50mm on Full Frame - Why is this considered not an ideal focal length for portraits?

I am curious as to the reasoning behind why 50mm is not considered an ideal focal length for portraits when on a full frame body. I do own an 85/1.8, which I love, but the studio setup I have makes using the 85mm too long for body shots. Thus I'm considering the Sigma 50/1.4.

Is there anything in particular I need to watch for/correct via post when shooting full length portraits?

Thank you!

Basically because in order to fill the frame with the subject, a 50mm forces you to be so close that the subject's nose becomes over-large, which is not considered a flattering thing to do

Staale S said:

Basically because in order to fill the frame with the subject, a 50mm forces you to be so close that the subject's nose becomes over-large, which is not considered a flattering thing to do

Click to expand...

80mm-equivalent:



56mm-equivalent:



--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

longer focal length flattens out features. that's all. there is no rule. use whatever you like. 35 or 50 WOULD seem ideal for body shots in a studio. longer FL's are easier to knock out distracting backgrounds outdoors (200 - 300mm for example).

the sigma is hit or miss. in my case it was 1 hit and 5 misses.

good luck.

kdragondrummer said:

I am curious as to the reasoning behind why 50mm is not considered an ideal focal length for portraits when on a full frame body. I do own an 85/1.8, which I love, but the studio setup I have makes using the 85mm too long for body shots. Thus I'm considering the Sigma 50/1.4.

Is there anything in particular I need to watch for/correct via post when shooting full length portraits?

Thank you!

Click to expand...

--

Most people seem to consider a portrait to be head and shoulders or perhaps even waist up. For some reason a full body shot would not be considered a portrait though I never understood it either.

The only issue I noticed when trying full body pictures was that with a wider aperture trying to get everything in focus was difficult, especially at 1.4 or even 1.8.

This was extremely helpful. Thank you everyone who responded!

As I'd only use the 50mm for full body shots, I hope I'll avoid some of the mishapen body perspectives.

Here's to hopefully getting a good copy of the Sigma 50...!

Following up on the more philosophical question:
[ersatz]

ersatz said:

For some reason a full body shot would not be considered a portrait though I never understood it either.

Click to expand...

Look back at centuries worth of art called 'portraits' and you'll usually see upper body or even more zoomed in. Why? Because you want to devote as much of your real estate as possible to the main subject, the person. And if your picture aspect ratio is 3:2, and humans are more like 3:1, that means if you take a full height shot you're wasting half your image on other extraneous elements.

So a full body shot can be a portrait (especially with well-chosen other elements/actions in the image), but it's usually more interesting and captivating to sacrifice including their feet in order to be able to make out more details of the face, eyes, etc.

On the practical 50mm question, I find it great for a cropped body, but by extension on a full frame camera I'd want an 85mm (or the much-coveted 70-200 zoom).

I'm not sure if you stated full frame or crop, but a 35 or 50 is actually about right for full body in the studio or environmental portraits when outdoors. Many love the 35 L on full frame.