50mm 2.5 macro - a good portrait lens?

Started Dec 10, 2012 | Discussions thread
tkbslc Forum Pro • Posts: 11,900
Re: 50mm 2.5 macro - a good portrait lens?

Pixelhater wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

Pixelhater wrote:

tkbslc wrote:

The distortion you are describing has nothing to do with the lens design. It is pure perspective distortion. A function of being physically too close to the subject. The way to do a closeup portrait that avoids perspective distortion is to shoot with a longer telephoto from 6 feet away, not using a macro lens from 6 inches.

Yes, perspective distortion is what I mean. So the 85/1.8 or 100/2 then? Unless I want perspective distortion.

I would say more like 200mm f8. You don't want f2 for a close up portrait or you won't even be able to get all the eyelashes in focus.

After I replied I saw you mention these are for self portraits. There is just not any way to have non-distorted portraits at arms length. However if you stretch as far as you can and keep your face level with the camera, it should be minimized.

Okej, now I am confused.

What I have read countless times is that 85-100mm and f2 is the perfect portrait lens.

But l have also eyeballing on the 70-200/4 IS lens. So that would be the ideal portrait lens?

You are describing close up portraits that only fit the face in the frame.  For those, you want a longer focal length and a narrow aperture.    When many people talk of the "ideal" portrait lens, they are referring to waist-up or full body portraits with nicely blurred backgrounds.   For that a 85 or 100mm fast prime would be excellent.  It's just a matter of the type of photo you are taking.

If you want a flattering self portraits.  Set up the camera on a tripod and sit on a stool 8 feet away.  Focus on a stand in object and then set the timer or use a remote.   Handheld self-portraits will ALWAYS have perspective distortion.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow