When it comes to portrait photography, the classic focal length is 85mm, but of course, that is not the only option you can use for creating worthwhile images. 135mm lenses have long been a popular alternative to the classic 85mm option, and this great video essay discusses why you should consider using one in your work.
Coming to you from Stefan Malloch, this excellent video discusses the benefits of using a 135mm lens for portraits. 85mm has long been the classic choice for portraiture, but 135mm offers some interesting benefits that make it an alternative worthy of consideration. Quite a few photographers like to use longer focal lengths, as the additional compression reduces the prominence of features a bit more. On top of that, there are often some top-level 135mm lenses available at prices cheaper than the most expensive 85mm lenses. One thing you will want to consider is the increased working distance of a 135mm lenses. If you mostly shoot outside, this probably will not bother you, but if you tend to work in a studio, you should consider if it will cause issues, especially if you are already near the limit with your 85mm. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Malloch.
Shooting a great portrait has little to do with the focal length of the lens. As with so many articles here that sell the notion that if you buy ‘X’ in this case a 135 then your photography will automatically be transformed. In dreamland possibly, in the real world total bollocks. If your job is churning out cheesy wedding photographs or ‘headshots’ or images showcased in this article then a 135 may well be useful. It does provide a good working distance, but so would a 200. Shooting a great portrait is all about the photographer and their approach and vision. Yousuf Karsh Possibly the most famous portrait photographer to date shot with a 8×10 bellows Calumet camera with a 14″ Commercial Ektar (350mm) lens, which in 35mm money is equivalent to around a 55mm lens. Should we all rush out and buy such a set up? No. His success was mostly to do with his craft, use of lighting and attention to detail but most of all how he related to and perceived his subjects. In reality if YOU want to shoot great portraits then spend some time thinking about the type of portraits you want to shoot. Look at the work of the great exponents like Karsh then find your own way. Above all don’t be seduced by nonsense like this article, the answer is not in your pocket it’s in your head.
Boy, you must be fun at parties. Your style and preference of photography definitely reflects your demeanor. Dramatic, moody, and miserable.
Karsh has great work, but, somewhat one-dimensional. And, it's just one of many styles. And, it's not for everyone. Use your head. How many people would want their weddings, engagements, senior portraits, corporate headshots, etc to look like this?
What did Karsh do to relate so deeply with his subjects?
Did they hang out for an afternoon swapping stories and drinking then stroll over the studio to take some photos? Do you really think that all the people in the examples that BZE showed are as sad, serious and glum and Karsh portrayed them?
I think that with Karsh, (or Hurrell or Platon or that headshot guy) the photo is often more the photographer than the subject in front of his 14 inch lens.
The title states,"Why you should TRY...." Sure, you should try it...and an 85 and a 200 and a 24-70, and a 70-200. Most of the photographers here, and I repeat MOST of the photographers here shoot with a full frame, APS-C, or M4/3, so this article is for them.
For those that don't, then this article is a curiosity. Remember, way back when, lotsa' weddings were shot with Bronica and Mamiya medium format because that's what they had. And today, we don't have to hold our breath waiting to see if the film we shot is going to yield good shots or garbage.
So you'd be saying "Don't" try a 135...? Why? Because it produces "cheesy" shots...?
Sheesh.
The headline of the article is about TRYING the 135. Nothing wrong with making a suggestion. And there are certainly many things that a 135mm prime can offer which others can't.
Do you own the black cloud that must follow you everywhere, or do you just rent it when there's a risk you might be happy?
I know Canon has come out with their new RF135 lens, but I'm still rocking the original EF135 2.0 lens on my R5. You'll have to pry that lens from my cold dead hands. LOL
My favorite lens that I own is my 135, though I use it the least because it doesn't work well in my studio because of distance. However, when I have the space, I use it any time that I can.
I have considered the Viltrox 75mm f1.2 (113mm equivalent) as a replacement for my Fuji 56mm f1.2 (85mm equivalent). For events I can't help but think that a 105~135mm prime would be too tight for most situations. It definitely has its place, and I'd gladly try it for free, but it's a hard sell when you have a reliable 85mm and 70-200mm combo.
Several of things he mentions is not so much based on the focal length but the design and construction of the lens. Also, have we reached a point in having to watch a video about what focal length to use instead of just doing it?