Home

Please support mflenses.com if you need any graphic related work order it from us, click on above banner to order!
SearchSearch MemberlistMemberlist RegisterRegister ProfileProfile Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages Log inLog in

Portraits with 35mm lens
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 11:01 am    Post subject: Portraits with 35mm lens Reply with quote
When I met with Alessandro last month, we had a discussion about taking portraits with a 35mm lens. I am a big fan of this solution, because I love ambiented portraits and I find that a 35mm lens is the right focal lenght to handle both subject and background in a comfortable way.
Alessandro said that he does not like 35mm lens for portraits because it tends to distort proportions of human figure and that for ambiented portraits he prefers to use a 50mm lens and just take a step back.

Today I stumbled upon a set of fine portraits taken with the C-Biogon lens (35mm f/2.8 ). Biogon is an optical formula that allows for nearly zero distortion of the image field.
Here's links to some of the images:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucekwan/4532243254/sizes/o/in/pool-724596@N24/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucekwan/4531795293/sizes/o/in/pool-724596@N24/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucekwan/4532427186/sizes/o/in/pool-724596@N24/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucekwan/4531794359/sizes/o/in/pool-724596@N24/

I find no problems there with human body proportions. What do you think?

By the way, it is difficult to find 50mm lenses that are distortion free. One of them is the Nikkor AIS 1.8/50. Most other 50mm lenses have distortion field level comparable if not even higher than 35mm lenses of the same quality.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 11:19 am    Post subject: Re: Portraits with 35mm lens Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/brucekwan/4531795293/sizes/o/in/pool-724596@N24/


I think the feet are bigger than they should?


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 11:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
No distorsions to be seen from my side either.

Quote:
it is difficult to find 50mm lenses that are distortion free


Macro lenses are designed to have a flat field and of course being distorsion free. Plenty of them in 50ish area.
A while ago, on fredmiranda, somebody was saying the same thing about Planar 50/1.4.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Himself wrote:
Macro lenses are designed to have a flat field and of course being distorsion free.


I'm not sure if I understand what sort distortions you talk about because the "35 mm distortion" can be produced even without a lens.



EDIT: this is done with Blender


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
a 35mm on the M8 is more like a 50mm on full frame Rolling Eyes Idea


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 2:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
poilu wrote:
a 35mm on the M8 is more like a 50mm on full frame Rolling Eyes Idea


+1


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 2:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
+2

Or put another way:

With the same camera, to get the same composition a 35 lens has to be closer to the subject than the 50, and this changes the perspective.

You could get similar composition and perspective by cropping a 35 shot taken from the same distance.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 2:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Guys, here is the distortion graph of the ZM C-Biogon 35/2.8:



And this is the distortion graph of the Contax Planar 50/1.4 (which was mentioned earlier in the thread):



I mean, we can talk about it as we like, but, as we say in Italy, "the paper sings" (carta canta)! Wink
The Planar 50 distorts almost 4 times as much as the C-Biogon.

-


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 3:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

The Planar 50 distorts almost 4 times as much as the C-Biogon.


Yes, when speaking of the distortion introduced by the construction of the lens, but I guess at least some of the above comments were referring to distortion of perspective, which depends on the relationship of the focal length of the lens, enlargement of the image (i.e. viewing size), and the viewing distance.


The idea is that when the unenlarged image, i.e. one that is the size of the film/sensor, is viewed from a distance equal to the focal length of the lens, the perspective corresponds to reality. When the image is enlarged, the viewing distance should be increased accordingly. As a result, the “normal lens” for a given format is considered one with a focal length approximately equal to the diagonal of the format, because it is assumed that in general people tend to view images from a distance equal to the diagonal of the image. Under these assumptions a 35mm focal length on full frame, even when completely free of any distortions introduced by the lens, would appear to distort the perspective, which I guess what kansalliskala was demonstrating with the graphic.


However, since the M8 has a crop factor around 1.33× the 35mm is actually very close to the normal lens of that camera, and should indeed appear very free of distortion under these assumptions (unless distortions are introduced by the design of the lens). So, as the photos prove, it looks like an excellent choice for a realistic portrait with that camera. Although some portrait shooters may prefer the more flattering flattening caused by longer lenses. =)


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 3:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:
As a result, the “normal lens” for a given format is considered one with a focal length approximately equal to the diagonal of the format, because it is assumed that in general people tend to view images from a distance equal to the diagonal of the image


Ah, ok I understand now what you mean.
But... one thing I don't understand, why shooting on an APS-C camera with a 35mm lens would not distort and shooting the same lens on a full frame camera would distort?
The lens is identical, you only crop the borders of the image. What is inside the cropping area must look IDENTICAL on a FF camera to what it looks like on an APS-C camera.
At least, if my logic does not fail me completely... Question


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 3:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
kansalliskala wrote:
Himself wrote:
Macro lenses are designed to have a flat field and of course being distorsion free.


I'm not sure if I understand what sort distortions you talk about because the "35 mm distortion" can be produced even without a lens.

EDIT: this is done with Blender


Hm but the image is "recomposed" to be nearer.
My talk is different.
I like shooting portraits with 35mm lens because I can add more of the background.
So I would not recompose the image. The distance would be the same as shooting with a 50mm lens.
As a result my subject will be smaller and I will have more background.
So I don't understand why my picture would distort compared to a 50mm lens. The point of view would be the same.
My logic can not grab this concept.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 3:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
But... one thing I don't understand, why shooting on an APS-C camera with a 35mm lens would not distort and shooting the same lens on a full frame camera would distort?
The lens is identical, you only crop the borders of the image. What is inside the cropping area must look IDENTICAL on a FF camera to what it looks like on an APS-C camera.
At least, if my logic does not fail me completely... Question

You are right as long as the camera is kept in the same position. Perspective distortion occurs when you move a 35mm lens closer to the subject to get the same composition as the 50.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
peterqd wrote:
Orio wrote:
But... one thing I don't understand, why shooting on an APS-C camera with a 35mm lens would not distort and shooting the same lens on a full frame camera would distort?
The lens is identical, you only crop the borders of the image. What is inside the cropping area must look IDENTICAL on a FF camera to what it looks like on an APS-C camera.
At least, if my logic does not fail me completely... Question

You are right as long as the camera is kept in the same position. Perspective distortion occurs when you move a 35mm lens closer to the subject to get the same composition as the 50.


Yes, I originally meant shooting from the same position, in order to have more background than with a 50mm lens.
To my opinion, there would be no difference in distortion except for the distortion caused by the lens itself.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
OK, I think we're all on the same wavelength now.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
kansalliskala wrote:
Himself wrote:
Macro lenses are designed to have a flat field and of course being distorsion free.


I'm not sure if I understand what sort distortions you talk about because the "35 mm distortion" can be produced even without a lens.

EDIT: this is done with Blender


Hm but the image is "recomposed" to be nearer.


Actually not, I think Bleder does the ray-tracing (I'm not sure if this is the right concept) pretty straight-forward. So the object "really" (virtually) is nearer and should correspond to reality .. I think.

I'll add the background tomorrow that we can estimate what it does to composition.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 5:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Some bits of knowledge of what perspective distortion is and results from different focal lenses on the same subject

Perspective Distortion (the forum doesn't like the direct link with the brackets inside)



PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 6:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:

Yes, I originally meant shooting from the same position, in order to have more background than with a 50mm lens.
To my opinion, there would be no difference in distortion except for the distortion caused by the lens itself.


This by the way is what Annie Leibovitz did back in the day, and for the same reason: to get more of the environment into the photo. She explains this in her book At Work... and is a bit vague about the lenses she used with the Nikon F - just calls it a Nikkor 35 - when it probably was the fastest, most expensive Nikkor available.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Some bits of knowledge of what perspective distortion is and results from different focal lenses on the same subject

Perspective Distortion (the forum doesn't like the direct link with the brackets inside)



Alessandro, in your test at 18mm the bottle is significantly closer to the lens than with the other focal lenghts. This invalidates the test.
For the test to be significant, the lens must change while the distance from the object must not.

Also, a lot of the distortion there is not due to the focal lenght, it is due to the fact that especially in the 18mm shot, the pink bottle medium point (half the height) is not parallel with the lens centre point.

One thing they teach at photography schools is that in order to avoid distortion, the middle height point of the subject must be parallel to the centre point of the lens. The further the distance, the bigger the distortion.
For instance, to shoot a full figure portrait of a person, the central ray of lens must be approximately at the height of the umbilicum.

Take your 18mm shot: assuming that the camera was "in bolla" (parallel to both axes of ground), if you raise it to make the central ray of lens to be parallel with the middle point of the bottle, you will see the distortion greatly reduced.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
These shots are not mine, it's straight from wikipedia (and you could know that if you just followed the link I gave) and, while not perfect, they approssimate pretty well the effect.

Anyway, since perspective distortion is caused from shots not being straight "in bolla" and not from focal length of lenses I perfer to stop to waste my time on a moot discussion.

Have fun using 35mm in portraits, I prefer not in most of the situations when a step back with 50mm is enough.

Of course there are situations where space isn't available or you deliberately want the perspective distortion effect of a wide angle, but before breaking some "rules" is better have a good grasp of them and the logic behind.

Last edited by A G Photography on Wed May 05, 2010 6:59 pm; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 6:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
Yes, I originally meant shooting from the same position, in order to have more background than with a 50mm lens.
To my opinion, there would be no difference in distortion except for the distortion caused by the lens itself.


To explain this, let's borrow a bit from earlier:

Arkku wrote:
The idea is that when the unenlarged image, i.e. one that is the size of the film/sensor, is viewed from a distance equal to the focal length of the lens, the perspective corresponds to reality. When the image is enlarged, the viewing distance should be increased accordingly.


Now, consider two photos shot from the same distance, one with a shorter lens and one with a longer. If you print (or otherwise view) both at the same size and look at the two photos from the same distance, your viewing distance is causing the difference in perspective distortion because the ratio of the enlargement × focal length and viewing distance will be different.

However, if you print the images so as to make the main subject the same size in both prints and keep the same viewing distance to both photos, the photo with the shorter focal length will be larger but perspective looks the same as that of the longer focal length. (Alternatively, you could just bring the photo shot with a shorter focal length closer to your eyes.) We can also see the effect of the crop factor here; if you now cut off the edges from the larger image it's exactly as though you had shot on a smaller sensor and then enlarged more—this is why the focal lengths multiplied by crop factor are called “equivalent”.


One way to understand this easily is to consider standing in the exact spot from where you have previously photographed the scenery. If you were to hold a print of that photo so that it exactly covers the area pictured in it, the perspective at that viewing distance and enlargement/print size would be “normal”. If you had taken that photo at a longer focal length, you would need to hold it farther away at a given print size because it would cover a smaller area of the scenery. If you had taken the photo at very short focal length, you might need to hold the photo so close that it would cover the entire view because of the wide angle of view. But if you printed a huge billboard of that wide angle photo, you would need to stand quite far from it to get the same effect…

But regardless of focal length and enlargement (print size), you can always find some way to position the photo over the scenery so that it looks the same as the part of the real scene behind it. (Assuming a non-distorting lens! And of course the photo is 2D and has a fixed depth of field, so there will be differences from that, and some viewing distances will certainly be impractical, but this is just considering the perspective and nothing else.)

From this it should be possible to see that the perspective distortion depends on the ratio of viewing distance and focal length × enlargement; a shorter focal length covers a larger area and needs to be either viewed closer or printed larger to “match” the real perspective, and vice versa for longer focal lengths. Usually we don't change our print size or viewing distance by focal length of the lens, and so shorter focal lengths can be said to exaggerate perspective and longer focal lengths to flatten it. The concept of a “normal lens” is simply based on the assumption that “usually” prints are viewed at a distance approximately equal to the diagonal of the print size, and therefore the lens with focal length equal to the diagonal of the film or sensor appears to have normal perspective under these conditions.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
Arkku wrote:

(Assuming a non-distorting lens!)


Which don't exist in real world, wides all have barrel distortion, more or less depending on focal lenght, quality etc, but once you use software like Ptlens (highly reccomended) to correct it you'd notice how much evident the difference is.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 7:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
A G Photography wrote:
Arkku wrote:

(Assuming a non-distorting lens!)


Which don't exist in real world,


Probably quite true (unless we count a pinhole as a lens), but assuming such a lens to exist is very helpful for limiting the explanation to perspective distortion. Doesn't mean that such a lens needs to exist for the explanation to be valid—the assumption just saves having to say “except for lens distortion, if any” all the time. =)


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 8:45 pm    Post subject: Re: Portraits with 35mm lens Reply with quote
Orio wrote:
I find no problems there with human body proportions. What do you think?


I think it depends, as Arkku pointed out, we have two different kind of dissortions, in my opinion generally one caused by the desing of the lens (barrel, moustache...), the other caused by the focal length, the field of view.

Having the Distagon 35/1.4 since two months, I have to confess that I really like to shoot portraits with this lens/focal length. The same for film, on my R-D1, the Biogon 35/2 was a 50mm lens, now with the Zeiss Ikon it's a real 35mm lens.

I tried some portraits before with the Distagon 28/2 but without success, too much dissortion (because of the greater field of view), I could not control the diss. successfully.
It all depends on where you place the body parts of the model.

5D and Distagon 35/1.4 (wide open) Smile


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 8:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
All I know is that I love the first image, and the last black and white
image you made, Orio. Gorgeous work, and gorgeous model.


PostPosted: Wed May 05, 2010 9:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
great portrait Carlson, distagon rock
distagon 25mm on full frame is also great for portrait
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Techniques
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2