For portraits I usually use a Canon 28-80mm f/3.5-5.6 lens for my starter DSLR that takes pretty good photos for what it is, but it’s a damn cheap piece of crap compared to high-end lenses. I also don’t like the highish minimum f-stop of 3.5 (and 4.5 at 50mm) that doesn’t give a good shallow depth of field.
Just now I saw a guy outside taking a group photo of some people with a gigantic telephoto lens and standing a good, I dunno, at least 30 feet back to take the shot. This doesn’t seem to be that uncommon among photographers and I always feel a little… inadequate with my tiny lens. (I know that even if it’s not one with a telephoto focal range it can get kinda big in size, but some of the ones I see pro photographers using are so long they are unmistakably telephotos)
I’ve been under the impression that a good focal length for standard portraits is around 50mm, so why do some photographers seem to opt for the huge telephotos? Also keeping in mind that I’m kind of poor does anyone have recommendations for a Canon standard zoom lens I might upgrade to that’s a great value for the money?
The “classic” portrait focal lengths are 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm. You generally want a bit of telephoto for the foreshortening effect it has, which is usually very flattering for portraits. Also, you tend to get better depth-of-field background blurring using long lenses, which is another pleasing visual effect.
I personally love the shorter end of the telephotos (85mm) for portraits, as it keeps me close enough to the subject to establish rapport and not have to shout directions. The 85mm f/1.8 also has a very shallow depth of field and is under $500. So I would have a look at that lens.
The really big lenses you’re seeing other photographers use are going to be the 70-200mm f/2.8 (which is my second choice for portraits), 300mm f/2.8 and 400mm f/2.8. The last two are usually used in conjunction with a monopod as they tend to be a bit big to handhold. The 300mm not as much as the 400mm, although some photographers will handhold both for short periods of time. These lenses are going to be a bit more expensive, anywhere from $1000+ for the 70-200mm (depending on which one you get) to $7000+ for the 400mm lens.
Try using the Canon EF 50mm F1.8 lens. On a crop-sensor DSLR, it’s the equivalent of 80mm on a 35mm camera, so it’s a good length for portraits. It costs about $100 – it’s one of the cheapest Canon lenses – but you can get excellent results with it. I shot all of the pictures in this session with that lens on a Canon T1i. So, before spending thousands on a “big lens”, you might try working with this one.
Hmm… I also have a 75-300mm f/4-5.6 telephoto. It’s a cheap lens too but do you think I’d be better off using that for portraits? Need answer fast since I’m going to be shooting some in 2 hours.
My camera has a 1.6 FOVCF, so doesn’t that mean that focusing at 50mm is functionally equivalent to 80mm? That’s why I thought I should use 50mm.
ETA: also thanks Giles for the recommendation. That’s affordable enough that I’ll probably pick one up after I get my next paycheck, as I really like the 1.8 f-stop.
My wife was in a play last month, and I wanted to get some pictures. However, they have a strict “no flash photography, no disturbing the actors” policy.
Fair enough, but what if I were to take up a position in the back of the theater, no flash, and take pics that way? “Sure thing,” they said. So I borrowed my brother-in-law’s monstrous 300mm lens (with the understanding that if I dropped it, I’d be out $1,400), hooked it up to my D70, and was able to get shots like this – close and clear enough that you can see what brand of tie Fergeson the Asshole Lawyer is wearing while he oggles my wife’s boobs – while the tripod was on the very last table in the back.
I’m now trying to figure out how to scrape together an extra $1,400. Yeah, I understand lens envy.
What kind of aperture was that lens? It seems remarkable that at that distance it could have the people in focus, but still blur the background, that couldn’t have been more than a few meters behind them.
Sorry, it didn’t even register, I’ve been using full-frame DSLRs for the past few years, so I sometimes forget about the conversion. The 85mm is then functionally equivalent to a 135mm, which is a classic lens for those who like their portraits lenses slightly longer.
Here’s what I would tell you to do. This portrait session, I assume it’s a friendly portrait session, nothing too formal, yeah? Play around. Experiment. That’s the only way you’re really going to learn.
Here’s where I would start to learn the differences between the lenses:
Take a few head-and-shoulder portraits with the 28-80mm @ 80mm, maximum aperture (which would be 5.6 in your case.) Then, take the exact same picture with the 75-300mm at 75mm @ f/4, then at 300mm @ f/5.6. By “exact same picture” I mean same field of view, so you’re going to have to step back quite a bit at 300mm to get the same framing. Take these pictures outside, where there are background elements some distance from your subject. Take note of the foreshortening (how background elements appear much closer) of the 300mm vs 80mm lens. Also note the differences in the background blurring in the 80mm @ f/5.6 vs the 75mm @ f/4.
Have fun. Experiment. See what you like. If I’m doing head-and-shoulder type portraits, I’d probably opt for the 75-300mm in your case, especially since at the 75mm range, it’s going to have a larger maximum aperture, and you should be able to get better background blurring at 300mm.
Pretty much signature look of a f/2.8 lens. You might be able to get that at f/4, but my money is on f/2.8.
edit: Looking at the EXIF, it is f/2.8, but it’s a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens @ 200mm. So not a 300mm lens (although that would be the effective focal length.) That, and a 300mm f/2.8 is going to cost a lot more than $1400.
This. I love that lens. It takes great shots indoors with existing light and awesome for portrait work. And its dirt cheap and there’s no reason not to own one. Go buy it. Now.
Shoot, I totally forgot to comment on the suggestion of a 50mm. Yes, the “nifty fifty” f/1.8 lens is definitely worth having in the bag. Especially on the crop sensor, it’ll be very nice for portraits, especially at the f/2 - f/2.8 range.
You’re quite correct – my mistake. I asked my BIL a couple minutes ago, and his response was “He’s right, I loaned you the 200mm. He’s also right that the 300mm costs a shitload more – which is why I’m not loaning you that one”.
Really? I have a pretty nice wide angle lens that I inherited from my dad (not that he’s dead, just that he got another one), but I’m scared of doing portraits with it lest the distortion be unflattering.
ETA: Oh and I went ahead and used the 75-300mm for the shoot… I hope they turned out well. I’m so exhausted right now I’m not even going to download them to my computer until tomorrow though.
Wide angles can be very good for environmental portraits, especially at the 24mm-35mm range. For standard portraits, they are absolutely unflattering, but they can be used stylistically. I’m not exactly sure what photographers have developed a wide-angle style for portraits, but they’re few and very very far between. The problems with wide angles is, as you get closer to the subject, the more apparent the distortion between foreground and background is. And this stretching of distance is terrible for flattering facial geometry. Then again, not all portraits need be flattering. There are certainly artistically valid reasons for using a wide angle in a close-up portrait, and, in the right hands, I could see this working, but I think it would start looking gimmicky after awhile.
Once again, this is something you really need to play around with. You will only really learn by doing, making mistakes, experiment, and analyzing afterward. Take the exercise I’ve described above, and do exactly the same thing with a wide angle. You will note that if you try to take a standard head-and-shoulder portrait framing with a wide angle, weird things start to happen. Features begin to look mousy and pointy. Look at the apparent distance between the tip of the nose and the back of the ear. The wider you get, the farther it appears to be.