Wide angle for portrait?

[Mode101]

Which wide angle lens suitable for portrait?

Really like Batis 25mm but way over my budget at the moment.

[Freddy]

Wide angle for portraits? If you want to accentuate a big nose, yes. Give me a 100mm any time. Regards, Freddy.

[Pierre]

Yes, Freddy is right, no wide angle is suitable for portrait, unless you want to take some "creatives" and funny pictures.

[Mode101]

Thanks for the info. Learned something new today

[Soeren]

Well not for traditional portraits but for inviromental portraits wideangle are great. Just remember to keep a minimum distance to your subject. Study some of our old great "street photographers" for inspiration. What format are we talking? Aps-c og 24x36? A good starting point would be a 35mm on 24x36 (24mm'ish on aps-c)

[Golem]

Assuming you have reason to shoot wide angle portraits

[there are reasons, but that's not the topic here], the two

main requirements are significant lens speed [f/2, maybe

faster] and freedom from flare, cuz a wide view will often

include bright sources of flare [and back lighting is often

useful for portraiture]. 

  

The lens speed is for two reasons: Wide angle portraits

are often environmental portraiture, utilizing the ambient

illumination. Other reason to soften the background a bit.

The DOF of wide lenses can eliminate any impression of

depth, or separation of the subject and background. 

   

Wide angle portraiture is NOT synonymous with gigantic

noses. Such images are intentional caricatures. But for a

noobie, maybe there is a third requirement: Stick to rather

moderate wide angle lenses, 25 or 28mm f/2.  

   

As for specific lenses to recommend, I'll be semi-specific: 

Legacy lenses are the affordable route, and you'll never  

miss the AF for portrait applications.

  

   

  

`   

[MichaelMilner]

I regularly use the 35mm f1.4 Zeiss in studio for portraits. Gives great results especially when used wide open with shallow depth of field. Use it carefully and you can avoid over lengthing features. It all depends on the face and subject to lens orientation. I also use the 55mm and 90mm. Different lenses for different effects and looks

[Mark2d]

I love my Canon 24mm f1.4 for documentary and portrait work. I use it on my A7r2 with the MetaBones IV, and for interior natural light it works great. I find the 24mm give me more of the room feel, the angle matches more naturally what I see in front of me. The f1.4 also allows for a narrow depth of field to throw backgrounds surprisingly out of focus for a wide angle. Just don't get too close to your subjects if they are people!

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

[camptws]

I have been play around with my sony 28 f2.0 lately on my a6000 even though it is an FE lens. Although I love it, it feels like I am sticking the camera in the face of the subject making them uncomfortable. And that is with the APS-C. I prefer the Sony 50 f1.8 (approx 75mm equivalent) for portraits.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[Soeren]

Up close with Samyang 12mm f/2 on A6000

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Soeren]

I have been play around with my sony 28 f2.0 lately on my a6000 even though it is an FE lens. Although I love it, it feels like I am sticking the camera in the face of the subject making them uncomfortable. And that is with the APS-C. I prefer the Sony 50 f1.8 (approx 75mm equivalent) for portraits.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

The point of using a wideangle for portraits is not sticking it up their noses (make sure it's weathersealed if you do) but to show your subject in their inviroment e.g. workshop or garage etc. Making the suroundings part of the person.

[camptws]

The point of using a wideangle for portraits is not sticking it up their noses (make sure it's weathersealed if you do) but to show your subject in their inviroment e.g. workshop or garage etc. Making the suroundings part of the person.

Copy that.

 

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk

[Freddy]

"I love my Canon 24mm f1.4 for documentary and portrait work. I use it on my A7r2 with the MetaBones IV, and for interior natural light it works great. I find the 24mm give me more of the room feel, the angle matches more naturally what I see in front of me. The f1.4 also allows for a narrow depth of field to throw backgrounds surprisingly out of focus for a wide angle. Just don't get too close to your subjects if they are people!"

 

Mark2D's first portrait is a very good (half/full?) length portrait. The second one I like a lot less, one doesn't even see the subjects eyes.

What I meant with portrait is of course a face.

 

The truth of the last sentence of the quote is well illustrated by the picture by Soeren: what you see is mainly the legs. Not what I would call a good portrait. Yes it is sharp.

Kind regards, Freddy.

[Soeren]

Protractum means something like "what is drawn into the light"

To me a good portraits is not necessary consentrating on the face but the most important features of the subject. The hands of an artist/carpenter/mechanic etc. a pose of a ballet dancer or gymnast or a very difficult move of an alpine climber. A portrait, to me, shows who the person is and not just what he/she looks like.

[Golem]

..................  To me a good portraits is not necessary consentrating

on the face but the most important features of the subject. The hands

of an artist/carpenter/mechanic etc. a pose of a ballet dancer or

gymnast or a very difficult move of an alpine climber. A portrait, to me,

shows who the person is and not just what he/she looks like.

  

+1.  

  

Long ago, I tried keeping to a rule, a sort of rhetorical conceit,

that the word "Portrait", due to usage, can be left to its poor

limited meaning, that of a facial features depiction, even if it's

half length or so. IOW, I defer to the rule of usage.

  

So I decided the word for what you describe ... being also the

sort of portrait I prefer ... that the word for that is "Portrayal".

  

I guess this post is my new attempt to get that idea into more

common usage. "Portraits" you get from Sears, Walmart, Kid

Knappers, etc. "Portrayals" you get from photographers. 

 

`

[Freddy]

Soeren wrote: "A portrait, to me, shows who the person is and not just what he/she looks like."

 

Hmm, I think one never can show "who the person is".  A portait (or "portrayal" if you like) can be very deceptive. A crook, a murderer or a thief, can have a very friendly face. An intelligent looking man can turn out to be stupid. And your climbing boy is not just legs. Even in a simple activity like climbing our brain is the more important body part. But with our simple cameras we cannot produce a brian scan unfortunately. (Would be most exciting if we could...)

The boy will remain the same person even if you'd cut of his legs (don't try this!).

 

Can we call Dürer's "praying hands" a portrait? Or a portrayal"? In a way perhaps. According to the dictionary a portrait is especially a picture of the face. Especially, not exclusively.

 

I once was at a birthday party of a friend who had invited all her brothers and sisters - and she was born in a large family. I borrowed her camera and took a picture of her brother's moustache. She found it rather a waste of film, but the brother later saw the picture and liked it so much that he had over 100 prints made and pasted them of New Year cards which he sent to his friends and relatives. But I would not call this picure either a portrait or a prortayal.

 

What is a good picture? Is a good picture beautiful? Both "good" and "beauty" are very subjective. I knew a well-known photographer who was quite famous for his portraits. His lighting was rather dramatic and somehow his subjects were always in a pensive mood. I liked them at first, but later I felt that he was simply always using the same trick: dramatic studio lighting, waiting for the right moment and click!  Well made certainly but a bit boring in the long run.

Photographers I admire most are people like Ed van der Elsken, Cas Oorthuys, Eva Besnyö, Ata Kando, Joan van der Keuken. Hope these names mean something to you. I doubt whether they considered thmselves "artists".

Kind regards, Freddy.

[Xterra]

perhaps the 35mm Loxia? Portraits you may want to MF.

[Soeren]

Portrayal hmm I like that.

[Soeren]

Freddys post reminds me of this one

http://petapixel.com/2015/11/04/6-photographers-asked-to-shoot-portraits-of-1-man-with-a-twist/

[JimmyD]

Not cheap, but I second the Zeiss 35mm 1.4 suggestion.  Very sharp wide open with really, really nice bokeh and overall rendering.  This lens represents the definition of the oft referred to Zeiss "pop" in an image.  And the aperture ring on the lease let you switch quickly between f/1.4 for isolating subject and stopping down for more of an environmental shot with great depth of field.

[Freddy]

Maybe a bit OT, but I feel that whatever focal length you choose, if you don't have a Sony FE lens, it is better to use your old Canon or Nikon lens than to take a Samyang or similar lens without electrical contacts on the proximal end. When I use my Canon EF 100mm, the diaphraghm is camera driven. I only have to adjust the distance manually. With my Samyang 85mm, I have to fully open the diaphragm first, next focus and after that close the diaphragm manually. And after I have closed the diaphragm, the camera will probably be out of focus again. Not the best solution.  Therefore I prefer my Canon lenses with my Commlite adaptor.

Kind regards, Freddy.

[Freddy]

"Freddys post reminds me of this one
http://petapixel.com...n-with-a-twist/"

 

Like it! Many years ago there was a book "The Human Face" if I remember well, which also made the same point.

Kind regards, Freddy.

[Emptymind]

I always use my Zeiss 55mm - head and shoulders above the rest for portraits.

[Golem]

.............

 

What is a good picture? Is a good picture beautiful?

............ 

  

This is a significant question. And in offering my feelings I

do NOT mean to diminish the value of the large spectrum

of views on this matter .... but I may pick on just one view

that bugs me: the view that a good picture is aesthetically

pleasing .... which is very much like "beautiful", but I think

that "beautiful" implies the higher degrees of "aesthetically

pleasing". 

   

To me, the value of a picture is in how well it does its job

.... how well it serves its purpose. Is a picture thaz rather

ugly and visually confusing ever a "good picture" ? It is, if

it's purpose is to disgust and confuse the viewer. We can

question whether disgusting and confusing the viewer is

a "good purpose" for picture, but thaz subjective. It's NOT

subjective to say that a "good picture" is any picture that

fulfills its intended purpose. 

  

Within my idea, there's no problem about degrees of how

good a picture may be. Acoarst there's degrees .... some

pictures serve the intended purpose superbly, some only

marginally .... or anywhere in between.

  

My idea of "good picture" doesn't require that the picture

communicate tremendously successfully to almost all the

viewers that might see it. Any number of viewers might

see it, but its intended purpose might be only to explore

the author's inner mind. Or another purpose might be to

communicate to a very small, tight-knit group .... etc etc.

  

OK, I'll shut up about this now :-) 

  

`

[Golem]

I always use my Zeiss 55mm - head and shoulders

above the rest for portraits.

   

Ironic pun acknowledged and appreciated ;-)