Favorite Focal Length/Aperture For Portrait

[j-nord]

Given that Canon supposedly has a number of relevant lens (50 1.4, 135 f2, 85 f1.2) refreshes in the works and Nikon recently released a 105 f1.4. What do you think is the ideal focal length/ aperture pairing for portrait? If you had to pick one, of course. I know everyone has a favorite lens (based on whats available), this is more theoretical, with in reason.

edit: to clarify I'm thinking in terms of headshots and/or full body where you want to destroy the background.

 

[Random Orbits]

If I have enough space, I tend to gravitate to something around 85-100mm. I find the 24-70 tends to be a bit short for single person portraits, so I tend to use the 70-200 or 100 macro if I can. The macro is the choice for most headshots. For groups, it's 35 or 50mm again depending on space and how large the group is.

A big factor is how much time I have for setup and how much equipment I can use. If I'm using an on-camera flash outside, the lack of flash power will limit the distance and favor a shorter focal length.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

300mm is also a excellent focal length. The issue is space enough to use a 300mm lens.

Longer focal lengths tend to shorten noses and facial feature which tends to be more flattering. Wide angles are the opposite. Any of the 85-300 focal lengths are fine. Its more of a pick the one that does what you need. If you want full body, for example, I'd tend to go 85, but have used 135 as well.

 

[j-nord]

300mm is also a excellent focal length. The issue is space enough to use a 300mm lens.

What aperture do you use @300? Are you using a 70-200ii + 1.4TC or 300 f4 or 300 2.8?

It seems that every one who has or has used a 200 f2 says thats their favorite.

 

[j-nord]

If I have enough space, I tend to gravitate to something around 85-100mm.

What aperture do you sit around for head shots at these focal lengths?

 

[j-nord]

I personally don't shoot a whole lot of portraits, at least not human, but I have tried a pretty wide variety of focal lengths/ apertures. My findings so far (on FF):

- 35 f1.4 is good for capturing full body and a lot of environment but getting in close is a no no.

- I don't like 50 1.8 because the working distance, facial compression, and bokeh are pretty poor, I can see a 50 f1.2 being a decent option because it allows for a step back with out losing bokeh.

- had a 85 f1.8 and found it pretty boring unless you are really close (the long MFD on the Canon 85 f1.8 made it unusable for general use too). The f1.2 seems like an idea general use portrait/background destroyer but Ive never used one.

- the nikon 105 f1.4 seems like a really ideal (but expensive) compromise between a 85 f1.2 and a 135 f2

- I absolutely love the 135 f2 focal length/ aperture pairing but sometimes a little long if you want to get more of the enviornment in the shot. A 135 f1.8 would be an awesome lens but also super expensive Im sure.

- 200-300 is great for facial feature compression and destroying the background but the sometimes difficult working distances get even worse if you want to do full body/ or get more environment. Further when you back up with a 200ish to get more environment you lose that background destroying look unless, I suppose if you have a 200 f2.

 

[Random Orbits]

If I have enough space, I tend to gravitate to something around 85-100mm.

What aperture do you sit around for head shots at these focal lengths?

Usually a more head-on shot, I'm usually wide open (f/2.8) to f/4, but it depends on how tight the crop and the desired affect. If the head is turned to the slide slightly or more than a smaller aperture is used.

 

[Jopa]

300mm is also a excellent focal length. The issue is space enough to use a 300mm lens.

Longer focal lengths tend to shorten noses and facial feature which tends to be more flattering. Wide angles are the opposite. Any of the 85-300 focal lengths are fine. Its more of a pick the one that does what you need. If you want full body, for example, I'd tend to go 85, but have used 135 as well.

300mm indeed!
840mm headshot: https://www.flickr.com/photos/omproject/29574007163/in/dateposted-public/lightbox/

 

[H. Jones]

It's tough because it's possible to do so many different things with portraits. I've enjoyed 35mm and 24mm environmental portraits quite a lot in recent times and I've been considering picking up a 35mm f/1.4L II for these uses. Beyond 35mm, though, I'm not too big of a fan of 50mm portraits, and I prefer 100/135mm for tighter shots using my 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II.

Aperture isn't a big deal to me since I mainly shoot with controlled light, but it is nice to get wider aperture shots in sometimes. Images can be so much more interesting with a well-composed background though.

All that said, I'm also holding onto hope for a 85mm F/1.2L II with much better image quality.

 

[Duckman]

85L has served me very well for portraiture. Almost always between 1.2 and 1.8, depending. I don't think I've ever gone above F2 with it...
-J

 

[StudentOfLight]

My preferred primes for portraiture are the 35L II and the 135L when I know what I want to do. I like using them at f/2 for shallower DoF shots and would love a great 85mm or 90mm lens to fit snugly between these in my camera bag. I was interested in the Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 VC until I saw its horrible purple fringing. Hopefully Canon will release a 85mm cousin to the 35L II.


Dinara by Omesh Singh, on Flickr


Andre with Baby Matteus by Omesh Singh, on Flickr


Tropic Thunder by Omesh Singh, on Flickr


Kristel by Omesh Singh, on Flickr


Sinon Cosplay by Omesh Singh, on Flickr

 

[Deleted member 7828]

Generally don't really do portraits much (if at all), but when I have the opportunity, I have grown to really like the perspective of ~100mm (generally 85-105mm) between f2.8 and f4 (typically depending on lens - long end of 24-105, or 100 Macro, etc.). As for using faster lenses (like the 50 or 85) I would be hesitant to open up wider than 2.8 anyway on FF unless the light required it - I like to see more than just the eyes in focus.

Additionally, for full body or near-full body shots, I find 35mm works well to include some of the environment as well. 100mm is good too, but at that length environmental details begin to blur out and thus the look is quite different.

 

[Ah-Keong]

In my opinion, it would depends what you define as portraits.
I have a kind of table for reference and then work from there:

35mm : Environmental Portraits
50mm : Full Body Portraits
85mm : Partial Body / Bust up Portraits
100~135mm : Shoulders / Headshots.

;D

 

[YuengLinger]

300mm is also a excellent focal length. The issue is space enough to use a 300mm lens.

Longer focal lengths tend to shorten noses and facial feature which tends to be more flattering. Wide angles are the opposite. Any of the 85-300 focal lengths are fine. Its more of a pick the one that does what you need. If you want full body, for example, I'd tend to go 85, but have used 135 as well.

+1 Exactly--there is no "one size fits all." The 70-200mm is so great because it allows changing focal length for distance and the shape of a person's head. For slim subjects, 85mm works straight on, but if, as is the case with many in the West, the subject is overweight, going to a longer focal length is very important. Sometimes, even, a person who appears fit has a head that just doesn't work at certain focal lengths, so it's great to be able to show them images taken at various FL's.

Going the other way, there are some subjects that have narrow heads and long faces, and having an 85mm or even 70mm is better than going with a 135mm, for example.

But if I had to choose two primes for portraits, I'd go with 85 and 135. But if I could only have ONE lens, I'd even go with the 70-200mm f/4. Despite giving up the shallower DoF look of faster lenses, it is sharp and produces great colors, and I'd say for most portrait work where background can be controlled and one wants most of the face and body in sharp focus, it works. But the 70-200mm gives even more options with backgrounds and DoF, so, heavy as it is, I'd say it is THE portrait lens if budget allows.

Update: After sleeping on it overnight...If I had to choose one PRIME lens strictly for portraits, I'd go with the 135mm f/2. Quick, great IQ including bokeh, and does flatter most head shapes, imho. But it would not be nice iN a tight space!!!

 

[Ozarker]

300mm is also a excellent focal length. The issue is space enough to use a 300mm lens.

Longer focal lengths tend to shorten noses and facial feature which tends to be more flattering. Wide angles are the opposite. Any of the 85-300 focal lengths are fine. Its more of a pick the one that does what you need. If you want full body, for example, I'd tend to go 85, but have used 135 as well.

+1 Exactly--there is no "one size fits all." The 70-200mm is so great because it allows changing focal length for distance and the shape of a person's head. For slim subjects, 85mm works straight on, but if, as is the case with many in the West, the subject is overweight, going to a longer focal length is very important. Sometimes, even, a person who appears fit has a head that just doesn't work at certain focal lengths, so it's great to be able to show them images taken at various FL's.

Going the other way, there are some subjects that have narrow heads and long faces, and having an 85mm or even 70mm is better than going with a 135mm, for example.

YuengLinger, what you say here is very interesting and helpful. Thanks for posting this. Never thought of looking at things like this when taking portraits as far as weight and head shape or size. Thanks again! Something else I need to keep in mind.

 

[Ah-Keong]

300mm is also a excellent focal length. The issue is space enough to use a 300mm lens.

Longer focal lengths tend to shorten noses and facial feature which tends to be more flattering. Wide angles are the opposite. Any of the 85-300 focal lengths are fine. Its more of a pick the one that does what you need. If you want full body, for example, I'd tend to go 85, but have used 135 as well.

+1 Exactly--there is no "one size fits all." The 70-200mm is so great because it allows changing focal length for distance and the shape of a person's head. For slim subjects, 85mm works straight on, but if, as is the case with many in the West, the subject is overweight, going to a longer focal length is very important. Sometimes, even, a person who appears fit has a head that just doesn't work at certain focal lengths, so it's great to be able to show them images taken at various FL's.

Going the other way, there are some subjects that have narrow heads and long faces, and having an 85mm or even 70mm is better than going with a 135mm, for example.

But if I had to choose two primes for portraits, I'd go with 85 and 135. But if I could only have ONE lens, I'd even go with the 70-200mm f/4. Despite giving up the shallower DoF look of faster lenses, it is sharp and produces great colors, and I'd say for most portrait work where background can be controlled and one wants most of the face and body in sharp focus, it works. But the 70-200mm gives even more options with backgrounds and DoF, so, heavy as it is, I'd say it is THE portrait lens if budget allows.

Update: After sleeping on it overnight...If I had to choose one PRIME lens strictly for portraits, I'd go with the 135mm f/2. Quick, great IQ including bokeh, and does flatter most head shapes, imho. But it would not be nice iN a tight space!!!

Thanks for the advice!
Would someone create a 85-135mm f/2?