Best focal length for portrait
A standard lens will do, but the most natural portrait (if that is what you want) will be obtained with a short telephoto lens.
In 35mm terms the 85mm is the classic lens, 100mm is fine and 135mm just a bit too long.
In terms of digital (APS-C) then 60mm would be about right, or slightly longer. In fact the 18-55mm zoom is just fine at the long end!
I mean if you want a natural distortion of the face you would want a lens that does not "magnify" I thought 50mm was that lens but that it simply looked better with a longer lens, there are even pro's that use 600mm lenses and use a megaphone to communicate. That surely isn't my style but they must be using those focal length for a reason.
I even have a portrait book that suggest using a 200mm lens.
Apparently.
A very long lens reduces communication and interaction with the model and becomes voyeuristic and detached, the person is diminished as an individual.
It all depends on what effect you want, and if portraits with a fish-eye lens are done in the right way then no doubt it would be possible to take stunning portraits. You would have to be very skilled to pull that one off though.
My understanding is that the appearance of the subject is determined by the distance between that subject and the observer, or camera. It just happens that an 85 or 100mm lens on a 35mm camera (and the equivalent FOV on digital) allows you to fill frame at what most people would regard as the best distance to show the subject accurately/favourably.
Using a wider angle means you would have to stand closer (giving your sitter a big nose, because that's how the eye would perceive it at that distance) or, in the case of a telephoto, you'd have to stand farther away to include all of your subject, again changing the perspective. The trick is to decide on the camera/subject distance you need to produce the effect you're after and then pick a suitable lens to frame your subject the way you want.
John has covered the most useful focal lengths.
Al
Regards - Steve
An example is here, which was at 135mm on my K20D.
It helps having light to suit, maybe to reduce the flatness.
Stefan, I agree with John and Al, I would also refer you to Piotr Haskiewicz's portfolio (Forum username Hasky), who has produced some magical portrait images with the FA 77Ltd.
Don't get me wrong I agree fully on that the "golden range" is around 85mm for 135format and that would be 57mm for APS-C so around that would be perfect but does that mean 135mm on APS-C (200mm EFOV) is too long? I mean is there something as too long for image quality, would the face get too flat if you use such focal lengths?
I agree fully that for communication you can't be too far and for "personal space" you can't be too close.
I think John has got it about right. The 85mm is probably the most useful portrait lens, many Pro's swear by that length. However, I have managed to get some great images from my, 50mm, 55mm, 90mm Macro, 105mm Macro and my fave portrait lens, the mighty 50-135mm. However I feel that 135mm is still a great length especially for just face shots. Now I know it is EFOV of 202mm, it is still however a 135mm lens. I've not heard that much about the "tele-effect", but although it is a short tele it is still very useful, and probably still short enough not to have that flattening effect.
An example is here, which was at 135mm on my K20D.
It helps having light to suit, maybe to reduce the flatness.
Yes that's precisely what I mean and I don't see it either and I wonder if you would ever see it.
The topic went about the DA*50-135 and it was said that 100-135 isn't that "usefull" of that lens for portrait because of the tele-effect.
Since he said that more strongly then it was meant the discusion became heated and so the matter was not really discuss but things have cooled down now so maybe it might be discuss a bit.
I'm guessing with a long/tele lens you end up with the whole face and body and a lot more in the same plane/ in focus. With a more modest lens you can isolate the sitter a bit more. In a studio you can make the environment boring and isolate the subject more.
The point about needing some interaction with the subject is key.
Having seen a whole load of Irving Penn's recently he varies from distant full body portraits (take your pic) to close up crops (Picasso, Capote). His portraits look pretty flat and the close ups not distorted. They are masterful.
Here's a 58mm (87mm FF) from the back of a car. And through the door of a restaurant.
Looking at your lenses you have all the portrait lengths covered in quality. Stick the 50-135 on the front and get a willing helper to experiment.
The softness preferred in portraits can be achieved easily in post processing.
Just buy one, you know it makes sense.
Looking at your lenses you have all the portrait lengths covered in quality. Stick the 50-135 on the front and get a willing helper to experiment.
Thank you Doug for your contribution and the lovely photos.
I agree fully what you said there and the longer focal lengths is indeed handy to isolate the model more, didn't really thought about that one.
To answer your question simply, the DA* 55mm SDM lens has roughly the same field of view on a Pentax DSLR to the de facto standard 85mm focal length for portraits.
The softness preferred in portraits can be achieved easily in post processing.
Just buy one, you know it makes sense.
Peter you're right but I already have the DA*50-135 and I like that I can zoom and I think f/2.8 is wide enough so I'm not looking for a lens
I just find it strange that 135mm is considered too long for portrait, that's something I can't really bend my head around.
I just find it strange that 135mm is considered too long for portrait, that's something I can't really bend my head around.
Well it's your photography, so the key question is do you think it's too long for portraits?
If not, shoot away!
You can see some of my shots at my Flickr account.
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.
10412 posts
15 years
Dordrecht,
the Netherlands
I'm wandering what you've to say what focal length is the best for portrait and why?
Hopefully someone here can also explain the tele-effect a bit more and why that's bad
K10D, K5
DA* 16-50, DA* 50-135, D-FA 100 Macro, DA 40 Ltd, DA 18-55
AF-540FGZ