DX Woes: What to do for a portrait prime...

So we were happy guys (and gals) once, with our lovely
85mm "portrait primes." Then along came DX, and those
85s suddenly look like 128s. Flat perspective! Yuk!

So (apart from zooms) there seem to be two choices:
1. Try to ignore the flat perspective of the 85-> 128,
and pontificate endlessly about bokeh; OR
2. Try to find something else.

But WHAT else? Either of the 50s would give a 75mm
perspective--not bad, but not great either. However, I have
heard only uncomplimentary things about the bokeh of the
1.4; so the 1.8 looks like the pick, especially considering the
price. (And it doesn't hurt that I've already got one.)

What about the 60/2.8 Micro? It would have an ideal 90mm
perspective; and I have seen recent threads in these Forums
raving about its nice bokeh. Would the only drawback be
the slowish 2.8 aperture, and the resulting limits on selective
focus? And if yes, would that be a little problem or a big problem?

Any thoughts... ?

It is reported to have similar bokeh to the 85/1.4. An added bonus, it is small and very unobtrusive, and quite sharp.

Graduation photo taken with D1H + 45mm/f2.8P

Hi Andrew, and thanks for your comments! I have always been
attracted to those pancake 45s, and I used to look for the (old)
versions on eBay all the time. Never found one at the right price.

Alas, the 45mm yields a DX equivalent of only 67mm, which is
shorter than what I want. "Portrait" for me means the classical
definition: 75 to 105mm, with 85 to 90mm being ideal.
(I'm cheating a bit on the short end of this definition, to let in
the 50mm-> 75mm lenses; otherwise, the 60mm-> 90mm would
be the ONLY candidate.)

Full-body shots (or close to) are another kettle of fish, however;
and the 45 would be just fine--as demonstrated by your excellent
example. I think your lighting was outstanding, and the colors
are very rich. Good job!

Andrew Snow said:

It is reported to have similar bokeh to the 85/1.4. An added
bonus, it is small and very unobtrusive, and quite sharp.

Graduation photo taken with D1H + 45mm/f2.8P

Click to expand...

I think you are wrong, the perspective does not change with the crop factor, only the "working distance".

Old Ed said:

So we were happy guys (and gals) once, with our lovely
85mm "portrait primes." Then along came DX, and those
85s suddenly look like 128s. Flat perspective! Yuk!

So (apart from zooms) there seem to be two choices:
1. Try to ignore the flat perspective of the 85-> 128,
and pontificate endlessly about bokeh; OR
2. Try to find something else.

But WHAT else? Either of the 50s would give a 75mm
perspective--not bad, but not great either. However, I have
heard only uncomplimentary things about the bokeh of the
1.4; so the 1.8 looks like the pick, especially considering the
price. (And it doesn't hurt that I've already got one.)

What about the 60/2.8 Micro? It would have an ideal 90mm
perspective; and I have seen recent threads in these Forums
raving about its nice bokeh. Would the only drawback be
the slowish 2.8 aperture, and the resulting limits on selective
focus? And if yes, would that be a little problem or a big problem?

Any thoughts... ?

Click to expand...

--
( http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=9934 )

Comparing the 85mm lens on a full frame versus 1.5x crop body,

Sebastian Musial said:

I think you are wrong, the perspective does not change with the
crop factor, only the "working distance".

Click to expand...

Right, so because you're suddenly at 125mm instead of 85mm, you have to step backwards a fair bit, which is noticeably altering the perspective.

• Andrew

Thanks

Well, I went through the 60/2.8 and the 50/1.4, sold both and now settled on the 45/2.8P and the 85/1.4P.

The 60/2.8 is gives a 'pin prick sharp' quality to portrait images which some people find undesirable. Of course sharpness is desirable and you can apply blur later in photoshop. Like the 50/1.4 and 1.8 It does not have rounded aperture blades, you'll have to try for yourself to see if you like this lens for portraits or not.

• Andrew

Sebastian Musial said:

I think you are wrong, the perspective does not change with the
crop factor, only the "working distance".

Click to expand...

I have to side with Sebastian on this point as well--the perspective does not change...an 85 still behaves like an 85mm lens on digital,but you must stand farther away from your subjects....the resultant photos look for every bit as though they had been done with an 85mm lens on a full-frame camera. The "apparent perspective" and the "distance distortion" (often called telephoto compression factor) that goes with the various lens lengths stays the same....but the working distances typically change.

The 45-P is actually a superb portrait lens due to its angle of view and its bokeh and good contrast.It is a truly fine lens,well-suited to people pictures.The 60 Micro-Nikkor offers pretty good limited depth of field potential at f/2.8, but its main danger is mis-focusing at distances of 7 to 10 feet. It's a macro lens and it is designed to focus very well at very close ranges,and around 6 to 7 feet, the focusing system's pitch gets very,very fast, so at 7-12 feet this lens can easily be focused incorrectly with the slightest mis-alignment of a focusing bracket. This is the one dangerous thing about the 60 Micro....focusing at 15-30 feet is very,very hard to do accurately by eye,and you must make absolutely, positively sure of focus if you use this lens for something like a group portrait from 15-20 feet.
--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

It is even explained here on dpreview's own glossary pages. If you still don't believe it, look here:

http://4dw.net/jamesmskipper/PERSPECTIVE/photo_perspective2.html

You can easily see the difference it is making by changing subject distance, keeping lens the same, and cropping, just look at the background in the first 3 images.

Hum... Back in the days the 135mm was the king of portraits along with 85mm and 90mm...

I loved my 135 for portraits and fashion. This leasd me to leve my 85mm even more.

I recommend you stick with the 85mm and be very happy. The 60 macro isn't made for the purpose at all. Yes it'S sharp and all that but focusing will be an issue and for the bokeh, well I don't know.

Try the 28-70 s2.8 zoom then. It might be the one for you.

As far the 50mm goes (equalling 75mm), a little crop in photoshop will give you 85mm view. I guess you know that cropping the final output will effectively give you a 85, 90, 105 or even 135mm view/compression. This is fact.

In fact (leaving aside issues of looking up or down),
distance is the ONLY variable controlling perspective.
This is an established optical and physical FACT, and
is not subject to change by Forum debates.

The classic 85-90mm (FF) focal length was deemed
the "portrait" focal length because the FOV puts you
at the best working distance for pleasing perspective,
when you fill the frame with head and shoulders.

With a DX sensor, filling the (smaller) frame with head
and shoulders at the same working distance requires
a focal length of about 60mm. This again is fact, and
is not changeable by debate.

Sebastian Musial said:

Old Ed said:

So we were happy guys (and gals) once, with our lovely
85mm "portrait primes." Then along came DX, and those
85s suddenly look like 128s. Flat perspective! Yuk!

So (apart from zooms) there seem to be two choices:
1. Try to ignore the flat perspective of the 85-> 128,
and pontificate endlessly about bokeh; OR
2. Try to find something else.

But WHAT else? Either of the 50s would give a 75mm
perspective--not bad, but not great either. However, I have
heard only uncomplimentary things about the bokeh of the
1.4; so the 1.8 looks like the pick, especially considering the
price. (And it doesn't hurt that I've already got one.)

What about the 60/2.8 Micro? It would have an ideal 90mm
perspective; and I have seen recent threads in these Forums
raving about its nice bokeh. Would the only drawback be
the slowish 2.8 aperture, and the resulting limits on selective
focus? And if yes, would that be a little problem or a big problem?

Any thoughts... ?

Click to expand...

--
( http://www.photosig.com/userphotos.php?id=9934 )

Click to expand...

Well, the question of which perspective (i.e., subject-to-camera
distance) produces the most pleasing perspective IS a matter of
personal taste.

The historical consensus was that 85-90mm on a 35mm camera
(subject distance of about 6 feet) gave the MOST pleasing
portrait perspective. That is why lenses in that range are called
"portrait" lenses.

But some people like--or at least aren't bothered by--the flatter
perspective from greater working distances. However, I am not
one of them. I am not really happy with my (optically spectacular)
105/2.5, simply because it's a bit too long. I wouldn't even
consider a 135 for portrait work.

But that's MY beef... your mileage may vary, and that's OK.

You are right, of course, that the shorter focal length images
can be cropped to yield the same perspective as longer lenses.
In fact, that's exactly what the DX sensors are doing inside
the 35mm image circle.

But some of us are very jealous of our pixels. We paid a lot for
them, and we want to use as many of them as possible...
hence the need for appropriate focal lengths.

As a side issue, I'm curious why you think the 60/2.8 has
focus problems, and what you believe those problems are.

nejic said:

Hum... Back in the days the 135mm was the king of portraits along
with 85mm and 90mm...

I loved my 135 for portraits and fashion. This leasd me to leve my
85mm even more.

I recommend you stick with the 85mm and be very happy. The 60 macro
isn't made for the purpose at all. Yes it'S sharp and all that but
focusing will be an issue and for the bokeh, well I don't know.

Try the 28-70 s2.8 zoom then. It might be the one for you.

As far the 50mm goes (equalling 75mm), a little crop in photoshop
will give you 85mm view. I guess you know that cropping the final
output will effectively give you a 85, 90, 105 or even 135mm
view/compression. This is fact.

Click to expand...

Oh! No focus problems at all but they're made to have good and very precise focus for close distances. Going from 3 feet and above the ring steeply goes to infinity.

I never tried the 60mm but my old and excellent 90mm sigma was like that. My new Macro Sigma 50mm EX also is like that. And I've heard and read about these issues quite a bit. It's probably not that big of a problem but when compared to an 85mm then the difference is obvious.

And at F2.8, the macros can be disregarded in favor of a 2.8 zoom such as the now legendary 28-70mm. This zoom can give you, in 35mm equivalents, 85mm, 90mm and 105mm so every portrait lover can find his sweet zoom spot. The only drawback is the price, probably.

Old Ed said:

The historical consensus was that 85-90mm on a 35mm camera
(subject distance of about 6 feet) gave the MOST pleasing
portrait perspective. That is why lenses in that range are called
"portrait" lenses.

But some people like--or at least aren't bothered by--the flatter
perspective from greater working distances. However, I am not
one of them. I am not really happy with my (optically spectacular)
105/2.5, simply because it's a bit too long. I wouldn't even
consider a 135 for portrait work.

But that's MY beef... your mileage may vary, and that's OK.

You are right, of course, that the shorter focal length images
can be cropped to yield the same perspective as longer lenses.
In fact, that's exactly what the DX sensors are doing inside
the 35mm image circle.

But some of us are very jealous of our pixels. We paid a lot for
them, and we want to use as many of them as possible...
hence the need for appropriate focal lengths.

As a side issue, I'm curious why you think the 60/2.8 has
focus problems, and what you believe those problems are.

nejic said:

Hum... Back in the days the 135mm was the king of portraits along
with 85mm and 90mm...

I loved my 135 for portraits and fashion. This leasd me to leve my
85mm even more.

I recommend you stick with the 85mm and be very happy. The 60 macro
isn't made for the purpose at all. Yes it'S sharp and all that but
focusing will be an issue and for the bokeh, well I don't know.

Try the 28-70 s2.8 zoom then. It might be the one for you.

As far the 50mm goes (equalling 75mm), a little crop in photoshop
will give you 85mm view. I guess you know that cropping the final
output will effectively give you a 85, 90, 105 or even 135mm
view/compression. This is fact.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Andrew... I'm not sure of your point. Distortion will change if you go back and forth... if you change the DISTANCE to CAMERA: Not lens size.

But if you take a 50mm lens and you crop 50% of it, then you'll get a 200mm (or is it 100mm?) perspective. It would be exactly as if you took a 200mm lens. Exact, same, pareil, Apples and apples... The same.

The only thing you'd lose is definition. This is why the wuality will be better if you buy the 200mm instead. But the distortion and perspective would be the same.

Its a good link for DISTANCE TO CAMERA distortion examples only.

Andrew Snow said:

It is even explained here on dpreview's own glossary pages. If you
still don't believe it, look here:

http://4dw.net/jamesmskipper/PERSPECTIVE/photo_perspective2.html

You can easily see the difference it is making by changing subject
distance, keeping lens the same, and cropping, just look at the
background in the first 3 images.

Click to expand...

But you may be misunderstanding what he is trying to say:
Perspective is determined by subject distance--exclusively.
I don't know how to state it any more clearly or concisely.

It also sounds like you may be confusing the meaning of
"perspective" with the meaning of "distortion." Distortion
is not really under discussion here, and the examples shown
do not have significant distortion.

nejic said:

But if you take a 50mm lens and you crop 50% of it, then you'll get
a 200mm (or is it 100mm?) perspective. It would be exactly as if
you took a 200mm lens. Exact, same, pareil, Apples and apples...
The same.

The only thing you'd lose is definition. This is why the wuality
will be better if you buy the 200mm instead. But the distortion and
perspective would be the same.

Its a good link for DISTANCE TO CAMERA distortion examples only.

Andrew Snow said:

It is even explained here on dpreview's own glossary pages. If you
still don't believe it, look here:

http://4dw.net/jamesmskipper/PERSPECTIVE/photo_perspective2.html

You can easily see the difference it is making by changing subject
distance, keeping lens the same, and cropping, just look at the
background in the first 3 images.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Old Ed said:

Distortion> is not really under discussion here, and the examples shown
do not have significant distortion.

Click to expand...

Old Ed said:

Old Ed said:

Old Ed said:

http://4dw.net/jamesmskipper/PERSPECTIVE/photo_perspective2.html

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Hi Ed,

I think what actually is illuistrated well by the photos at the above link is a phenomenon known as "distance distortion", which is the effect or appearance of the background's "size" and "closeness"....the jameskipper illustrations....look closely at the SAME head size on the man, but notice the house behind him,and how the physical size of the house can be made larger or smaller, based on lens focal length......one can come up with the identical size of foreground head in a portrait, but the BACKGROUND's apparent distance,and the size of objects in that background, can be made quite simply "closer" and "larger" when a longer focal length lens is used. This is the "distortion" I was referring to...not angular distortion,not barrel distortion,pinchusion distortion,etc....bur rather an optical characteristic which is often referred to as "telephoto compression", but which is really known as distance distortion....

Thinking about distance distortion as the "super-telephoto compression" effect that makes the sun loom huge as a baseball in African plains shots of big cats in trees with prey is one extreme....distance distortion ability chasnges with each individual focal length, with 20mm lenses having the ability to distort apparent distance between foreground and background objects, and super-telephotos having a compressing type of distance distortion of the opposite character. This phenomenon, distance distortion,is what many working photographers confuse with "perspective". Perspective is controlled solely and only by distance....we can get the SAME head sizes on people by moving back or closer, but the way the background is rendered will vary with different lenses.
--
Happy Shooting!
Derrel

the horse is dead!!!! LOL>

--
Rob Mayeux
Retired Navy Flyer

I'll second the suggestion of the 28-70 f/2.8. One of the drawbacks of DX sensors is that this once all around lens on a film body covers a very un-useful range on my D1x. The exception is portraits - I've been finding that the effective focal length of approx. 45-105mm works very well in a variety of portrait settings with lovely bokeh and excellent sharpness.

I use the 85 1.4 for children's portraits where I need a tighter crop anyway.

By the way, this is why I want a full frame 35mm sensor. I want, as was said, to use all the pixels my lens is capable of resolving. Besides the 85 1.4, I find that the 70-200 VR makes an excellent all around portrait lens on my F100, but as with the 85, it is just too long on a DX sensor.

This is why I don't want to go the DX route - even if I buy the 12-24, and 17-55 DX lenses, my longer lenses are still not as useful as they were designed to be. And I don't buy the "instant telephoto" arguments, as was said, you can always crop a FF image or just buy longer glass.

Hello Nikon - I just dropped a grand on the 85 1.4 - how about a digital camera that can use the full image circle I paid for?

Check it out:
http://www.deviantart.com/view/3077201

I just loooove this little lense..

I agree with you on this shot!

The 50mm 1.8 would've actually wrecked it I believe... I can't imagine the almost square reflections instead of these round ones.

But why the hell isn't Nikon listening? It would be so easy for them to produce a better 50mm 1.8 at no really big extra costs: Just better shaped blades!

Any serious company is aiming at customer's satisfaction, right?...

Marco Frissen said:

Check it out:
http://www.deviantart.com/view/3077201

I just loooove this little lense..

Click to expand...

Most new lenses (DX) released by nikon have rounded blades.
The 12-24mm has
the 18-70mm has
the 17-55 has
all DX-es have it, afaik, so they should be perfect for nice round bokeh shots

nejic said:

But why the hell isn't Nikon listening? It would be so easy for
them to produce a better 50mm 1.8 at no really big extra costs:
Just better shaped blades!

Any serious company is aiming at customer's satisfaction, right?...

Marco Frissen said:

Check it out:
http://www.deviantart.com/view/3077201

I just loooove this little lense..

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
http://marcof.net -- MarcoF photography