Caveman Creations wrote:
If using a 50mm on a crop-sensor, it will only give you the "field Of Veiw" of an 80mm, not any of the other attributes. The 50 will not compress the background, and the Bokeh may not be as OOF. A 50 is a 50, no matter what it's on. An 85 is an 85 just the same. Now...

I use my 85mm in studio religiously. I can frame what I need to frame without being a country mile away from my subjects. I can do headshots, that are fairly loose, because it's closest focusing distance is about 5 ft. I like that framing, and I like the distance it puts me to the subject. If FOV is your biggest concern, then yeah. I'd go with the 50, because you are not going to get as much in frame with the 85 at the same distance. If you want background compression, and awesome OOF bits, then the 85 or longer is the only way to go. You just have to back up more!

+1

Caveman Creations wrote:
If using a 50mm on a crop-sensor, it will only give you the "field Of Veiw" of an 80mm, not any of the other attributes. The 50 will not compress the background, and the Bokeh may not be as OOF. A 50 is a 50, no matter what it's on. An 85 is an 85 just the same. Now...

I use my 85mm in studio religiously. I can frame what I need to frame without being a country mile away from my subjects. I can do headshots, that are fairly loose, because it's closest focusing distance is about 5 ft. I like that framing, and I like the distance it puts me to the subject. If FOV is your biggest concern, then yeah. I'd go with the 50, because you are not going to get as much in frame with the 85 at the same distance. If you want background compression, and awesome OOF bits, then the 85 or longer is the only way to go. You just have to back up more!

Thanks for the explanation, this makes sense to me. When I'm thinking about using an 85mm I'm not concerned with bokeh or what happens in the background.  I'd probably be using it with just white or black seamless paper. 

Are you using the SAL-85F28 or something beefier?  I rented the CZ once, holy cow.

Creative Concept Studio wrote:
I believe it's more than the focal length that brings the 85mm raves. The quality of the glass and the superior optics of a prime surely come into play here.

A AF-S VR-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED at 85mm will have a different 'feel' than the AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 IF-D.

Ray

This is also so true. It is a bit more than just focal length.

Caveman Creations wrote:
If using a 50mm on a crop-sensor, it will only give you the "field Of Veiw" of an 80mm, not any of the other attributes. The 50 will not compress the background, and the Bokeh may not be as OOF.

wrong, a ff camera and an aps-c camera with lenses with equivalent fovs will give the exact same background compression. you will need to use a larger aperture with the 50mm to get the same dof, but that also means you get faster shutter speeds at any given dof and fast 50mms (or 55mms) are cheap.

Untitled Photographer wrote:
Caveman, for some reason I thought you were a Sony guy (I am) yeah I know, Sony is just a toy.

Well the Sony 135mm is way out of my price range, but the low end 85mm is not, but it's f2.8 which makes me pause.  I would think f2.8 would be fine in a studio like setting though, not too slow that is.

I think I'm just jonesing for a new lens and trying to determine which focal length is going to make a difference for me.

Any hammer will build a house, no matter if it's a Sony hammer, Canon hammer, or Nikon hammer.
An 85mm f2.8 would be a nice lens. My 85mm is f1.8, but I don't usually go wider than 2.8, and that would have to be on like a half body shot. I tend not to like one eye out of focus. I like for the entire face to be in focus. My preference.

A 2.8 lens stopped down to 5.6, and yeah, you're probably going to have to add some light in-studio. But, have you looked out the window today? Hell, it's a sunny 16 kind of day anyway!

Caveman Creations wrote:
If using a 50mm on a crop-sensor, it will only give you the "field Of Veiw" of an 80mm, not any of the other attributes. The 50 will not compress the background

Of course it will.  Try that 80mm on a 4x5 large format and see how compressed your background is.

Field of view is what gives the "compressed background".  Focal length, by itself doesn't.  It's a factor of focal length AND sensor size/film size (which translates to field of view).

J T Smith wrote:
So much attention is being paid to field of view in this discussion. In my opinion the main argument should be the differences in distortion.

Yes, we can talk about dof and the lack of space, but that still doesn't improve the subjects beauty or character. What focal lengths distort or doesn't distort a human face should be the main concern, in my opinion, to the original post?

It doesn't matter if I'm shooting with a 70mm on a crop body, or a 105 on a full frame body, or 365mm on a 4x5 large format.  My field of view, distance from subject, and perspective will be identical.

Field of view defines the distance at which you shoot.  That distance defines perspective distortion.  That's why it's kinda important.

J T Smith wrote:
So much attention is being paid to field of view in this discussion. In my opinion the main argument should be the differences in distortion.

Yes, we can talk about dof and the lack of space, but that still doesn't improve the subjects beauty or character. What focal lengths distort or doesn't distort a human face should be the main concern, in my opinion, to the original post?

Focal length is not what distorts. Distance to camera distorts.

The Space Cowboy wrote:

Focal length is not what distorts. Distance to camera distorts.

Yup.

Plus, FOV between a Crop sensor DSLR, and a FF DSLR, as it is a jump, it is not quite the jump up to 4x5, or 8x10 View, which is a huge jump in FOV. My 50mm on my T3i looks the same as a shot with that 50mm on my 5D MKII. You just have to back up more to get the framing the same. The background is relatively the same compression. The 85mm on my T3i, and again on my 5D MKII pulls the background up towards the subject due to the fact that it is magnified more. I've never shot Medium or Large Format film, but I do realize that a 50mm becomes a wide wide angle lens on those formats. I can't talk about the differences in that. But, 1.6 crop vs. FF DSLR, the 50mm does not magically compress (magnify) the background more because it's on a crop sensor.

Caveman Creations wrote:
You just have to back up more to get the framing the same. The background is relatively the same compression.

But it's not.  You've moved, your perspective has changed.

Caveman Creations wrote:
the 50mm does not magically compress (magnify) the background more because it's on a crop sensor.

It's not magically anything.  It's called physics.

Kaouthia wrote:

But it's not.  You've moved, your perspective has changed.

And that change in perspective, changes background compression. Just like DOF changes as you get closer, or farther from the subject. That is where FF vs. Crop has the biggest difference. In the DOF category, and it's still somewhat minimal.

Caveman Creations wrote:
And that change in perspective, changes background compression.

Exactly, that's the point.  If you want the same perspective, same background compression, and relative field of view, you need to shoot from the same spot with a different focal length on a crop body vs a full frame body, same as you do shooting different sizes of film.

DX crop, full frame, 645 medium format, 6x7 medium format 4x5 large format and 8x10 large format all require a different focal length lens in order to get the same field of view and the same perspective.

Fotografica Gregor wrote:
I find the 85mm too short for true headshots

Totally agree with this on a full frame camera... but works pretty good for headshots on an APS camera.  I use my Nikon 85 F1.8 primarily for low light images.  I shot alot of headshots and head and shoulder images with either the Nikon 24-120 Nanocoat F4 ED-VR...



or the 70-300 ED-VR.

Caveman Creations wrote:
Ok. I get what you're saying. But, a shot framed the same way, will look the same. That's what I'm gettin' at.

But what I'm saying is, to frame it the same way, you need to be stood at the same spot, which requires a shorter focal length on a crop body.  Your distance to the subject has not changed, so your perspective distortion has not changed.

If you shoot the same lens and move back, as you suggest, your perspective HAS changed, and your frame isn't the same.

Caveman Creations wrote:
If you want that background to be pulled right up behind the subject, one needs a telephoto lens. If you want the background farther looking from the subject, one would need a wider lens.

Right, but telephoto and wide are relative terms.

To give an extreme example, 4.28mm focal length would be pretty extreme wide angle right?  But that's what it uses in the iPhone to give you a similar field of view to a 35mm lens on a full frame body, and as you said, 50mm is considered a wide lens on a 4x5 large format.

Caveman Creations wrote:
But, putting a 50mm on a crop sensor, and putting it on a FF, when framed the same, have the same BG compression.

You won't though.

So you put a 50mm lens on a full frame body, your subject's head is filling the frame, and you have the view of the overall scene that you want.

You put that same 50mm lens on a crop body, you've cropped off 1/6th off the top, bottom, left and right sides of your shot.  So, you move back a little bit to get your subject the same size they were before.  The view of the environment is still not as wide as it was on the full frame body despite your subject being the same size.  By stepping back, you're also increasing your focus distance to the subject and, as a consequence, your depth of field, bringing the background closer to being in focus.

Untitled Photographer wrote:
In general terms the 85mm lens is often considered ideal for head shots, I realize not everyone uses that, but this post is intended for those who do.

I have an APS-C camera, so my 50mm lens is equivalent to a 75mm (we all knew that).  The question is when people are raving about an 85mm as a very good head shot lens, do they mean a true 85mm or a cropped 85mm (which actually translates to about a 127mm lens).

What's driving this is I'm considering buying an 85mm lens but I'm sort of asking myself why I need to buy an 85mm lens (for portrait/head shots) when I have a perfectly good 50mm (equiv 75mm). 

Thank you.

Maybe don't focus on the "what" of taking a headshot, but on the "why".

Wide angle lenses and close cropped portraits of people rarely looks good. They exaggerate dimensions. FL's like 85, 135, 200 are preferred because they maintain perspective and compress the background.

On a cropped body your 50 is fine at normal headshot framing distances. Someone else mentioned that it's more like a 80mm.

Keep what you have and focus on lighting, posing etc...

Caveman Creations wrote:
Ok. I get what you're saying. But, a shot framed the same way, will look the same. That's what I'm gettin' at. It becomes distance to subject that makes lens choice imperative when BG is not a concern. And, as you have said before, the perspective of the shot, is what determines lens choice. If you want that background to be pulled right up behind the subject, one needs a telephoto lens. If you want the background farther looking from the subject, one would need a wider lens. But, putting a 50mm on a crop sensor, and putting it on a FF, when framed the same, have the same BG compression.

you can't frame a shot the same using the same focal length lens with two different sensor sizes. that's basic geometry. you don't have the slightest clue how background compression works. it's determined by the distances between the camera, the subject and the background. take a shot with a 28mm lens and a shot with a 300mm lens without changing those distances then crop the 28mm shot to match the fov of the 300mm shot and you'll get the exact same background compression.

Lorin Edmonds wrote:
Some questions do not have a black and white answer.

This is one of them.

I don't think the OP's shooting in just black and white, probably color as well, so kind of a mute point.

To the OP, my suggestion is to rent a few 85's (1.4 and 1.8) to see which one if any blows your skirt up. 99% of my Headshots and portraits are shot with an 85mm 1.8 indoor and out.