Portrait Lens

Hi Guys,

In the days of film I used to use a 100mm lens for portraiture

I now use a K10D which has a 1:1.5 ration CCD:35mm

So is this (100mm) still a good maxim or should I be looking at 70mm?
As 100mm equates to 150mm (35mm) would this still be suitable for portraits? - seams a bit long to me.

I ask because I had been looking at 100mm macro then I remembered the sensor characeristics

regards
Bernard

You might think a 60mm lens (90mm equiv) would be ideal for portraits, but there aren't many of those about.

Anything that approximates a short telephoto is usually usable. On digital, 50mm - 100mm lenses should be fine. Many will like the 70mm or 77mm Limited, but the 100mm macro has a wider range uf uses.

If you physically have room I find the SMC-M 100mm f/2.8 lens good for portraits. Otherwise I resort to my "K" 50mm/1.2.

As much as I would like a 77mm or one of the various 85mm options, I haven't had the funds available when the opportunities have arisen. As I am not someone who takes a lot of portraits (very few in fact), I have tended to collect lenses in the 15-55mm range.

Best wishes, Kris.

Thanks guys.
The nearest I'd found (to 35mm 100mm lens) is the Sigma 70mm F2.8

I must admit I'm not really doing formal portraiture - I can't find anyone willing to sit still -without pulling faces, wriggling, insisting I delete that one, asking if I haven't got something better to do-'cos they have, etc etc.

I'm currently mainly interested in my 2 year old grand daughter and find that the 18-55mm means I'm in her space and the facial expressions reflect that, or I'm too far way and my 70-300 zoom is a bit to cumbersome to use indoors especialy when rolling about on the floor

Bernard

This question comes up so often I wrote an article on it: Perspective Distortion, Sensor Size And Portraiture

I would suggest looking at 55-77 on a dslr. The underrated K55 f/1.8 can do a nice portrait, my favourite is the 77 Limited, which may be too long for you. Still in the Pentax world alone we have the following to choose from, K55 f/1.8, DA*55 f/1.4, DA70 f/2.4 Limited & FA77 f/1.8 Limited covering a range from 82.5 to 115.5 in 35mm terms. I wonder if the 100 might be a bit unflattering due to its inherent sharpness?

If you have the money there is absolutely no beating the FA 77 Limited as Robbie suggests. It is an update on the optics of the venerable A* 85mm and is closer to 80mm in true focal length. I stretched to buying this lens for a portrait session, little knowing it would become my single favourite lens. It is my default walk-around.

However, without knowing what type of portraits you prefer (head shot? head and shoulders? environmental portrait?) it is impossible to recommend one focal length or another. To be honest if it is just for a toddler then almost anything will do.

In that case you might follow the advice and get a fast 50, almost all of which are good if Pentax/Takumar branded. I would particularly recommend the A50/1.7 if you are on a budget and don't mind manual focus. Or the FA 43 Limited if you want the absolute classiest rendering and don't mind paying for it.

The Samyang 85mm is worth looking at too. You won't find anything else as good for the same money and in most tests it isn't far behind lenses costing four times as much. It's PK-A fit so manual focus but the camera will be able to read and set the aperture when the lens is set to "A".

I find this paragraph enlightening with regard to how you will actually be using the lense. In this type of situation 100mm is too long, even 77 is. try it by rolling around on the floor at home on your 70-300 and you'll see what I mean. Too long.

Personally I think the suggestion above of a 43 Ltd / 1.9 is a very good one and IMO so would be a Sigma 30/1.4. Both of these are extremely sharp lenses (you can easily soften a shot in PP but it's much more difficult, if not impossible, in some cases, to do vice versa) and that means you can easily crop away what you don't need. The 30/1.4 may be a touch soft in the corners at certain FLs but that's not an issue at all when you are using it for portraits.

These lenses are so good they give you (& her) the space you need but means you'll still be able to capture whatever you intended to, with room to spare. IMO this is a big difference over the 18-55 (again see if you like the FL .. from distance !) and if so you'll see that a crop from the 43 Ltd or 30/1.4 will beat the pants off the 18-55.

To say nothing of the advantage 1.9 or 1.4 will give you over a 2.8

I'd second this - I recently got one and find it makes an excellent indoor portrait lens (shooting with my 2 year old daughter, anyway).

The alternative I'd suggest isn't a prime, but I find the Sigma 24-70 EX f/2.8 works really well for shooting portraits of my kids as it is just about wide enough indoors, has AF (for action shots), goes to 70mm which is long enough not to be in their 'space' and has excellent image quality.

The downside is that it's quite big (doesn't really bother me) and the out of focus rendering isn't quite as good as a prime, but it is pretty good for a zoom.

Thirded!

Heres is my 4 year old shot wide open:

I have a number of lenses that are suitable for portraits, but I mainly use them thus:-

35mm DA - For full length, perfect focal length for this as you don't get the distortion that you would get at this focal length than when you do head and shoulders.
50mm FA F1.4 - Good for head and shoulders shots with minimum DOF control. However it is still a tad wide, as close up you do get a very small amount of distortion. Further back it is great.

50-135mm - As I have mentioned in another thread, this is arguably the finest portrait zoom out there. Ultra flexible and even at 135mm perfect for close tight head shots,

Sigma 105mm macro - pin sharp and another perfect head and shoulder portrait prime.

Tamron 90mm SP macro F2.5 - manual only, and only used it for the first time at a recent studio shoot. Best for controlled envirioments (the studio) and you have to slow down to use it. But pays dividends

Two others, the 55mm F1.8 K and the Takumar 135mm F2.5 have their uses too, but not for general use as thet provide a different yet nice look to an image.

Finally my Sigma 24-70mm F2.8. I use this less and less for portraits now (I prefer my primes and 50-135) but still a very excellent portrait zoom, albeit heavy.

So there you go, my portrait lenses and how I use them

43mm or 77mm.

But I've often used a Biotar or Helios 58mm f2. Yes, they are preset or stopdown lenses, but at f2 ...

Bob's shot shows very well the effect of a fairly wide to normal lens with a large aperture - the feeling is intimate, and the rendering is 3D. I like this style more than the formal telephoto protrait set up, especially for kids.

The Helios is probably the best bang-for-buck lens out there for any system. Great for portraits but fiddly in use compared to a modern lens. Still, as they only cost around a fiver as a rule it may well be worth seeing if you could live with the inconvenience.