Fifty Recommendation

[elsa hoffmann]

Interesting link, Elsa. Another subject for meditation: when painters do portraits, what is usually the distance from their subject? The answer may apply to photographers too...

mmm I dont think so - I dont think a lens renders the same as the eye?
On the other hand - have you ever seen an artist sit on top of a subject? I actually think they need the distance because the need the right perspective.

[Airy]

Well, perspective is a matter of distance to the subject and nothing else...

[elsa hoffmann]

Airy - maybe I am using the wrong word? Sorry I cant think of the right word here 

[Airy]

Elsa, I think we agree - I'd be very surprized if painters would place their easel at less than 2 m even for painting a head, unless of course they would be terribly short-sighted or plagued with an eye condition (see Degas, Monet, and others...).

Most paintings I saw depicting a painter while painting showed significant space between painter and subject. That's just my vague memories though, and does not replace systematic observation.

[elsa hoffmann]

Yes I agree

[charlie]

Thank you for your inputs everyone.

I suppose I should have defined myself more thoroughly. I'm speaking to environmental portraiture. All lenses are portrait lenses as far as I'm concerned and the portraits I am referring to would be any picture where it is a collaboration between the sitter and the photographer. Pictures where the one being photographed is not collaborating, a candid if you will, I often considered a portrait. Portrait is a very broad term, the traditional headshot is not necessarily what I am referring to. I'm not always pointing my lenses into bright lighting but don't want there to be much issue when I do.

I know no best or better focal length for portraits, only different. I do have and use the 70-200mm & the 105mm AFD micro lenses though my most used portrait lens is the 24-70mm, for its versatility. 35mm & 50mm primes are lenses I use when I don't want the bulk of the 24-70mm or when I want the character of those. My favorite portraits at the moment come from getting up close and personal with the 35mm f1.4 ais. Natural acting is not necessarily the best for portraits, uncomfortable and quirky expressions are welcomed, being close can invite that.

Portraits on the wider side of things.
The first 2 are 35mm, all are 60mm or wider.

[Airy]

Well, then 50/1.8G or possibly 58/1.4G.

[Erik Lund]

So your only real question was target at flare resistant.

All of these posted portraits are top notch! Where the back ground really adds to the image Beautiful and lovely! I'm a big fan of environmental portraits Especially seeing your work.

To many of the persons commenting on this thread with advice; I also consider most focal lengths for portrait lenses, I have shot portraits from300mm to 6mm - Forget the rules about 85-135mm are portrait length lenses,,,

[Airy]

There are indeed no "rules". I did not push them so far into the wide angle direction, but yes, down to 24 mm for individuals (no mugshots of course)... and 500mm on the other end (mirror lenses: Tamron, Nikon).

I also understood that flare was the issue here, hence my tips. I have never used the 58/1.4G but in a shop, but being a night lens I guess it will also cope with backlighting.

P.S. the piano guy and the red haired lady are outstanding.

[Jakov Minić]

Your portraits are fantastic!
You don't need a new lens, just continue to do whatever you have been doing thus far and treat yourself with an 85/1.4 to complement your 35/1.4 nicely

[Erik Lund]

I saw that in your posts Airy!

And yes if I should pick a favourite it would be the girl with the freckles and red hair! Straight on, a little to the side, soft backdrop and seductive eye contact.

[Almass]

Well, perspective is a matter of distance to the subject and nothing else...

Helloooooooooo Airy

I just luv to disagree with you 

1- Shooting people being it portraits or HS or FBS is done with most focal lenses generally from 24mm to 300mm. I shoot a lot of 24 and 28 and 50 and 85 and 200........and lately the 105/1.4 with the proviso that it is either too long or too short.
An 85mm or 50mm touted on the internet amplifier is just noise. You shoot based on what you can achieve and the shoot objectives.

2- Perspective: Maybe you wish to elaborate as to what and which type of perspective you are making your statement that it is distance related.
Perspective is angle - depth and elevation related........you could call depth or more correctly the Z axis a kind of "distance" if you wish to be generous with the definition.
Are you talking about One Point Perspective? Two? Three?........?

Painter distance to subject is only relevant in the angle of view.....so obviously, a painter cannot take a FBS with being too close to the subject.........however, you could do that in photography.......theoretically.

As for which lens introduces flare or not, I am not the wiser as I introduce flare in post. Flare seems to be the new trend lately.

[Airy]

1 - we agree. However "legends" such as 85mm-for-portrait do not come up for no reason, good or bad.
2 - one point perspective, seen from the photographer's eye. For a given distance, FL changes mean framing changes, but perspective (angle of view, relative apparent size of objects) does not change. So it is safe to recommend a "safe distance" of at least 2-3m for "neutral" portraits, and choose the FL according to the desired framing (avoiding excessive cropping too). Getting closer means indeed that the viewer will notice geometric "deformations" that may be part of the intent - e.g. big nose or long legs - but if not intentional, they'll mostly turn out to be bad.

Maybe the 85 or 135 "legend" has also to do with technology - limitations of viewfinder cameras, or weight and quality of "long" lenses. With the 300 PF on board, I only hope to get more opportunities to use it for portraits.

concerning flare, I generally do not care much, except when shooting organs against the light, one of my usual shooting circumstances. In such case it is critical. Few reviewers test flare thoroughly. As far as I am concerned (i.e. little), I only know about the flare propensity of those lenses I do use for organ shooting purposes - FL range is then from 20mm to 58mm, exceptionally 105. With longer lenses, I hardly get into situations where flare could become an issue, so I care much, much less.

[David H. Hartman]

When an animal with binocular vision looks at another animal they are most likely thinking about food, sex or combat. This might have something to do with a kind of taboo on starring at another person? Why would a 180/2.8 or 300/2.8 be a more voyeuristic sort of lens in this context? Why is it alright to stare at a woman on the catwalk but it's not alright to stare at the very same woman on the street or in a cafe, etc.? Why is it alright to look at the same woman, yes with both eyes if you are in conversation with her? How do social norms affect our perception of proper perspective in the human face? What is the distance across a small circle of friends? What's the distance across a dining room table, person to person, face to face when people are in conversation after a meal?

Dave who going to bed shortly after a long day of driving.

[longzoom]

Well, perspective is a matter of distance to the subject and nothing else...

. With due respect, but one flat subject can't create any perspective... You have to include closer and farer points of your subject, in your calculation, as well as distances between all of subjects inside your field of view (or lens's one).  LZ