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

What is a portrait lens?
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
View previous topic :: View next topic  


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:25 pm    Post subject: What is a portrait lens? Reply with quote
What is a portrait lens?

seems a simple question, but.......well before I explain why I ask it, I'd love to see some definitions.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
i think its just convenient shorthand for FLs 75-120mm, as those were most commonly used to 'get in close', but are still eminently 'hand-hold-able'. at those FL, depth of field is shallow, so OOF areas, or bokeh, is more prominent than lower FLs. i dont think it means what it used to given how photography has evolved...but i may be wrong. thats how i look at it anyway.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
it is a lens faster than a landscape lens
according to wiki, such lens can take a portrait in 1 minute vs the 20 minutes needed with a landscape lens

wiki wrote:
The Petzval Portrait lens
The Achromat Landscape was hardly perfect. It was quite slow – its f/16 working aperture required twenty to thirty minute outdoor daguerreotype exposures – and the French Society for the Encouragement of National Industry offered an international prize in 1840 for a faster lens. Joseph Petzval (modern Hungary) was a mathematics professor without any optical physics experience but, with the aid of several human computers of the Austro-Hungarian army, took up the challenge of producing a lens fast enough for a daguerreotype portrait.

He came up with the Petzval Portrait (modern Austria) in 1840, a four element formula consisting of a front cemented achromat and a rear air-spaced achromat that, at f/3.6, was the first wide aperture, portrait lens. It was appropriate for one-to-two minute shaded outdoors daguerreotype exposures. With the faster colloidion (wet plate) process of 1851, it could take one-to-two minute indoor portraits. Due to national chauvinism, the Petzval did not win the prize, despite being far superior to all other entries


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
In my opinion, a portrait lens is a focal length between 70mm and 135mm. Such lenses are usually f/2.8 or faster, exhibiting shallow depth-of-field usually always accompanied by good, creamy bokeh (non-distracting out-of-focus highlights). Lenses with longer focal lengths offer a tighter perspective, 'flattening' facial features, making faces look more appealing.


PostPosted: Sun Jan 22, 2012 11:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote
The orginal portrait lenses specifically designed as such were introduced beginning in the late 1800's.

The original idea was to have a large aperture lens that would permit a fast exposure, to reduce inconvenience for the subjects. Other advantages such as narrow DOF were byproducts.

Later the large aperture was retained, in order to enhance the means of isolating the subject, plus on many dedicated portrait lenses there were additional features for introducing and controlling softness of rendering, to suit the popular portrait style of the day, as with the Wollensak Verito, much used for Hollywood actors publicity photos. These lenses were designed and marketed by their makers as "portrait lenses". There were quite a lot of types made, by most of the major manufacturers plus plenty of smaller designers. As far as I know all or nearly all were meant for large-format studio cameras.

On 35mm I don't think there were many lenses made and marketed specifically as portrait lenses. The term seems more an unofficial one. Any 80-135mm lens meant for 35mm can be called a "portrait lens" I suppose. I have certainly seen plenty of ebay listings claiming all sorts of things to be portrait lenses.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@Luis: Thanks for the info, especially the historical info. 85-100mm lenses are currently my favorite focal length and I want to know more about portrait lens too.

I don't remember which lenses but I've read that some portrait lenses are optimized for close-medium distance and not very good at infinity. (I've never tested my portrait lens at infinity yet) Can you confirm this?

Some lenses seems optimized for wide open aperture. Two examples of them that very obvious to me are Zeiss Biotar 75/1.5 for old lens and Canon 85/1.2 L for modern lens.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I agree with the Gorilla above.

My perspective is that it depends on what kind of portraiture you do.
If you shoot environmental portraits you need something wider than someone who shoots heads in a studio.

In the pre-digital era, when dinosaurs roamed the earth, it was advantageous to have a lens that was not too sharp as to minimize skin detail.

Many product shooters would use their ultra-sharp lenses on people to a devastating result.

Twisted Evil


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Months ago I did a comparison portrait shots test with 4 different focal length to observe the perspective & distortion.



PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
My opinion - any lens can be a "portrait lens"
You can make a good portrait in many styles.
Its all how you use it - as in your examples.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 12:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
nixland wrote:
Months ago I did a comparison portrait shots test with 4 different focal length to observe the perspective & distortion.


Ha! I wish you would have posted those nice samples without the focal lengths and let us guess Smile

of course any lens can shoot a portrait.

But what is the commom meaning of "portrait lens" in photography? I love the answers so far.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
luisalegria wrote:
My opinion - any lens can be a "portrait lens"
You can make a good portrait in many styles.
Its all how you use it - as in your examples.


This is my answer too.
One of my favorite portraits that I've taken is of my Niece when she was just crawling.
I used my 16-35LII on my 30D, was there distortion? Sure.
Was it memorable? Oh yeah, it's been very hard to get a portrait of her younger sister that is it's equal.


I guess if a definition must be used, it would be:
A lens that balances the distortion of the short focal lengths with the flatness of the long focal length tele's flatness.
That lens should also separate the subject from their surroundings.
And it get repeatable pleasant results

For me that focal length range is from 50-120mm with 2.8 or faster aperture.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:40 am    Post subject: Re: What is a portrait lens? Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
What is a portrait lens?

seems a simple question, but.......well before I explain why I ask it, I'd love to see some definitions.


A lens, usually of large aperture, that gives a pleasing perspective for the human face. Usually double to triple the "normal" focal length for a given format. In 35mm, anything from 80mm to 180mm is a "portrait" lens. The large aperture gives selective focus emphasizing the eyes.

In the old days of Hollywood glamour portraits, 8x10 negatives or larger were used. You can only imagine the lenses!





Last edited by FluffPuppy on Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:49 am; edited 3 times in total


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
uhoh7 wrote:
But what is the commom meaning of "portrait lens" in photography?

A portrait lens is a lens with which one shoots a portrait. It's that simple.

We have habits. Full- and half-body shots may be taken with lenses whose focal length (FL) is about the same as the frame diagonal -- the 'normal' focal length. For 6x6 that's 80mm; 645 is 70mm; 135/FF is 43mm; 135/HF | APS-C is 30mm. A head-n-shoulders shot may be taken with a lens of ~2x normal FL. A tight headshot may use a lens ~3x normal. A context shot may use a lens ~1/2 normal. Those are habitual focal lengths.

As mentioned, some lenses were designed for softer headshots. Such softening can be applied in PP for digital shots, or by smearing vaseline around the margins of a clear lens filter. I use very sharp macro or enlarger lenses (ELs) for portraiture, but I soften the images considerably unless I dislike the subject. Faster lens help with subject isolation; so do lighting and placement.

Here's a cheap atmospheric portrait setup: 49mm +10dpt closeup glass; M42 bellows; 42-49mm step ring. Put them together and you have a 100/2.2 meniscus that shoots only wide-open. Scary, eh? Soft, thin DOF, funky, everything one needs for a signature style. Use it prudently.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@uhoh7: haha ... good idea Smile

The 300mm shot looks flat & dimension-less by the way due to the long FL (and also the lighting). It looks less flat if the model look to the left or right I think.



The 75-100mm FL perspective I think is more pleasing for portrait shot. But off course, like Luis said, it depends on the style or concept.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 1:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
A "portrait lens" is whatever you want it to be.

I've shot portraits on anything from 30mm to 300mm, with zero complaints about using the non-traditional 75-135 FL.

It depends on the situation and style or effect you want to achieve.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
@nixland, nothing wrong with you original 300mm sample (except maybe the horizontal composition choice). She looks much better in the first example. A bit cock-eyed in the second.

The best image for me is always the one where the subject looks best.
Smile


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Lens designers say wide open portrait lenses are softer have less contrast than when stopped down a little.

Asahi Pentax 85mm, 105mm, 120mm were marketed as portrait lenses for 35mm film cameras.

There is subject distortion with 50mm at closest focus distance, almost none with longer focal lengths at mfd.

Photographer interaction with the subject lessens as focal length increases; I think 180-200mm is perhaps where fracture occurs, moving from portrait into candid.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
You could always do what I do and get all up in their face with a fish-eye. (Warning: do not try with most girls)
Zenitar 16mm:

Peleng 17mm:


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I think of a good focal length for portraits as about 85m to 135mm. In fact, I was reading a Kodak book last night and Kodak defined portrait length for 35mm film as 85mm to 105mm. They had a very good example of why: With three different lenses -- 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm, I think, they took the same photo. Filled the frame the same way and everything. On the 28mm, the model looked chubbier and slightly distorted. Between the 50mm and 85mm, the difference was negligible.

That said, I agree with Luis, I think it was, who said any focal length can be a portrait lens. With clever composition, for sure. I think that 'portrait lens' in standard vernacular means a lens used to take standard portraits. That, at minimum, is my understanding. For that, my best portraits have been with 85mm to 135mm lenses.

But I think one key factor hasn't been touched on: how does the photographer wish to interact with the model? Do you want to be in close with a 28mm or 35mm lens? What kind of image would that yield if the model feels uncomfortable with you in their personal space? Likewise, do you want to be so far removed from the model with a low-level telephoto that they feel as though you're not there?

So, I agree that any lens can be a portrait lens in practice, based upon the desired effect.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 2:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
David wrote:
I think of a good focal length for portraits as about 85m to 135mm. In fact, I was reading a Kodak book last night and Kodak defined portrait length for 35mm film as 85mm to 105mm. They had a very good example of why: With three different lenses -- 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm, I think, they took the same photo. Filled the frame the same way and everything. On the 28mm, the model looked chubbier and slightly distorted. Between the 50mm and 85mm, the difference was negligible.

That said, I agree with Luis, I think it was, who said any focal length can be a portrait lens. With clever composition, for sure. I think that 'portrait lens' in standard vernacular means a lens used to take standard portraits. That, at minimum, is my understanding. For that, my best portraits have been with 85mm to 135mm lenses.

But I think one key factor hasn't been touched on: how does the photographer wish to interact with the model? Do you want to be in close with a 28mm or 35mm lens? What kind of image would that yield if the model feels uncomfortable with you in their personal space? Likewise, do you want to be so far removed from the model with a low-level telephoto that they feel as though you're not there?

So, I agree that any lens can be a portrait lens in practice, based upon the desired effect.


The proper focal length for a portrait depends on how well you know the person. LOL


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
term "portrait lens" is rather PR term than something related to photographic process.

it doesn´t depend whether you choose wideangle or tele - it depends how you use it

you can make your opinion whether 28mm lens (huh! wideangle! so faar from 70-135mm Smile ) is good for portrait work or not:

http://antoninkratochvil.com/#/Portfolio/Book%202/1/thumbs



Last edited by berraneck on Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:29 am; edited 1 time in total


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
Any lens is my answer too, also fisheye and circular fisheye, may be not true portrait as many prefer.
Once a lens properties had been mapped, portrait can be taken with good result.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
I have an old Kodak Professional Data Book entitled STUDIO TECHNIQUES FOR PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY (1967). It specifies lenses exactly once, on page 45 (repeated in a caption on page 53): "In general, the focal length for head-and-shoulders portraiture should be from 1 1/2 to 2 times the diagonal of the film. A focal length equal to the length-plus-the-width of the film is suggested for three-quarters portraits." Those focal lengths translate on APS-C cameras to 45-60mm for H&S, and 42mm for 3/4 shots. The rest of the book is about light, makeup, angles, backgrounds, all the IMPORTANT stuff for portraiture. Apertures are barely mentioned.

The lens does not make the portrait. The photographer makes the portrait. Use light to portray the character of the subject; use the camera+lens to capture that portrayal. There is no such thing as a "portrait lens". There are just toggers who know how to shoot portraits, and those who don't. Learning portraiture is not difficult. Even *I* can do it.


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:53 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
RioRico wrote:
I have an old Kodak Professional Data Book entitled STUDIO TECHNIQUES FOR PORTRAIT PHOTOGRAPHY (1967). It specifies lenses exactly once, on page 45 (repeated in a caption on page 53): "In general, the focal length for head-and-shoulders portraiture should be from 1 1/2 to 2 times the diagonal of the film. A focal length equal to the length-plus-the-width of the film is suggested for three-quarters portraits." Those focal lengths translate on APS-C cameras to 45-60mm for H&S, and 42mm for 3/4 shots. The rest of the book is about light, makeup, angles, backgrounds, all the IMPORTANT stuff for portraiture. Apertures are barely mentioned.

The lens does not make the portrait. The photographer makes the portrait. Use light to portray the character of the subject; use the camera+lens to capture that portrayal. There is no such thing as a "portrait lens". There are just toggers who know how to shoot portraits, and those who don't. Learning portraiture is not difficult. Even *I* can do it.


The Kodak material quoted seems about right, and matches what I said: approximately 2 to 3 times the normal length (80-180mm on 35mm format).


PostPosted: Mon Jan 23, 2012 3:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote
The portrait lens term at one point mainly applied to soft-focus or variable soft-focus lenses.

This is a great site -
http://www.antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses.html
http://www.antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses2.html
http://www.antiquecameras.net/softfocuslenses3.html

Wollensak Verito - the Hollywood portrait lens

http://wfwhitaker.com/tech/verito.htm

http://www.lungov.com/wagner/c/093c.html

http://www.cosmonet.org/camera/verito_e.htm

This was designed just for that particular style of portrait photography.

Of course, it can be used for other things -

http://www.vintagelargeformat.com/2011/12/19/winter-barn-14-12-wollensak-verito-f4-at-f4-and-f11/
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Home   Manual Focus Lenses
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2