Tom Bryan wrote:
In addition to being a professional wedding and boudoir photographer, I’m also heavily involved in training emerging photographers in the industry. The one question I get asked the most is: “Which lens should I buy to attain the best classic portraits?”

I’m fortunate to have been a pro shooter for many years now and I’m always photographing people—no still life's, product shots, or architecture. To say that I always photograph people as a wedding and boudoir photographer may seem like an obvious statement, but it has a crucial impact for me and the lenses in which I choose to invest.

If I attach an 85mm lens to one of my full-frame DSLRs, hold it in portrait orientation, and then open both eyes and look through the viewfinder, I see that both of the images from each eye line up, almost like I'm not looking through a lens at all. Do the same with a 50mm lens and you’ll find that you can no longer merge the two images together. This happens because the 50mm lens is distorting its field of view.  This is the theory behind why the 85mm is the classic sweet spot focal length for portraits and why I select the 85mm as my go-to portrait lens.

An 85mm lens delivers a more accurate representation of what’s in front of you. This lens will compress the shot so that things that are slightly closer to the camera appear to be on the same plane as things that are slightly further away. This will create some really nice shallow depth of field effects. An 85mm lens won’t distort the subject in any way and will only compress the image, so whichever angle you decide to shoot your subject from you’re going to get pleasing results. For example, if somebody has a large nose and you photograph them with an 85mm lens, this won’t distort the nose but will rather give the impression of it being closer to the face and thus smaller. If you’d taken the same shot with a 50mm lens, you would need to be a lot more careful about the position you photograph your subject from.

What is deemed “right” by many professional photographers when taking a portrait is usually dictated by what the human eye sees. So if I can pop an 85mm on my camera and shoot away creating some really nice shallow depth of field effects without worrying about making people look ugly, then why on earth would I ever want anything else?

Bottom Line - If I could only take one lens to a portrait shoot, without hesitation it would be a 85mm lens.

What about you?

Tammy ♥

http://www.tammybryan.com

Tammy, the 50 mm lens has a 46 degrees field of view which matches the human eyes' field of view. The reason it became the "standard" lens is because of the field of view and the ease of obtaining good depth of field without the size distortion wide angle lenses have. Prior to the 50 mm being the norm for standard lenses, the 35-38 mm range preceded it.
The one on one relationship between what our eyes see in terms of size and what a lens that matches this size is a 70 mm lens. The field of view is narrower than our own but looking through the viewfinder and then looking up above the camera will show this lens to be the perfect one to one ratio match. This is easily verifiable using most zoom lenses that cover or incorporate that range; 24-70 mm, 24-105, 70-200 and many other variations. There may be a small difference such as 68 degrees instead of 70 but it will be very close.

The 85 mm is a slight telephoto, offering a little more than what "the human eyes sees" which as you point out has a very slight element of compression. This as opposed to more powerful telephotos. The slight compression of the 85 mm is ideal to represent facial features in actual proportions without distortion. Even though a 50 mm lens is "standard" it does have some distortion. The 85 mm is often called a "portrait" lens for that reason. It isn't the only focal length to satisfy this requirement but within the close ball park of all the others. (anywhere from 85 mm to 105 mm) that isn't to say that one cannot shoot a portrait using a wide angle lens or a powerful telephoto. The results will simply be different,

PaulHomsyPhotography wrote:

Tammy, the 50 mm lens has a 46 degrees field of view which matches the human eyes' field of view. The reason it became the "standard" lens is because of the field of view and the ease of obtaining good depth of field without the size distortion wide angle lenses have. Prior to the 50 mm being the norm for standard lenses, the 35-38 mm range preceded it.
The one on one relationship between what our eyes see in terms of size and what a lens that matches this size is a 70 mm lens. The field of view is narrower than our own but looking through the viewfinder and then looking up above the camera will show this lens to be the perfect one to one ratio match. This is easily verifiable using most zoom lenses that cover or incorporate that range; 24-70 mm, 24-105, 70-200 and many other variations. There may be a small difference such as 68 degrees instead of 70 on different lenses but it will be very close.

The 85 mm is a slight telephoto, offering a little more than what "the human eyes sees" which as you point out has a very slight element of compression. This as opposed to more powerful telephotos. The slight compression of the 85 mm is ideal to represent facial features in actual proportions without distortion. Even though a 50 mm lens is "standard" it does have some distortion. The 85 mm is often called a "portrait" lens for that reason. It isn't the only focal length to satisfy this requirement but within the close ball park of all the others. (anywhere from 85 mm to 105 mm) that isn't to say that one cannot shoot a portrait using a wide angle lens or a powerful telephoto. The results will simply be different,

This of course only applies to the 35 mm system.

PaulHomsyPhotography wrote:

This of course only applies to the 35 mm system.

And I forgot to mention, in full frame cameras only. All others incorporate a telephoto factor where a 50 mm in a camera with a 1.3 factor for example will become a 65 mm lens...

Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
you have to realize some photographers may not see much difference between lenses other than focal length and speed.

once, i had a gold dot dagor. it was a very interesting lens - the quality was unique, no doubt. very different from using 1/2 the optical head of a symmar. didn't use much color film with it to take advantage of the color. it was a goerz american dagor and not the zeiss jena nor the kern.

of course, for roll film, the 105mm f2.5 nikkor is a classic and very fine old formula. the nikon and large format lenses have changed much over the years. the changes for the leica summicron series is more interesting to me. of course that means only the 35mm, 50mm and 90mm lengths. the color has been fairly consistent, but he contrast and edges have been greatly improved.

That is a good point. I have an APO Symmar on my 4x5, and colour is very well corrected - as it is on almost every APO lens. But I rarely shoot colour with that camera ... basically just when the model asks, since I still have a bunch in the freezer. So I could make do with a lower-quality lens just fine, and probably not even notice.

For digital, a lot of that does get done in colour. My favourite portrait lens was/is a Schneider 135 in M42 mount specifically because of the colour. It's also super sharp stopped down, but the colour is the main selling point.

That cold colour cast is exactly what launched my obsession with old German glass in the first place. Sony's 55 1.8 Zeiss lens has a lot going for it over my Leicas and Schneiders in that focal length, but I just don't like the colour as much - it's very magenta.

I haven't had the opportunity to use newer MF Zeiss glass on the same camera, so I don't know if that warm tint is a function of different lens designs for AF, a tweak to be more appealing to a different market, or just the way Zeiss does things these days. I know that old Contax glass isn't as warm, though it's still warmer than Schneider.

Pretty much everything is warmer than  Schneider.

But a lot of that stuff was built around existing film tech. European glass tended to be colder than Japanese glass, because Europeans were more likely to be shooting warm-toned Kodak film than the Japanese. A magenta tint helps a lot when you're shooting green Fuji, which was probably why I preferred Fuji film in the 35mm days when I shot Nikon.

The same goes for papers. Kodak paper was lower contrast than Ilford, to balance out the higher contrast Kodak developers. Or because English weather is grey, depending on who you ask.

Once you take that stuff out of context, and apply it to a digital system, it's a different ballgame, and everything needs to be re-evaluated.

PaulHomsyPhotography wrote:

And I forgot to mention, in full frame cameras only. All others incorporate a telephoto factor where a 50 mm in a camera with a 1.3 factor for example will become a 65 mm lens...

No, it doesn't "become a 65mm lens". It has the perspective of a 50mm lens, with a slight crop.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:
No, it doesn't "become a 65mm lens". It has the perspective of a 50mm lens, with a slight crop.

Lenses have no perspective:

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/ … rspective/

So PaulH is, of course, correct - what's  happening is that the sensor is only using part of the image formed by the lens. Hence the term crop factor. The lens now has the magnification of a 65mm on ff.

(..Also, if you're going to try to correct someone on a technical point, it's good idea to include some sort of evidence rather than just telling them that they are wrong, surely?)

thiswayup wrote:

Lenses have no perspective:

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/ … rspective/

So PaulH is, of course, correct - what's  happening is that the sensor is only using part of the image formed by the lens. Hence the term crop factor. The lens now has the magnification of a 65mm on ff.

(..Also, if you're going to try to correct someone on a technical point, it's good idea to include some sort of evidence rather than just telling them that they are wrong, surely?)

Sure, if you're shooting landscapes from a far distance.  That article is one-sided.

Wide angle is going give you a wide angle look (crop or FF...more so on FF).  Especially for portraits.  Meaning typical portrait distance.

Here's one of the commenter's image from the article.  It's not that complicated.  I believe this image more than I do that article.

Frozen Instant Imagery wrote:

No, it doesn't "become a 65mm lens". It has the perspective of a 50mm lens, with a slight crop.

Actually the full image that would show in a full frame shows in a cropped frame. It is the sensor that isn't full frame, not the image. The image itself is not cropped, the factor of magnification affects focal length.

thiswayup wrote:

Lenses have no perspective:

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/ … rspective/

So PaulH is, of course, correct - what's  happening is that the sensor is only using part of the image formed by the lens. Hence the term crop factor. The lens now has the magnification of a 65mm on ff.

(..Also, if you're going to try to correct someone on a technical point, it's good idea to include some sort of evidence rather than just telling them that they are wrong, surely?)

Thank you !

thiswayup wrote:
Lenses have no perspective:

http://www.digitalcameraworld.com/2014/ … rspective/

So PaulH is, of course, correct - what's  happening is that the sensor is only using part of the image formed by the lens. Hence the term crop factor. The lens now has the magnification of a 65mm on ff.

(..Also, if you're going to try to correct someone on a technical point, it's good idea to include some sort of evidence rather than just telling them that they are wrong, surely?)

Black Z Eddie wrote:
Sure, if you're shooting landscapes from a far distance.  That article is one-sided.

Wide angle is going give you a wide angle look (crop or FF...more so on FF).  Especially for portraits.  Meaning typical portrait distance.

Here's one of the commenter's image from the article.  It's not that complicated.  I believe this image more than I do that article.

The change in perspective is not created by the lens but by the camera position compensating for the angle of view

PaulHomsyPhotography wrote:

Thank you !

You are correct.
The distortion associated with a wide angle lens is no longer the same. The characteristics of the lens are altered by the sensor crop factor.
If one does shoot from the same exact camera to subject location, the image is cropped, if one does not and allows more distance, the image isn't cropped. The same exact image can now be taken from a bit farther afar.

The magnification factors do change the focal length. I have shot the Canon Eos line extensively, Both with full frame sensors and with a 1.3 cropped sensor. A 200 mm lens effectively becomes a 260 mm lens for example in a 1/3 cropped sensor, with all the attributes of a 260 mm lens; less depth of field, higher magnification, behaving like a more powerful telephoto in every way.

An added benefit of some cropped sensors is the ability to use some lenses that would show heavy vignetting and distortion on full frame sensors.  I found this out the hard way, taking a lens for a particular shoot that gave excellent results on a cropped sensor but was less than lackluster on a full frame. Producing images with distortion and vignetting.

Kool Koncepts wrote:
The change in perspective is not created by the lens but by the camera position compensating for the angle of view

Exactly.

I think part of what confuses people is they see shots from wides that include distortion and they think it is part of the perspective? It's not!

PaulHomsyPhotography wrote:
The magnification factors do change the focal length.

They change the 35mm equivalent fl and the magnification. Saying that they change the fl without qualification... it's possibly ocd, but I wouldn't do that.

Black Z Eddie wrote:
Sure, if you're shooting landscapes from a far distance.  That article is one-sided.

That's because there is only one side - the correct one. You do not understand how lenses or perspective work.

Here's one of the commenter's image from the article.  It's not that complicated.  I believe this image more than I do that article.

Unfortunately you didn't understand the words explaining how the image was produced.

(Hint: if those images had been produced by the different fls at the same distance, then how could the tin in front remain the same size? With a 24mm and a 300mm lens???)

thiswayup wrote:

Black Z Eddie wrote:
Sure, if you're shooting landscapes from a far distance.  That article is one-sided.

thiswayup wrote:
That's because there is only one side - the correct one. You do not understand how lenses or perspective work.

Unfortunately you didn't understand the words explaining how the image was produced.

(Hint: if those images had been produced by the different fls at the same distance, then how could the tin in front remain the same size? With a 24mm and a 300mm lens???)

Sometimes, folks want to take a simple thing and complicate the holy snot out of it.

Black Z Eddie wrote:
Sometimes, folks want to take a simple thing and complicate the holy snot out of it.

It's not complicated at all. It's very simple and you still don't understand it.

thiswayup wrote:

It's not complicated at all. It's very simple and you still don't understand it.

Lol, keep telling yourself that.

Black Z Eddie wrote:

Lol, keep telling yourself that.

Well, obviously it's a point of view. What's simple to me and most of the people here may well be incomprehensibly complicated to you. Why you want to emphasize that fact is something I don't understand, but there you go.

Personality Imaging wrote:
Keep in mind that only a true 85 mm lens has the perspective of an 85 mm lens.   Shorter lenses on subframe sensors may have the same angle of acceptance as an 85 mm lens on a full frame sensor,  but only an 85 mm lens gives what is considered the perfect portrait perspective.   Perspective and angle of acceptance are totally different.

This is bullshit.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I can't believe how often this perspective argument comes up, after 150 years of photography.

It's the chicken or the egg, people.

The lens itself, unattached to a camera, has no 'perspective' traits.

It doesn't have any attached to the camera either.

But using a different focal length will change your distance with the same framing, and THAT will change your perspective.

I.e. perspective is a a function of distance only. This really is very simple.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I can't believe how often this perspective argument comes up, after 150 years of photography.

It's the chicken or the egg, people.

The lens itself, unattached to a camera, has no 'perspective' traits. But using a different focal length will change your distance with the same framing, and THAT will change your perspective.

So if you think the lens affects perspective, you're right. If you think it doesn't, you're equally right.

All you guys are really arguing is how many steps in the process you want to count. Nobody ever agrees, because nobody agrees where to start counting.

That's just your perspective Zack

Kool Koncepts wrote:

That's just your perspective Zack

Pun appreciated.

But seriously, I don't see why we're debating it, because one side is assuming that you move to recompose, and the other side is assuming that you do not. Even most textbooks and manuals make it clear that perspective is or is not changed depending on whether or not you move; both answers are validated right there in the book! The book even explains when one side is right and when the other side is right!

Fuck, man! Just read the book! Kodak explained all that shit a hundred years ago! Then Ansel Adams explained it, and then your photo class textbook explained it, and then Lynda.com explained it.

Why we continue to argue for one answer or the other, when so much material says that the correct answer is 'both', is something that I honestly do not understand.

Maybe I just don't want to understand it, because of the implications on the community. It sounds a little like George Carlin saying that the main difference between all the Abrahamic religions is what kind of hats they wear and when.

PaulHomsyPhotography wrote:
Actually the full image that would show in a full frame shows in a cropped frame. It is the sensor that isn't full frame, not the image. The image itself is not cropped, the factor of magnification affects focal length.

Technically, this isn't correct. A 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens. Changing cameras cannot change the focal length. It does affect the angle of view to change formats, but not the focal length.
The equivalency arguments have done more to dumb down photographers than any technology other than auto exposure.

WR Photographics wrote:

Technically, this isn't correct. A 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens. Changing cameras cannot change the focal length. It does affect the angle of view to change formats, but not the focal length.
The equivalency arguments have done more to dumb down photographers than any technology other than auto exposure.

I agree wholeheartedly about equivalencies.

They *might* make sense of you were regularly switching between more than two formats. Might.

But the fact that the terms are new(or at least acceptance of them is new), and that they tend to be spoken of by digital shooters (who have many fewer formats to choose from, with much smaller difference between them) is quite telling about the actual usefulness.

My Schneider 210 LF lens claims it can be used for several sizes of film. The data sheet mentions a change it angle of view, but makes no mention of equivalent apertures or focal lengths - and if there's one thing the Germans like, it's charts and testing.

Okay, if there's two things the Germans like, it's charts and  testing. And a ruthless efficiency. Ack!

Amongst their likes ...

WR Photographics wrote:

Technically, this isn't correct. A 50mm lens is always a 50mm lens. Changing cameras cannot change the focal length. It does affect the angle of view to change formats, but not the focal length.
The equivalency arguments have done more to dumb down photographers than any technology other than auto exposure.

The angle of view is changed to match that of a different lens if the sensor size was not changed.
I am discussing fact, not imagining fact. The focal length is actually changed with all the attributes that go with a different focal lens when going from a full frame sensor to a smaller sensor in the same camera system.