Portraits: Normal fast vs Telephoto?

[photog1107]

OK, so I know that a telephoto, say around 85-100 makes for a nice portrait lens because of the compression, and I also know that a 50mm at say, 1.8 is going to give a nice shallow depth of field as well, also suitable for portraits.

My question is, does one of these options provide more desirable results for really nice portraits shots than the other? If I were evaluating a 50 mm 1.4 versus a 100 mm 2.8 (macro) for great portrait shots, which one would be better to choose. Is the compression/DoF factor better in one versus the other?

Maybe there is a technical factor I am lacking knowledge on? Or are they fairly comparable?

[RichardTaylor]

What's desirable is an artistic decision.

If you want super shallow DOF - possibly too shallow (especially for head shots) , then F1.4 (wide open) would be the way to go.

Both lenses can be fine for some portraits.

More importantly what sort of portraits are you taking and in what shooting conditions.

ie:
Full body or head shots?
Environmental portraits.
How much room do you have to work with?
What is the light like?

[photog1107]

Well, really I am not asking about the comparison to figure out which one would better meet my needs, but really just to help me understand a technical difference.... As I said, I have always read about the preference to use long lenses for portraiture for the shallow depth of field, but it seems like the equivalent can be obtained with a shorter lens (the 50 mm) used wide open. My question is more theoretical than practical at this point, as I am considering my next purchase to be one of those two lenses for family and friend portraits--basically head and shoulder shots, and let's assume, plenty of light.

[kirbinster]

The longer lens will do a better job for you in most cases. Take a look at one of the online depth of field calculators. You can plug in the distance from the subject, the length of the lens and the f/stop and it will show you the +/- depth of field.

[autofocus]

We shoot with our 50mm (Nikon F/1.4) to do exactly what you're looking to do...and get excellent results. However, shooting wide open is not always the best place to be on any lens as I'm sure you are aware. Here's some food for thought...both Canon and Nikon's 50mm F/1.8 lenses actually tested better than their more expensive F/1.4 counterparts. Here's the article.

http://www.adorama.com/ALC/Article.aspx?alias=50mm-lens-shoot-out-f18-or-f14&utm_source=ET&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=EmailALC122910

So, save your money and get that inexpensive "nifty fifty" for 100 bucks!

[sk66]

To answer your question, no. One does not provide an advantage "in general". Each has it's strong points. I personally prefer longer lenses in general....

Focal Length, Focal Distance, and DOF

[autofocus]

A few more things to consider why I'm in favor of the 50 vs the longer lens: if you're hired to do some interior window light portrait shots where space is tight, a 100mm lens (160mm on your crop sensor camera) will present some serious problems for you. Also, if you will be doing any full body shots outside you'll find yourself standing a considerable distance away from your subject.

[corvus2606]

Personally, Im in favour of both.

I have used my 50mm prime, my 75-200, and my 75-300. Each has its own use, 50mm with wide aperture, is usefull for indoor and close quarters (But I would rarely suggest going wider than f/4 for portraits, you want their whole face in focus, and the nifty fifty lenses are sharper at tighter apertures), and mostly for shoulders up shots. the longer lenses are good for outdoors, when you want a full body shot and nice DoF, especially when you have plenty of room to move about.

ultimately, its the standard saying, the right tool for each job.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by corvus2606

Personally, Im in favour of both.

I have used my 50mm prime, my 75-200, and my 75-300. Each has its own use, 50mm with wide aperture, is usefull for indoor and close quarters (But I would rarely suggest going wider than f/4 for portraits, you want their whole face in focus, and the nifty fifty lenses are sharper at tighter apertures), and mostly for shoulders up shots. the longer lenses are good for outdoors, when you want a full body shot and nice DoF, especially when you have plenty of room to move about.

ultimately, its the standard saying, the right tool for each job.

As someone who has a business of doing indoor and outdoor portrait work I have to respectfully challenge a few of your comments Corvus. We (my wife and I) will shoot wider than F/4 for outdoor portraits all the time. Although typically and rarely do we shoot at F/1.4. However, F/2, F/2.8 or F/3 is commonly used by us. You do not need to have the full, entire face in focus just as long as the eyes are sharp. And I'll say again, a 100mm lens on a crop sensor camera at 160mm is probably not the best or most practical focal length for full body shots. There's probably a good reason why the 24-70mm focal length lenses on full frame cameras is the most widely used zoom lens in the bag. (for portrait work) ...with the 70 - 200mm at the wider settings probably the number two choice.

[corvus2606]

Originally Posted by autofocus

As someone who has a business of doing indoor and outdoor portrait work I have to respectfully challenge a few of your comments Corvus. We (my wife and I) will shoot wider than F/4 for outdoor portraits all the time. Although typically and rarely do we shoot at F/1.4. However, F/2, F/2.8 or F/3 is commonly used by us. You do not need to have the full, entire face in focus just as long as the eyes are sharp. And I'll say again, a 100mm lens on a crop sensor camera at 160mm is probably not the best or most practical focal length for full body shots. There's probably a good reason why the 24-70mm focal length lenses on full frame cameras is the most widely used zoom lens in the bag. (for portrait work) ...with the 70 - 200mm at the wider settings probably the number two choice.

I have no problem with that, as my comments were only my opinion, But I do think that my final comment stands, the best tool/lens for the job wins out.

as for the f/4 comment, I use that as a guide, start at f/4 and play around 'till it feels right, but I do choose to avoid using my 50mm f/1.8 wide open, because it is often not as sharp as I would like.

to each their own