Help me settle this ongoing argument. In his article, my good friend Neil Van Niekerk tells his readers "Fall out of love with your 50mm lens. Use it when it is appropriate." He goes on to say that the 50mm is not appropriate for tight portraits; even uses my photos to demonstrate his point. I say he's wrong.
In checking my metadata on just this year's images my lens choices are as follows:
- 35mm f/1.4 Sigma Art Series, 234 images
- 85mm f/1.4 Sigma EX DG HSM, 1,020 images
- 50mm f/1.4 Sigma EX DG HSM, 15,594 images
Obviously, the 50mm f/1.4 by Sigma is my go-to lens. It's the perfect focal length, my feet know exactly where I need to be to take what shot. I like to create a calming environment for my boudoir clients, and with the 50mm length I'm not so far away that I feel the need to shout at them in order to tweak their pose. Nor do I need to walk a mile to adjust my client's hair-beard or pit-gina. The 50mm focal length the perfect length for the boudoir photographer, close enough but not too close.
Neil goes on to say "I think many photographers are even too in love with their 50mm lenses, and use it without thought of how this would distort someone’s face when used too close to their subjects."
Uh huh.
Sure.
What do you think?
"... try both and see what we get." Boom! Dean nailed it right there!
I think a lot of it really depends on the face. I use a 55mm a lot for portraits but some faces with larger features are definitely better served with a 85/105/135mm lens.
While I agree with your point that the 50mm is just fine for portraits...
but I feel your post is a bit self-indulgent (using your own work)...and could have made a greater impact and been much more educational had you included some historical reference.
Fact is, if someone wants to limit themselves to only one lens for one type of work, that's their prerogative. I personally use every focal length I own for portrait work (24mm , 35, 50, 85, 100, and 200). My go to is usually my 35mm. Granted I'm not doing corporate head shots or another genre that has a well established "look"... I'm more focused on creating a feel and a story with the image.
I can reference any number of photographers that used different focal lengths for their craft...
Platon for example uses a wide angle.. (usually in the 24-35mm [35mm format equivalent, cuz he usually shoots medium format] range) and he (Platon) is ridiculously successful...
Irving Penn's famous portrait of Truman Capote was created with an 80mm on his Rolleiflex (which is the "normal" focal length for medium format...equivalent to 50mm on a FFslr)
The gist of your article could have been made so much more powerful had you chosen to reference the many legends that break Van Niekerk's argument in half rather than use your own (much lesser known) work. Instead of drawing attention to your own work, drawing attention to the masters of the past, I feel, would have been of greater service to the Fstopper readership.
Who else's images should I use? Ones I don't own the copyright to? Pfft. Silly.
Although the human eye has about 22mm focal length, the projection of the image of an object on the retina has to take into account that the retina is curved and not flat like the sensor of a camera. It seems that the most similar focal length in a full frame sensor is about 50mm, this is, the one that produces the most similar projection, in a very ideal situation of an object in front of the camera and towards the center of the frame. That being said, it's not the same the reality than the perception (or memory) of that reality. Perception considers flatter faces more desirable than the contrary, so, longer focal lengths might be more interesting. In addition, perception is so much more complex and full of nuances that a 2D representation is a poor approximation.
Use any focal length as long as it is according to your artistic intention of the photo.
My 2 bucks.
I love a 80-200 so I can jump from 85 to 135 and everything in between.
You're all over-thinking this.
I see the distortion, but it's up to you to decide if that's the aesthetic you want.
I think we look at photos today in a way of perfection. My opinion is that every photo should be watched as a painting made 600 years ago, it shouldn't be perfect: it should be something that makes you forget about the non-perfections.
“When art critics get together they talk about Form and Structure and Meaning. When artists get together they talk about where you can buy cheap turpentine.”
― Pablo Picasso
Like with everything in photography, it depends on a lot of variables. There's nothing wrong with using a 50mm lens for some portraits, particularly when you are shooting wide to get the atmosphere or more of the body in ... or for some reason are shooting without lighting in a low-light setting and absolutely have to have the wide open apertures. But for headshots on a full frame camera, it's not a comfortable distance, nor always flattering distortion.
Almost all of my portraits are taken with a 70-200 f/2.8 lens. That gives me a lot of freedom for different shots without moving and very little distortion. Also, I'm personally not a fan of photos with such shallow depth of field that the eye is in focus but the ears and nose are blurry (or in the case of the bottom photo, the eye is blurry and the nose is focused), so it's not important to me to be able to use f/1.4-f/2.8.
As per usual, it depends. I use 50mm for customers with a full figure. I often use my 35mm for really curvy gals as this slims their body and paying clients like that. Really slim or lean ladies can look like lollipops with the wider lens when the lens gets above chest high so you have to be careful, but you can use 50mm just fine. I never use longer than 85mm even for tight shots because my studio is too small. I'd say I use 50mm 50%, 35mm 35% of the time, and 85mm 15% of the time for shooting high end beauty/glamour for real women.
I think a lot of people forget how remarkably close 50mm is to 35mm. My main 50mm lens is the Nikkor 58mm and I like that much better as a compliment to my 35 and 24.
Petra, you're both right!
From all of the photos I've seen of yours (and I've seen a lot, I'm local), you very rarely shoot a traditional waist up or tighter, client vertical, tightly cropped portrait -- which as a boudoir photographer you shouldn't. The 50 works great for that as you mentioned above. Unless you're 10 feet tall or enjoy standing on a ladder, shooting a top down view (as seen in the first two photos above) with something more than a 50 is difficult..
On the other hand, If you're taking a "traditional" waist up or tighter portrait, client sitting or standing, well then Neil is right -- there are several better lenses to use than a 50mm (on full frame). Pretty much anything from 85-200mm works well.
Hey there, local! Nice to 'meetchya' :)
I used to shoot a lot with my 50mm, but after I got an 85mm I haven't gone back much. For me personally, the 85 gives me exactly what I want, and I love its results. If you like the 50 stick with 50. I do see more distortion in my old 50 pictures, but I don't think I would say I it bothered me.
Faces look distorted on those tight portraits.
Clever, write an article about an article about yourself. Free page views for fstoppers, Neil, and your personal page.
Clever of you to have noticed and commented. Thank you.
I shoot portraits all day long with my 50mm, sometimes my 70-200. For what I do I prefer the quick focus of my 50mm prime over the 70-200mm