mm lens for portraits?

[Q.G.]

I started this, and do apologize.
It was just (an attempt at) harmless fun.

I bet all my stuff against your "etc, etc" that you're not 3 times as old as me, Pumalite.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I am probably three times as old as you. Been buying caneras since twelve and using them. No GAS here. Smarty remarks have no room in my life.

That would make you about 190 years old.

No wonder you do not have time for "smarty remarks".

Although at that age it would pay to lighten up.

Steve

 

[Leighgion]

A life with no room for smarty remarks must be awfully crowded.

 

[Pumal]

How about a sense of humor? Steve meant nothing by that, just trying to have a bit of fun. Tongue in cheek...

LOL

 

[david b]

How about some examples?

 

[Pumal]

Some other day.

 

[winjeel]

To change the subject, or rather, return to the subject. Here's some examples of some portraits done by a Japanese photographer, some using 50mm and some with an 85mm. I've tried to find just one good one done with his 12-24mm, but I can't find it. But I agree with the others, the 70-200 range is generally better.

 

[Thomas Bertilsson]

I wish I was able to submit some comparison pictures here, comparing my two favorite 35mm lenses (55mm f/2 Pentax and 100mm f/2.8 Pentax). I may pursue this today, as I'm taking the camera out on a road trip with my family. If I get something comparable, I'll post it here.

But my feeling is that while the 55mm certainly can be used to advantage the 100mm (close enough to 85) flattens the perspective to better appreciate facial features, and they do look slightly more natural. This 'natural' look may not always be what we're looking for, though, and only creativity stands in the way of using any lens. I've seen some extreme wide angle pinhole portraits that are just fabulous.

- Thomas

 

[Ira Rush]

I remember reading years ago, somewhere, (can't remember where) that the way to choose a "perfect" portrait lens is to choose a lens that is about twice the diagonal measure of the film format you are using.

So, for 35mm with the diagonal being about 43mm, choose a lens about 86mm (obviously a 85mm lens), for 6x6 format with the diagonal being about 79mm choose a lens about 160mm (again most likely a 150mm lens).

Now of course "perfect" is purely subjective, but I have used this approach with my gear for years.
When I shoot 6x6 (yes I know, I know this is the 35mm domain ), I use a 150 with a 10mm extension tube. This gets me a nice tight 96% full frame head shot.

Hope this helps

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Something I haven't seen mentioned:

The 85mm has a very shallow depth of field when shot wide open at f2.0 or wider. This really makes the subject pop from the background and also allows the use of a high shutter speed, often as high as 1/4000, so there is no problem at all when shooting hand held. The slight loss of resolution at wide open is a blessing as it imparts the subtlest of soft-focus effect.

 

[ZorkiKat]

Longer lenses also give a longer lens to subject distance. This 'space' can make both sitter and photographer more comfortable, makes the situation more relaxed and less tense. Too close spaces (such as what a 5cm or shorter lens would have) between camera/photographer and sitter doesn't always work.

 

[jun]

Well, I would like to say that 85mm (longer) lens gives you more "blur" (more Bokeh in Japanese) in the background, not by the fact that DOF is shallower than normal lens such as 50mm or so.

Keep in mind that if you set same DOF for 50mm and 85mm (by the stop), it does not mean that you have a same degree of background "blur" size.

I didn't realize this before, and it is very confusing.

Well, for the "nose" issue, like Photo Engineer are discussing, we Japanese has short nose so we can go for 28mm.

 

[winjeel]

Aaahhh... 28mm nose = 28mm lens... That's an easy formula to remember. Now, I just need to include a ruler in my kit.

But I see a flaw in the plan... what if you're photographing a snail?

 

[dynachrome]

I have many lenses in the medium telephoto range. Some are macro lenses and others aren't. For a tightly cropper portrait a 50 is too short. If you are doing an environmental portrait and you will be the same distance from the subject that you would be with an 85 or a 100 then where facial features are concerned you are OK. My favorite portrait lens is probably the 100/2.5 Minolta MC Rokkor. I have three of them. The only time I don't like the 100/2.5 is for a tight portrait of a young child. The lens doesn't focus close enough for that. Using medium telephoto macro lenses for portraits has been discussed many times. It can certainly be done but the rendering of the skin may be too harsh and the out of focus rendition behind the subject can be unattractive. Another favorite portrait lens of mine is the 135/2.8 Vivitar Close Focusing. It gives a slightly different look from an 85 or a 100 but it is still a good look and goves a little more working distance. Other lenses I like for portraits are the 105/2.5 Nikkor (old and new designs), 100/2.8 Canon FD SSC and New FD, 85/1.8 Canon New FD, 85/1.8 Canon FL, 100/3.5 Canon FL, 85/1.8 Konica Hexanon, 85/2 AI Nikkor, 100/2.8 Zuiko. If I don't have to get quite as close, the 135/2.5 Canon FL, 135/2.5 Canon FD SC and the 135/2.8 Nikkor QC/'K' lenses all have very nice out of focus rendition. If I'm feeling strong I might carry a 135/2.3 Vivitar Series 1. This lens focuses to 3 feet. I have one for Konica AR and one for Nikon AI.

 

[Pumal]

I like my Nikkor-SC Auto 1:1.2 f=55mm for portraits and 'bokeh'

 

[removed account4]

i have used everything from a 28mm - 300mm for 35mm portraits
and 90mm-15" on a 4x5 ... sorry i don't have a med format ...

there is no such thing as a magic bullet