JadedWriter wrote:
What exactly is the right focal length for a portrait?
It depends on the look you’re after. But generally speaking, the 18/1.4 is probably not a great choice. 33? Meh to okay. 50? Better. 56? Pretty darn sweet. 70? Yeah baby. 90? Yep. 140 & 200? Among my favorites if they’re f2.8’s or more
But again it comes down to the look we each think is best. For me, that stopped being “clinically crisp corner to corner” a long time ago. But for whatever reasons, clinically crisp seems to be the current accepted holy grail. Which I personally find boring generally, with a couple unique exceptions.
This is where we get into the "define a portrait" category. If we're talking a simple basic headshot? Yeah sure your statement has a case. If we're talking about all round capturing of people and personality your statement hold 0 water. Like I get that photography rules are a thing, but I honestly don't subscribe to them.
Fuji 20-35: ?s=eyJpIjo1NDU5NTg0MjEwMCwiZSI6MTc2NTM4NjExMCwicyI6IjNiYTZmNTBlYzFhMDQwNDg3YTA1OTUyNDk4MzY3ZjM4NjJmOGRkNDQiLCJ2IjoxfQ">GF1S4396 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr ?s=eyJpIjo1MzczMzc1MDE2NywiZSI6MTc2NTM4NjY3OSwicyI6IjYzNDU4YzRlNzFlMDgzZGNiZDVhY2MwNWQ2MjQ4ZDM2OTBjZjJmNjAiLCJ2IjoxfQ">GF1S9846 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr ?s=eyJpIjo1MzczNTAxNDEyNCwiZSI6MTc2NTM4NjY5OCwicyI6Ijg0NGUyOTc3ODMyNzNhYjJiZmViOTNmMWU5YzQxNDFkZjg5MWFlNGYiLCJ2IjoxfQ">GF1S9861 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr ?s=eyJpIjo1Mzc1NTkxNTg1NCwiZSI6MTc2NTM4Njc2MCwicyI6IjQzYWI4ZjFkZTE1ZTZhMWQ3N2MzOGExZWFhMGNhODQxMTlhZjcxZjkiLCJ2IjoxfQ">GF1S0511 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
18 1.4: ?s=eyJpIjo1NDU5NTc0NzUwOCwiZSI6MTc2NTM4NjExMywicyI6IjAxNTUxYzEyZTRmMjFkOTUyZjQ1YWRlYWM0ZWY3NTIwNzM3ZDVmOGUiLCJ2IjoxfQ">XH022790 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr ?s=eyJpIjo1NDU1MTQ5NzA3MSwiZSI6MTc2NTM4NjQ4NSwicyI6IjM5MjBhZTMwYTA1NjdjY2NmYzBjNTBkODcwYjZjOTdiZmNmYWZkNTMiLCJ2IjoxfQ">XH022978 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr ?s=eyJpIjo1NDU1MTY3NjE4NCwiZSI6MTc2NTM4NjUzMSwicyI6IjFkZTYzNTY0Mjg3Njc5Y2EyMzFkOGY4Y2Y1YTQ5Yjg0Yjk0NDJlNDMiLCJ2IjoxfQ">XH022958 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr ?s=eyJpIjo1NDU1MTQ5NTYzMSwiZSI6MTc2NTM4NjQ4NiwicyI6Ijk0ZGUzMjI4ODM1NjZkOWRmYThhN2M5ZmZmMjhhM2JkOGM5MzBmOWEiLCJ2IjoxfQ">XH022853 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr ?s=eyJpIjo1MzY4ODcwMzIyNywiZSI6MTc2NTM4NjU5MywicyI6ImI1MzczMmM5NTU2ZmYyNGE1OWU0NzBlY2JiNzZiMTAwZGRlNzBlZGYiLCJ2IjoxfQ">XH020050 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr
Viltrox 27 1.2: ?s=eyJpIjo1NDU1MTczMTM5MywiZSI6MTc2NTM4NjQyMCwicyI6IjhhMzg4MmJjODQxZGQyZDAzODE5NGM5YjVlNzczYzRkYjY1ODJiZGIiLCJ2IjoxfQ">XH023035 by Marcus Beasley, on Flickr Jack Flesher wrote:
It depends on the look you’re after. But generally speaking, the 18/1.4 is probably not a great choice. 33? Meh to okay. 50? Better. 56? Pretty darn sweet. 70? Yeah baby. 90? Yep. 140 & 200? Among my favorites if they’re f2.8’s or more
JadedWriter wrote:
What exactly is the right focal length for a portrait?
it is the focal length that you prefer when shooting the portrait that you are shooting.
That being said, when photographers refer to a "portrait lens," the most common reference is to the ubiquitous 85mm large aperture lenses for full frame or similar. On Fujifilm x-trans cameras that would be something like their 50mm f/2 or their 56mm f/1.2 lenses. That is not to say that various sorts of portraits can't be made with other lenses, just that this is how the term is often understood. Can you make portrait with a 14mm or 500mm lens? Sure. But we don't think of this as "portrait lenses."
JadedWriter wrote:
What exactly is the right focal length for a portrait?
You'll notice i didn't get specific as it varies, people have different preferences and tastes.
One year I used 18-135 (Canon) at Christmas, mostly used 50-85mm, so I'd say that or longer, 85 to 135+ equivalent. Others may disagree. But you're better off using the correct fl for you vs a sharper, contrastier lens that doesn't give the right composition
On film I rarely (more like never) used 24mm even though it performed better than the 21mm I used constantly, more landscape of course
IMHO only, there is a definition for "portrait" as opposed to "lifestyle." While your series is indeed a good set of what I would call lifestyle shots, to me they are not portraits. In fact, the few where you tried to force more of a portrait frame fill, show the extreme facial distortion that occurs from close shooting distances with wider focals; and to me, that distortion becomes a negative. Respect yours and others MMV
JadedWriter wrote:
What exactly is the right focal length for a portrait?
I ddefinitely don't think choosing 35mm vs 56mm , for portraits, based on sharpness and contrast is a good idea, for a better example.
You might pick 35mm if you do more full length but I like headshots for the few portraits I do and would almost certainly pick 56mm. Might regret it if I wound up doing half or full length but even then I'm not choosing based on lens performance
The stuff you will do for a shot because you're blitzing through it and you're shooting a prime, have an 85 on the other camera, but don't have time to swap lenses because you still want to show off more environment. Genre wise I don't really try to label anything. It's either ignorance on my part or me being generally too busy to even care at this point. If the shots work and draw attention that's basically all I care about these days. Jack Flesher wrote:
IMHO only, there is a definition for "portrait" as opposed to "lifestyle." While your series is indeed a good set of what I would call lifestyle shots, to me they are not portraits. In fact, the few where you tried to force more of a portrait frame fill, show the extreme facial distortion that occurs from close shooting distances with wider focals; and to me, that distortion becomes a negative. Respect yours and others MMV
Dan, that thing is a landmark. I either basically work that thing into the shot or I don't shoot there at all. I actually referenced some of my older shots there and I will concede I worked it in better, but there's a good chance that I had more maneuver room since this is public space. Poop happens, I have other shots of her better than this and i'm moving from critiquing said shot since I really don't have time to get into a 3 page session with you and even if I did I'd still drop the conversation at some point. gdanmitchell wrote:
She's wearing a VERY spectacular hat...
... and illustrating one of the first rules of portrait photography: Pay attention to what is behind the subject's head!
I use my 110F2 a lot for office headshots. Out in the field it's actually surprising how little I touch this thing though. Basically I get buy on a combination of the 18 1.4, 55 1.7, sometimes the 33 1.4 and the Sigma 17-40 1.8. I'm very hybrid, I work in a lot of terrible spaces and depending how images are going to be cropped for usage at my job 85 kinda is useless. Sometimes if I can swing tighter I use the 50 1.0. A lot of this is just dependent on working conditions. gdanmitchell wrote:
it is the focal length that you prefer when shooting the portrait that you are shooting.
That being said, when photographers refer to a "portrait lens," the most common reference is to the ubiquitous 85mm large aperture lenses for full frame or similar. On Fujifilm x-trans cameras that would be something like their 50mm f/2 or their 56mm f/1.2 lenses. That is not to say that various sorts of portraits can't be made with other lenses, just that this is how the term is often understood. Can you make portrait with a 14mm or 500mm lens? Sure. But we don't think of this as "portrait lenses."...Show more →
JadedWriter wrote:
What exactly is the right focal length for a portrait?
I don't believe there is simple answer to this question. Are you doing a head shot, half body shot, full body shot, environmental shot? What is the shape of the subject's face? If a head shot, how close are you shooting? How much compression do you want? Are you shooting wide open or stopped down? If you are not doing a closeup headshot how much background blur or bokeh do you want? Are you shooting in a studio with studio lighting and a backdrop or are you doing street portraits? All of these factors influence your choice of focal length. For a good look at some of these characteristics here is a nice UTube video: &t=217s
She also references other videos that she has made using some other focal lengths. You may not agree with all of her opinions or the results she gets, but I offer the video as an illustration of the things you need to consider if you are choosing a focal length for your portrait work. As you will see, there is no one "right" focal length for all portraits.
Some photographers settle on a particular type of portrait and settle in on a focal length that works best for those circumstances. One excellent portrait photographer is Paul Reid. Curiously, a lot of his work is done with a Leica Q2 monochrome which has a focal length of 28 mm. He addresses this in one of his videos and if I recall he feels that if he places the subject in the center of the frame at the subject distance he uses there is not a lot of subject distortion. He does street portraits and his work is extraordinary, IMO. Here is his site: https://www.youtube.com/@paulreidphotography/featured
So to recap, I think you need to decide what kind of portrait work you want to do and then choose a focal length that suits the style you want to pursue. ...Show more →
JadedWriter wrote:
Dan, that thing is a landmark. I either basically work that thing into the shot or I don't shoot there at all. I actually referenced some of my older shots there and I will concede I worked it in better, but there's a good chance that I had more maneuver room since this is public space. Poop happens, I have other shots of her better than this and i'm moving from critiquing said shot since I really don't have time to get into a 3 page session with you and even if I did I'd still drop the conversation at some point.
And nobody effing cared. Depending on who your client/boss is. They don't care about said rules. TENOG wrote:
C'mon man. That shot is a classic example from Portrait Mistakes 101.
Thanks, I agree on the tangent part. I’m always a fan of hearing opinions, but they do turn me away when the disagreeing starts to take over. I have some great lenses on the way and for some reason the 56 excites me the most. Either way, digital photography has come so far in the last decade. It’s nice to have so many great options and amazing equipment.
I really loved the images from that Zeiss but the user experience wasn’t worth the trade off. I’ll keep my eye out for another similar option that will talk to my XT5 or R5ii.
jakeg403 wrote:
Thanks, I agree on the tangent part. I’m always a fan of hearing opinions, but they do turn me away when the disagreeing starts to take over. I have some great lenses on the way and for some reason the 56 excites me the most. Either way, digital photography has come so far in the last decade. It’s nice to have so many great options and amazing equipment.
I really loved the images from that Zeiss but the user experience wasn’t worth the trade off. I’ll keep my eye out for another similar option that will talk to my XT5 or R5ii. ...Show more →
56 is a great all-around focal for APSc, a near perfect loose-portrait/tight-street lens. I've owned the Fuji f1.2 version, but as indicated above ended up preferring the Viltrox Air 56/1.7. (It's enough smaller and lighter it's always in my bag where the Fuji version wasn't ever in the bag when I needed it, but that's just me.)
Let's not start this stupid effing argument all over again. I'm not the only one with this opinion either:
?si=TDusRmmiDgo0zIIS mdude85 wrote:
It sounds to me that you'll be very happy with the 56 f1.2.
It's not going to be a 1-1 match to your other lens (every lens is different of course) but the results should be similar.
This thread got off on a weird tangent -- someone who is more than an amateur photographer should probably know what a portrait lens is.
