What does it take to be a great "portrait" lens?

[RayBanD40]

Hello...I've read numerous posts here about portrait shots being used by certain type lenses but have not gotten a definitive answer as to what a "portrait" lens really is. Is it a certain focal point or a range of focal points? Is my kit lens of 18-55mm a "portrait" lens? Is a prime lens a portrait lens?

I've seen some mention on this forum that the Nikon 50mm 1.8d as a good portrait lens also.

So, in summary, what does it take for a lens to be a "good" portrait lens?

Anyone have any thoughts or opinions?

TIA.

--
Ray
===
D40 w/18-55mm kit lens
SB-400 Speedlight w/Sto-fen diffuser
Wish List: 55-200VR or 18-135mm?

 

[andrewthomasdesigns]

(kinda making this up)

so we go back in the day to film, and way back in the day to the 70's and 80's. In this time we have to remeber a few things.

• everything was manual focus
• zooms weren't that great
• people judged how serious they were by the fstop of their lens

also back then there was no magic USM filter for things, so the lenses really did have to be really good.

Then people get into their habbits, and rumors as well as legends get going. People started to swear by this and by that, and pretty soon we had standards for lenses and things were pretty much set in stone as far as what was used for what.

Today, we don't have that, and we have great zooms that are pretty much as good as the primes those old people held to a high standard.

Now there are rules, and things to go by, and just remeber that back then the lenses seemed shorter than they are today.

the 50mm would have been a pretty good lens for full body shots, as well as 3/4 shots. The 85 would have been great for 3/4 shots and maybe some full lenght shots or beach stuff, and the 105 would have been great for headshots and stuff.

Today, we just back this up a little bit. The 30mm is good for what the 50 did, the 50 is good for what the 85 did, and the 85 is good for what the 105 did... and so on. In fact one of the best bikini lenses was the 80-200 which was about 50-150 in todays lenses... which is awesome!

however, what makes a great lens is the results. I know a few people using the 18-200 to do studio shoots and it's working great, and then some like myself have the 35-70, and my friend has the 28-120 (or something) as well as others. it's just what we are more comfortable with and what we want to use.

yes there are some "better' than others. the 50 and 85 1.4 are really that good, however a "pro" won't care about bokah or about those kinds of things from the lens, they will care about the subject and image.

so again, it's just what you want to use, and how you use it.
--
http://www.andrewthomasdesigns.com

 

[Fredphototn]

No doubt you will get many opinons on this subject.

In 35 mm terms, about a 100 mm focal length was considered ideal for head and shoulders portraits. It provided a good working distance from the subject (not too far away and not right up on them where the subject could be uncomfortable). It also provided a perspective that was flattering to most people. (Take a wide angle and get in close enough to get the same field of view and features that are closer to the lens will look oversized.)

In today's APS sized digital world, that translates into about a 70 mm focal length. Personally I find my 50 mm f 1.8 to be a little short for how I like to work. I mostly use a 35-70 f 2.8 for portraits. My 18-70 also works well. I recently bought a 55-200 VR lens, but haven't tried it yet for this purpose, but I guess it will work just fine.

If you want a very shallow depth of field, then a fast lens will help. That isn't an issue for me as I usually shoot in the f 8 range. Using studio lighting makes it easy to hit the sweet spot in almost any lens.

I hope this helps.

Fred

 

[Jim Hammond]

I like the answers already given. My studio has a short camera room, so I used to use a 127mm on the Mamiya RB67 which is like using a 50mm on a digital camera. I did this so that I wouldn't have to back up into my office for family groups. With no zoom, I'd have to move around a lot so I use a 28-105mm Tamron on the D80 for my studio set up now. For outdoor shots I use the 18-135mm kit lens and it works quite well, allowing me to get some great shots without needing to change perspective very often. If I didn't do this almost every day, I might use my 90mm Tamron 2.8 or even a 50mm prime lens which would both work quite well for portraits. There's still nothing like a zoom for capturing those fleeting expressions that your subject might display -just for a moment.
JH

 

[Jessie Anderson]

I shot this with that cheap gem that you have now...



--
Jessie
http://jessiethe3rd.zenfolio.com



“When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.”

• Ansel Adams

 

[DavidfromSydney]

I like this shot very much - the expression is fascinating, and I also like the way the shot has been framed. I find the background slightly distracting, and (were this my shot) I would be tempted to photoshop this to try and put a softer blur on the background.

David

 

[Camera Obscure]

It takes skillful hands...
--
Freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose...

 

[murdoprint]

your 35-70 outside the studio? How do you like it overall? I am interested in that zoom but am still doing my homework.

By the way, Unsharp Mask was definitely around in the 70's and 80's. Don't know how many photographers applied it in the darkroom, but production houses usually applied it before photos were printed on offset presses-- at least for people shots.

 

[morris]

and shalow DOF to isolate the subject.

Morris
--



http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~morris/POD

 

[Jessie Anderson]

Traditionally I'd agree with you, however, the garden has a lot of sentimental value for the person in the picture.
--
Jessie
http://jessiethe3rd.zenfolio.com



“When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence.”

• Ansel Adams

 

[Fredphototn]

your 35-70 outside the studio? How do you like it overall? I am
interested in that zoom but am still doing my homework.

By the way, Unsharp Mask was definitely around in the 70's and 80's.
Don't know how many photographers applied it in the darkroom, but
production houses usually applied it before photos were printed on
offset presses-- at least for people shots.

Yes, I use the 35-70 for a variety of purposes. I have been very happy with it. For some work, the limited zoom range makes it hard to use. I often do event photography and the 35 mm widest setting just isn't wide enough for shotting groups of people.

I have heard that the lens can be subject to flare problems, but I have been careful to avoid that.

Fred

 

[RayBanD40]

I guess it's whatever feels good for the type of work needed. I guess a good overall lens like the 18-135mm is a great compromise for both portraits and zoom.

Thanks everyone for the feedback.

--
Ray
===
D40 w/18-55mm kit lens
SB-400 Speedlight w/Sto-fen diffuser
Wish List: 55-200VR or 18-135mm?

 

[andrewthomasdesigns]

your 35-70 outside the studio? How do you like it overall? I am
interested in that zoom but am still doing my homework.

Rent one, or just buy one to try it out.

By the way, Unsharp Mask was definitely around in the 70's and 80's.
Don't know how many photographers applied it in the darkroom, but
production houses usually applied it before photos were printed on
offset presses-- at least for people shots.

really now? I'm pretty sure (unless I'm wrong) that computers started up things in the late 80's and before that things were done using big film cameras.

--
http://www.andrewthomasdesigns.com

 

[Bambi Brown]

n/t

 

[Jim Hammond]

By the way, Unsharp Mask was definitely around in the 70's and 80's.
Don't know how many photographers applied it in the darkroom, but
production houses usually applied it before photos were printed on
offset presses-- at least for people shots.

Here's my $.02 -- I did use the unsharp mask in the 70's - it was a chunk of panty hose over my 150mm Sonnar on my Hasselblad. Nothing was added in the darkroom and most photographers didn't have prints made on any offset press. Diffusion is what might be the real topic here and there's been as many ways to get it as the camera models behind it. Everything from vaseline to netting to clear fingernail polish. I still use a Tallyn Soft Fuser in front of the D80 with great results. It's universal and takes no PP or extra time.
JH

 

[tigerbite]

wow!!

great description of a 'portrait' lens.

i find it to be very helpful in finding my next 'portrait' lens.

 

[tigerbite]

again, what about the sigma 30mm 1.4 as a general portrait lens?

someone has suggested the sigma 50-150mm 2.8 to use as a portrait lens. in portraits, i think it would look better with a nice bokeh or shallow DOF.

if the nikkor 50mm 1.8 or 1.4 can AF on my D40...i'd have no hesitation to make the purchase; however it doesn't AF on my d40.

i've been comtemplating for weeks in terms of which 'portraiture' lens to get...

 

[murdoprint]

Nope. Diffusion is different. Unsharp Mask was a darkroom technique before it was a Photoshop filter. Like I said, I don't know how many photographers used it in the darkroom, but any professional from the era would know that if his/her photos were destined to be printed, an unsharp mask would probably be applied beforehand.

A filmhouse would make a working copy and apply the technique before stripping it into position. This was pretty much universal for people shots (at least where I worked) and most other important shots in a printed piece. In addition to sharpening the photo, it prevented small features like eyeballs and teeth from filling in due to dot gain on the press.

Here is some more information, if you're interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_mask

 

[murdoprint]

I am planning to rent an 85mmm f/1.4, rent (or possibly borrow) a 35-70, and possibly rent a 105mm f/2DC. We'll see.

really now? I'm pretty sure (unless I'm wrong) that computers started
up things in the late 80's and before that things were done using big
film cameras.

The process cameras used for reproduction in a film house ranged from enormous to absurdly large. But the Unsharp Mask technique could be applied to photos originating from any format, certainly including 35mm. At a few hundred pounds or more, I doubt many portraits were ever taken with a process camera... but, man, it would be one hell of a shot. Street photography would be right out.

According to Wiki, USM was first developed in the 1930's in Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsharp_mask

 

[murdoprint]

The range is a concern for me too, but mostly on the long end. Flare shouldn't be too much of a problem for my stuff, but I am thinking 2.8 just isn't fast enough-- currently planning some experiments to find out.

Thanks for the info.