24mm vs 50mm?

[Wanderer]

When I bought my a6000 I also bought the 24 1.8 lens. I use that lens for everything including some portrait photos. I know the 24 is more of a landscape lens but the portraits look fine to me, So what is /are notable differences in a portrait image between a 24 and a 50? I am considering purchasing the 50 1.8 but not yet convinced it's necessary. Thanks in advance for any input.

[tinplater]

The problem with wide angle lenses for portraits really has to do distortion of body parts (like noses!) when you shoot at fill the frame distances and poor rendering of background.  The compression of perspective by longer focal lengths and better background blur/bokeh are distinct advantages.    But if you are happy with your portraits, why change?  On the other hand excellent 50mm choices are out there (legacy glass with adapters and native) that can be had very inexpensively so you could purchase used, say on Ebay, try it out, and possibly resell at little out of pocket cost.

[Username]

If portrait means head shot use a 50. 

   

For half length or full length portraits 

you will prefer the 24. The idea is to 

be 5 to 8 feet away. Different FLs will 

accomplish that depending upon how 

much of the subject is in the frame.    

   

If you shoot at 2 to 3 feet, you will get 

those odd proportions between ears, 

nose, jaw size, etc. OTOH, try letting 

the "odd" proportions into your work. 

It often looks just right ... but avoid it 

in very conventional "cosmetic" head 

shots. It usually doesn't suit the vanity 

or ego of most subjects. 

[Wanderer]

Thank you for those tips. Of course when I say they look fine to me I'm no pro and maybe experienced portrait photographers would spot distortions that I don't catch. Anyway no I don't do any head shots really (they always say no! that's too close). Instead I do full or half body so maybe I can cross the 50 1.8 off my shopping list. 

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

The 50/1.8 would give you slightly better background blur.

 

Also, you comment about being too close. When you use a wide lens, that adds distance to your shot. So you have to move closer, possibly invading the personal space of your model.

 

If you use a longer lens you can shoot better portraits at a comfortable distance.

 

A 50mm on APS-C is similar to a 75mm on full frame. That's closer to traditional focal lengths used for portraits.

 

As the 50/1.8 is so cheap, I would say you would benefit from having it.

[Wanderer]

Gosh...kicking myself, I meant the Sony Zeiss 55 1.8. Sorry. That one though is not so cheap. My subject who says "not so close" mostly just wants a full body shot that shows her shoes (wants the photos for Instagram). She has some pock marks on her face so that is another reason she wants distance. She doesn't know anything about photography and doesn't realize that with 24mp and super sharp lens I can just crop down if I want to.  Ok so maybe erase the scratch mark through the 55 1.8 on my list...

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

Aha, different story. The 55/1.8 is a super lens. But for dedicated portraiture, I would add some money and go Batis. The 55/1.8 just doesn't give you enough background separation.

 

However, if full body shots is all you're allowed to do, save some money and stick with the 24mm. It is also a super lens.

[Wanderer]

Thank you I appreciate your helpful comments and will take a look at Batis before I decide.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

NP, GL. A final tip is to do some close ups of your lady with good lighting and processing. I sometimes hear "no close ups" and "no flash" but that's just because it hasn't been done right for them.

[Wanderer]

Batis 85 1,8 seems like maybe a better choice than the 55 1.8. Thoughts? 

[Username]

FL is chosen on two simple criteria ....

field of view [subject size] and subject

distance. That is all. No rocket science 

and no artistic mumbo jumbo. 

  

No rocket science, but OK, there's trig. 

But no algebra ! You've got two similar 

isosceles triangles. The bases of which 

are your subject size and sensor size.

The altitudes are your subject distance 

and your lens FL. 

   

If you don't dig trig, buy both lenses. 

You're gonna wind up with both sooner

or later anywho :-) 

[idsurfer]

Keep in mind that 85mm on APS-c (Batis or whatever) is pretty long being 127.5mm equivalent. Not the most user friendly for anything but half body and closer portraits. I've owned 135mm on FF and 85mm on APS-c. Ended up ditching both cause I just wasn't using them due to long FL. The compression is pretty strong as well. I feel you can get a bit more 3D feel with the shorter FL's when taking environmental portraits. The longer FL just mashes everything together. If you have a zoom that goes out to 85mm I'd try shooting that around before taking the plunge to the 85mm prime.  Also, if you decide that 85 is the way to go consider the newly announced Sony 85mm. Looks very very nice for less $ than the Batis. I had two copies of the Batis and was NOT blown away for the price. 

[InnerShadow]

I took some photos with the 50/1.8 but now i use mostly 85mm(f1.4). 50mm looks kind of boring to me. And 50/1.8 does not separate the body from the background enough. So my advice for you is to take 85mm length. Btw how does the 24mm/f1.8 work for you? I am asking because I need something wide with very fast AF to shoot dancers in low light.

[idsurfer]

I have the Sony Zeiss 24 1.8. Nice lens but over priced. AF not blazing fast by any stretch of the imagination, especially in low light. Would not rely on it for dancers in low light. 

[Username]

I took some photos with the 50/1.8 but now i use mostly 85mm  

(f1.4). 50mm looks kind of boring to me. ............

    

Boring is good. Lenses don't make boring images, users 

do. Likewise the idea that lenses can make interesting, or 

exciting, images. All the "traditional" portrait focal lengths 

fall squarely into the "boring" category. Portraits are about 

the person portrayed ... and, possibly, their surroundings.  

  

Take whatever lenses you have that tend to "guarantee" 

interesting images and lock them up in your mom's closet  

... especially if she lives waaaay far away. This can teach 

all but the most hopeless practitioners the craft of making 

interesting images. Plus, mom will be so glad to see you ;-)