Olympus 45mm for close-up portraits?

Teru Kage · Feb 10, 2015

I'm interested in shooting shallow depth of field close-portraits with the eyes in focus and gradually blurring the rest of the face. Can the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 accomplish this?

My previous experience was with the 85mm f/1.8 on my D700 and I really liked the effect. Obviously, the difference in sensor size will produce muted results, but how much blur can I expect from the Oly 45mm?

Sample pics would be greatly appeciated.

Sergey Borachev · Feb 10, 2015

Fri13 said:
- Focal length is chosen to crop field of view and magnification
- Distance to subject is chosen to change perspective and magnification
- Aperture is chosen to change exposure of environmental and flash light and acceptable depth of field with magnification
- Shutter speed is chosen to freeze subject motion on sensor area and exposure of environmental light
- ISO is chosen for exposure and image quality
- Final print size is chosen to control depth of field, sharpness and noise

To know what is depth of field, need to know is distance, physical aperture opening (aperture ratio = focal length : physical aperture opening diameter) and final print size (magnification ratuo is sensor size to standard size test print size ratio, hence "acceptable depth of field" what really is a personal opinion).

So true. Print size and CoC as well as the desired effect are often important, not theoretical values like 2.6 inches, as the sharp area is not a constant sharpness ending at 2.7 in. For a glamorous portrait of a female, less sharpness may be just fine, but for certain portrait of males with strong characteristics, facial hair, then it's different. This photo would probably look better to de-emphasise the prominent nose if it was a lady with a longer FL, but seems just fine here. Just saying, sometimes, an FL may be chosen depending on other more subtle effects. I wish I had used a smaller aperture and get the other eye sharp as well.

Sharp lens 45mm f/3.2 - full size

As you can see the widest apertures are often just too much. I found anything less than f/2.8 too much hassle unless you shoot in a studio set up. The Sigma 60mm f/2.8 is just fine then, as it is so sharp wide open.

Joel in Goe · Feb 10, 2015

Here you are:

I think the actual point of focus is the nose, rather than the eyes, but this certainly gives a good idea of the DOF.

NZ Scott · Feb 11, 2015

Teru Kage said:
I'm interested in shooting shallow depth of field close-portraits with the eyes in focus and gradually blurring the rest of the face. Can the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 accomplish this?

My previous experience was with the 85mm f/1.8 on my D700 and I really liked the effect. Obviously, the difference in sensor size will produce muted results, but how much blur can I expect from the Oly 45mm?

About this much (see pic below).

Olympus cameras are really good for portraits because they have excellent eye-detection technology. My Panasonic GM5 isn't as good as my much older Olympus E-P3 for this, but it does still focus on eyes most of the time.

As you can see from the example pic, the 45/1.8's depth of field is shallow enough so that part of the face will be blurred when one eye is in focus. As you can also see, the lens is sharp enough to be brutally revealing of skin flaws, etc, which is not always flattering.

It's worth noting that the closest focusing distance of the lens is 50cm, a distance that I find to be a little restrictive at times.

The photo below is straight from my GM5, without cropping or processing, and was taken about as close as you can get.

S

Teru Kage said:
Sample pics would be greatly appeciated.

--
Photography - It's not what you look at that matters; it's what you see.
Galleries: http://www.photo.net/photos/teru
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto

--
-------------------------------
My Flickr stream:

newzild

Explore newzild’s 679 photos on Flickr!

www.flickr.com

My latest work of fiction:

MH370: A Novella

"A gripping thriller ... an interrogation of faith and fanaticism" - The Daily Beast Backpacker Jane splits a taxi fare with two mysterious men – enmeshing herself in a deadly intrigue. When night falls over the South China Sea, and her airliner’s cabin-crew switch off the lights, Jane must...

www.smashwords.com

My kit: GM5, E-P3, 12/2.0, 17/1.8, 45/1.8, 60/2.8 Macro, 7.5 Fisheye, 7-14, 12-35 f2.8, 12-32, 14-42 IIR, 40-150 ED, 75-300 II

Donald B · Feb 11, 2015

--
Pentax k7,fz150,xz1 and a new oly m43 e-pL5 my toys.

M43 Dude · Feb 11, 2015

Fri13 said:
If you move camera distance or camera angle, you change perspective.

Perspective is not a optical focal length property but position in the space.

To get wanted perspective, photographer needs to move around to find the position in space where subject perspective is wanted one.

Then photographer needs to choose focal length based how view is wanted to crop (aka frame the view as painter does).

Then photographer needs to know what is final print size and choose a aperture based knowledge of the magnification ratios and other info (distance, sensor size, final print size, print resolution, print material etc) to know depth of field.

Yes of course.

M43 Dude · Feb 11, 2015

Airmel said:
M43 Dude said:

You can achieve a similar effect with an F/1.8 lens on Micro Four Thirds as compared to APS-C or Full Frame, but you will have to stand closer to your subject to achieve it. F/1.8 on Micro Four Thirds is equivalent to F/2 on APS-C and F/3.6 on Full Frame.

Click to expand...

A minor niggle: F/2.25 on APS-C

ristar · Feb 11, 2015

Airmel said:
ristar said:

I think you meant shallower depth of field? Even though the Olympus 45mm has a wider aperture of f1.8, the longer focal length of the 60mm has greater influence on the depth of field than the aperture, assuming you are standing at the same distance from the subject.

Click to expand...

This is quite a misleading statement. Why would you compare two different focal lengths at the same subject distance when shooting portraits?

Ultimately, DOF is completely controlled by sensor size, magnification and aperture. Therefore, with same sensor size and magnification (two equally framed portraits), the 45 f/1.8 will produce greater depth of field than the 60mm f/2.8.

Realistically speaking, focal length has no effect on DOF. Of course, focal length selection is very important but for very different reasons such as control of perspective distortion, available shooting space and so on.

--

AirMel
http://www.mel-photo.com
There are 10 types of people in this world.
Those that know binary and those that don't.

I apologize. Even though everything I wrote was factually correct (I did say same distance from subject), it was misleading in the context of portrait shooting. Yes, magnification and aperture are the true determining factors. Shouldn't have posted late at night.

However, I still think you mean the 45 f/1.8 will provide shallower (less) depth of field, not greater (more). Or am I still not awake yet?

Sergey Borachev · Feb 11, 2015

ristar said:
Airmel said:

ristar said:

I think you meant shallower depth of field? Even though the Olympus 45mm has a wider aperture of f1.8, the longer focal length of the 60mm has greater influence on the depth of field than the aperture, assuming you are standing at the same distance from the subject.

Click to expand...

This is quite a misleading statement. Why would you compare two different focal lengths at the same subject distance when shooting portraits?

Ultimately, DOF is completely controlled by sensor size, magnification and aperture. Therefore, with same sensor size and magnification (two equally framed portraits), the 45 f/1.8 will produce greater depth of field than the 60mm f/2.8.

Realistically speaking, focal length has no effect on DOF. Of course, focal length selection is very important but for very different reasons such as control of perspective distortion, available shooting space and so on.

--

AirMel
http://www.mel-photo.com
There are 10 types of people in this world.
Those that know binary and those that don't.

Click to expand...

I apologize. Even though everything I wrote was factually correct (I did say same distance from subject), it was misleading in the context of portrait shooting. Yes, magnification and aperture are the true determining factors. Shouldn't have posted late at night.

However, I still think you mean the 45 f/1.8 will provide shallower (less) depth of field, not greater (more). Or am I still not awake yet?

You are fine, ristar. Some people just like to pick. We all have the same way of saying this, that a long FL has less dof, everything being equal, including the distance. All Dof tables shows this clearly, at the same distance, a longer focal length lens will have less DoF. You can't compare this in a meaningful way, when the distance is changed and the perspective also changed, as it will be a different picture that is being compared.

brentbrent · Feb 11, 2015

Teru Kage said:
I'm interested in shooting shallow depth of field close-portraits with the eyes in focus and gradually blurring the rest of the face. Can the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 accomplish this?

Here's a very close-in shot (size reduced but not cropped) at f/1.8. Eyes are in focus, but I don't know whether the rest of the face shows as much blurring as you are looking for:

Tony8232 · Feb 11, 2015

Teru Kage said:
I'm interested in shooting shallow depth of field close-portraits with the eyes in focus and gradually blurring the rest of the face. Can the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 accomplish this?

My previous experience was with the 85mm f/1.8 on my D700 and I really liked the effect. Obviously, the difference in sensor size will produce muted results, but how much blur can I expect from the Oly 45mm?

Sample pics would be greatly appeciated.

--
Photography - It's not what you look at that matters; it's what you see.
Galleries: http://www.photo.net/photos/teru
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto

I don't know id a cat counts but here is something..

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/90891174@N04/

Airmel · Feb 11, 2015

ristar said:
Airmel said:

This is quite a misleading statement. Why would you compare two different focal lengths at the same subject distance when shooting portraits?

Ultimately, DOF is completely controlled by sensor size, magnification and aperture. Therefore, with same sensor size and magnification (two equally framed portraits), the 45 f/1.8 will produce greater depth of field than the 60mm f/2.8.

Realistically speaking, focal length has no effect on DOF. Of course, focal length selection is very important but for very different reasons such as control of perspective distortion, available shooting space and so on.

Click to expand...

I apologize. Even though everything I wrote was factually correct (I did say same distance from subject), it was misleading in the context of portrait shooting. Yes, magnification and aperture are the true determining factors. Shouldn't have posted late at night.

However, I still think you mean the 45 f/1.8 will provide shallower (less) depth of field, not greater (more). Or am I still not awake yet?

If we are comparing apples with apples (same sensor size, framing and aperture), focal length doesn't affect DOF and the 45mm and 75mm will be identical in this respect.

As for waking up this morning, I agree, it's time for coffee!

--
AirMel
http://www.mel-photo.com
There are 10 types of people in this world.
Those that know binary and those that don't.

Teru Kage · Feb 11, 2015

I like to use telephoto lenses to plump up thinner faces, but you're right; flattening" would be a more accurate description.

Teru Kage · Feb 11, 2015

Teru Kage said:
As an alternative, would the telephoto view compression and macro capability of the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 produce a greater depth of field? My one concern though would be on the fattening effect of telephoto lenses.

Teru Kage · Feb 11, 2015

[No message]

Teru Kage · Feb 11, 2015

[No message]

Teru Kage · Feb 11, 2015

Teru Kage said:
I'm interested in shooting shallow depth of field close-portraits with the eyes in focus and gradually blurring the rest of the face. Can the Olympus 45mm f/1.8 accomplish this?

My previous experience was with the 85mm f/1.8 on my D700 and I really liked the effect. Obviously, the difference in sensor size will produce muted results, but how much blur can I expect from the Oly 45mm?

Sample pics would be greatly appeciated.

Impulses · Feb 11, 2015

The two Olys would be complementary to an extent, whereas the Sigma would sit smack dab in the middle of them... I cheated and bought the Sigma for my mother so I get to borrow it occasionally to use in place of my 45...

I think the Sigma or even the 75 make more sense if you already shoot a lot with the 12-40 tho, sure 45mm is just a little farther/faster but still. I'll probably succumb to temptation a year or two down the road and end up buying myself the 75!

Robert Evagelista · Feb 11, 2015

Not really that shallow

This is the shallowest I got, but it is of a butterfly

--
Sharing the joys of photography

http://www.dpreview.com/members/9704169684/galleries

Weekend Photography

Sharing the joy of photography. Weekend Photography.

robertevangelista.blogspot.com

MY LIFE

I come from a poor Family. Worked at a very young age waking up at 4:00am in the morning to help my hardworking and loving father who have taught me everything I know and gave me all the strength that I have. My Dreams are simple, to find a job where I can do all my best, to meet the love of my...

www.flickr.com

Be kinder than necessary, lets make this a better community.

Paulmorgan · Feb 11, 2015

Teru Kage said:
As an alternative, would the telephoto view compression and macro capability of the Olympus 60mm f/2.8 produce a greater depth of field? My one concern though would be on the fattening effect of telephoto lenses.

A greater dof or a shallower dof ?

The two are not the same

Teru Kage said:
--
Photography - It's not what you look at that matters; it's what you see.
Galleries: http://www.photo.net/photos/teru
http://www.fotop.net/teruphoto

ristar · Feb 11, 2015

Airmel said:
ristar said:

Airmel said:

This is quite a misleading statement. Why would you compare two different focal lengths at the same subject distance when shooting portraits?

Ultimately, DOF is completely controlled by sensor size, magnification and aperture. Therefore, with same sensor size and magnification (two equally framed portraits), the 45 f/1.8 will produce greater depth of field than the 60mm f/2.8.

Realistically speaking, focal length has no effect on DOF. Of course, focal length selection is very important but for very different reasons such as control of perspective distortion, available shooting space and so on.

Click to expand...

I apologize. Even though everything I wrote was factually correct (I did say same distance from subject), it was misleading in the context of portrait shooting. Yes, magnification and aperture are the true determining factors. Shouldn't have posted late at night.

However, I still think you mean the 45 f/1.8 will provide shallower (less) depth of field, not greater (more). Or am I still not awake yet?

Click to expand...

If we are comparing apples with apples (same sensor size, framing and aperture), focal length doesn't affect DOF and the 45mm and 75mm will be identical in this respect.

As for waking up this morning, I agree, it's time for coffee!

Olympus 45mm for close-up portraits?

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Active member

Veteran Member

Donald B

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Tony8232

Guest

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Keyboard shortcuts