Why are 85mm lenses good for portraits?

[info333]

I'm interested in dpreview users' opinions as to why 85mm lenses are so popular for shooting portraits. I can confirm that I find that 85mm produces good results for head and shoulder shots, but I'd like to know why. Can you help?

Let's assume we're talking full frame here, so we're discussing a conventional 85mm lens on a 35mm full frame body (film or digital).

I'd be grateful if you could reply stating which of the following explanations you agree with:

A) Everyone knows that 85mm is best for portraiture. There's no need to ask why, it's just a given. That's why it's included in every photography manual.

B) 85mm lenses produce the most flattering linear perspective. They compress noses, thus making subjects look good. Wider angle lenses do not compress noses as much, so there must be something in the optical configuration of glass elements in an 85mm lens that distorts peoples' faces in a good way, to make them look more flattering.

C) 85mm lenses are popular for portraits because, in order to fit a subject's head and shoulder in the frame, you have to walk back several feet from the subject. When positioned several feet from a subject the perspective is much more flattering than if you are positioned very close to them. It's not the focal length of the lens that makes the photo flattering, but the fact that you have to position yourself several feet away.

D) None of these is correct. The real explanation is .....

 

[Legion5]

Option B

 

[nickoly]

no text here

 

[sherwoodpete]

C ... n/t

 

[jfriend00]

B and C are basically the same thing except for your comments in B about distorting faces in a good way.

Wide angle is generally bad for portrait because you get distance distortion. Things closer to the lens are noticeably larger than things not as close (nose larger than ears, for example).

Big telephoto can be used for portraits, but a long distance from subject may cause problems in a small studio and it also requires more tripod support for heavier gear.

So, the 85 is in a sweet spot of enough tele to not have too much wide angle distortion, but short enough that you don't' have to get too far away from your subject to fit in a studio and still light enough that you could hand hold for a long shoot if needed.

To me, anything in the 70-200 range gives nice perspective for head/shoulder portraits.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio

 

[Sammy Yousef]

Wide angle is generally bad for portrait because you get distance distortion. Things closer to the lens are noticeably larger than things not as close (nose larger than ears, for example).

I agree for the most part. But I've also seen that actually used to advantage. For example in caricature, to exaggerate a bust in fashion/glamour etc.

--
Sammy

 

[Tom_N]

Unless you start going to extremes (fisheye lenses), perspective is a function of the camera-subject distance, not of focal length.

So the answer is (C), the 85mm focal length encourages photographers to "stand back" at a distance that produces flattering perspective.

There's another answer not on your list -- which is, because manufacturers know that buyers tend to select certain focal lengths for portrait photography, they may pay more attention to these lenses in the areas of maximum aperture (ability to control depth of field), and pleasing bokeh. 85mm lenses seem to be especially likely to get this treatment.

Short and long portrait focal lengths:
1. For full-frame SLRs and DSLRs: 85mm and 135mm (judging by manufacturer's ads)
2. For crop-sensor DSLRs: 50mm and 85mm

 

[Crocodile Gena]

15mm portrait:



24mm portrait:



50mm portrait:



85mm portrait:



100mm portrait:



135mm portrait (85mm on 1.6x):



200mm portrait:



320mm portrait (200mm on 1.6x):

 

[mamallama]

It's the 85mm (35mm Eq) focal length lens. Leica used to designate their 85-90 mm lens, a portriat lens. It was established during the time when 35mm film format was popular based on this reasoning:

The perspective view of the face depends on the subject-to lens distance; too close and the nose is unflattering enlarged and too far the nose is compressed to make the face appear flatten. Turns out a 35mm camera with a 85mm lens, the camera-to subject distance is about right for the most flattering face AND it fills the frame with a good bust portrait pose.

This was the thinking when Leica marketed their 85 and 90 mm lens as portrait lens. This is discussed in the classic 1950 Leica Manual by Morgan.

Now all this was for an average nose of a northern European. For other racial features, it's different. For Southern Europeans with typically larger noses, a larger distance is better, so maybe a 125 mm (35mm eq.) would be a better portrait lens. For Asians whose noses are generally smaller, a shorter distance is probably better, so maybe it's a 70mm (35mm eq) is the ideal portrait lens.

--mamallama

 

[chrispaulmorgan]

I think it is because it is the shortest lens (for quality) that enables the photographer to be far enough away not to be "in the face" of the model. Not all models can relax with a camera very close. 85mm is perfect for its unobtrusive range.

I don't disagree with other other reasons, just think they are extra advantages and not the main one.
--
Chris

 

[richardplondon]

I agree for the most part. But I've also seen that actually used to advantage. For example in caricature, to exaggerate a bust in fashion/glamour etc.

I thought that was what the Liquefy filter in Photoshop was for?

http://photoshopdisasters.blogspot.com/

[grin]

RP

 

[info333]

Thank you for your comments.

I just want to explore something jfriend00 wrote:

B and C are basically the same thing except for your comments in B about distorting faces in a good way.

Wide angle is generally bad for portrait because you get distance distortion. Things closer to the lens are noticeably larger than things not as close (nose larger than ears, for example).

I'm intrigued that B and C can be the same. Implicit in B is a sense that somehow the optics of the 85mm lens (let's assume it's a prime), by which I mean the configuration, alignment and design of glass elements and groups, is somehow able to a) differentiate and act differently on light depending on the distance of its source, and b) distort that light in such a way as to render near things bigger and distant things smaller.

The key, as the user put, is that 'Things closer to the lens are noticeably larger than things not as close (nose larger than ears, for example)'. Now, the question is whether your eyes would see exactly the same thing (near things larger than distant things), or whether there's some inherent property of wide angle lenses that renders near larger than distant? You can test this yourself - hold your hand in front of your face. Does it appear larger or smaller than trees in the background? Do you need a wide angle lens to observe this effect, or is it true of wherever you care to stand and look at the world?

Furthermore, does an 85mm lens do the inverse? Does it render distant things proportionally larger than near things? Is that why some users feel it 'shrinks' the nose. If it shrinks the nose, surely it must then enlarge the ears, which some might consider unflattering?

What I'm driving at is whether there's anything 'special' going on inside an 85mm lens to produce these effects, or whether camera position (option C) is the sole determinant of perspective*

For the benefit of the forum, I want to clarify if there's any truth at all on option B, or whether option C provides a 100% satisfactory, and I should add mutually exclusive, explanation.

• until you get noticeable lens distortions from really wide angle lenses, sub 28mm

Big telephoto can be used for portraits, but a long distance from subject may cause problems in a small studio and it also requires more tripod support for heavier gear.

So, the 85 is in a sweet spot of enough tele to not have too much wide angle distortion, but short enough that you don't' have to get too far away from your subject to fit in a studio and still light enough that you could hand hold for a long shoot if needed.

To me, anything in the 70-200 range gives nice perspective for head/shoulder portraits.
--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio

 

[Tom_N]

Near things looking appearing to be larger than far things is a matter of physics.

In mathematics terms, you can model it as a triangle, where the flat "bottom" has the actual width of the object, and the "point" of the triangle is attached to your eye (or to the camera sensor).

As you pull the object (and the bottom of the triangle) away, the angles that are adjacent to the "actual width" line will increase, edging ever closer to 90 degrees.

The angle of view (at the eye or sensor) will be forced to decrease. Same actual width, over a smaller angle of view, implies that the object appears smaller.

 

[Andreas Stuebs]

B and C are basically the same thing except for your comments in B about distorting faces in a good way.

Wide angle is generally bad for portrait because you get distance distortion. Things closer to the lens are noticeably larger than things not as close (nose larger than ears, for example).

Big telephoto can be used for portraits, but a long distance from subject may cause problems in a small studio and it also requires more tripod support for heavier gear.

So, the 85 is in a sweet spot of enough tele to not have too much wide angle distortion, but short enough that you don't' have to get too far away from your subject to fit in a studio and still light enough that you could hand hold for a long shoot if needed.

To me, anything in the 70-200 range gives nice perspective for head/shoulder portraits.
--
John

I agree fully. Plus for a 85mm lens you can get (or could in the past) 85mm lenses or thereabout with fairly large apertures

I own an old lovely 80mm Pentax-M f/2 and a newer AF Pentax f/1.4 the latter I use both for film and digital work (the 80 f/2 I only use on my fully manual MX Film SLR)

 

[ericN2]

It's been that way for over 40 years to my own knowledge.

Leica brought out a lens of 80mm focal length in Leica M days which was specificaly for this purpose - portraiture... and frankly if it's good and right in the eyes of Leica I'm more than happy to believe it best.

I had one of those Leica lenses with my M2... way back .. and a super lens it was too.

--
eric-UK

 

[Graystar]

info333 wrote:

I've always known 135mm to be the portrait focal length. Both Canon's and Nikon's portrait lenses are 135mm, and Nikon also produces a 105mm lens.

85mm works for crop cameras because the EFL is 136mm on Canons and 127.5mm on Nikons.

And the reason 135mm is used is that it simply minimizes perspective distortion in a reasonable amount of space. You can use a 400mm, but you'd need a big studio.

.

 

[dmartin92]

When you are doing a portrait of someone, you want to focus the attention of the viewer of the photo on the portrait subject.

If only the portrait subject is in focus, and everything else is blurred, the attention of the viewer of the photo naturally falls on the portrait subject.

You could do the same with a 50mm lens, but then you'll need to open the lens up to f/2 or wider.

And at f/2, most lenses start to become less sharp.

An 85mm lens will give a blurred background at even f/4... and at f/4 the lens will still be tack sharp.

Or if you want to go to f/2 ... the background will be VERY blurred.

It's that, and the other things you've mentioned.

 

[kb2zuz]

--
~K

 

[jfriend00]

When you are doing a portrait of someone, you want to focus the attention of the viewer of the photo on the portrait subject.

If only the portrait subject is in focus, and everything else is blurred, the attention of the viewer of the photo naturally falls on the portrait subject.

You could do the same with a 50mm lens, but then you'll need to open the lens up to f/2 or wider.

And at f/2, most lenses start to become less sharp.

An 85mm lens will give a blurred background at even f/4... and at f/4 the lens will still be tack sharp.

Or if you want to go to f/2 ... the background will be VERY blurred.

It's that, and the other things you've mentioned.

There is a bit of a popular misunderstanding that I want to make sure folks aren't confused by.

Let's take two lenses (85mm and 50mm from your example), set both lenses to the same aperture (let's say f/4) and then position yourself with each lens so that you fill the frame with the same part of your subject (let's say shoulders to head). To nobody's surprise, you will have to get closer with the 50mm lens to achieve the same framing.

If you now take each one of those shots and examine the depth of field, you will see that they both have the same depth of field. Depth of field is not a property of focal length, it's really a property of subject magnification. If you shoot two lenses from the same subject distance and the same aperture, the higher focal length will achieve higher magnification and will have shallower depth of field. But, if you adjust the subject distance to achieve the same magnification (something you would normally do in a portrait shot), then the two lenses will show the same depth of field. If you take the 50mm lens and get even closer so that you are no longer including the shoulders, just the neck and above, the 50mm lens will show even less depth of field than the the 85mm shot that includes the shoulders because the 50mm shot is at a higher subject magnification.

So, achieving shallow depth of field is not necessarily a reason for using a longer focal length lens.

What will be different with the 50mm shoulder and above shot vs. the 85mm should and above shot is perspective because a 50mm shot taken from closer in will show different perspective than an 85mm shot take from further away and that's the point of many of the responses here. The closer in shot will include a wider angle of the background and will show more of a perspective size change between the front of the subject and the back of the subject due to the wider shooting angle from a closer distance.

--
John
Gallery: http://jfriend.smugmug.com
Popular: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/popular
Portfolio: http://jfriend.smugmug.com/portfolio

 

[Forrest41926]

D) None of these is correct. The real explanation is .....

I need one more choice in this list!