Is 100mm the true headshot distance you want to use? Here is my question based upon ones theory.

Question

I have been told, by a Nikon repair specialist that he knew the lens and cam's inside out... he says that due to the way other lenses are made, you will receive a change in perspective that is unnatural when related to the human eye. He went on to tell me, that you need to be shooting at a zoom distance of approx 100mm, as its the CLOSEST to the natural way we see things physically. Now if that is true, and if it is i'd like your thoughts on it, also if I am using a D300, at 1.5 (cropped framed instead of full frame) then what size lens would I really need to use to get to that 100mm range? If I was using a 85, I read that it was actually closer to 125 and cropped frame instead of full frame, So does that mean 70mm? Or aesthetically speaking is my 105macro, or 85mm prime the answer?

Answer 1

A 50 mm lens is still 50 mm lens on your camera, but as you know, it sees less than what the lens was designed to project--the camera "sees" it as if it were a 75 mm lens instead.

Regarding perspective... I do like longer lens for portrait because it gives me more distance from the subject--I'm not all over them. And the background blur looks nicer with a long (and fast) lens.

This was taken with Canon 100 mm f 2.8 macro

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook... and http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook...

And this one with Canon 24-70 mm f 2.8 at 75 mm

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook...

Same here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook...

(I would have gotten closer if it were a solo shot).

and yet, this was taken with Canon 50 mm f 1.4

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook...

And these were taken with Canon 135 mm f 2

http://www.flickr.com/photos/little_pook...

I really liked the Nikkor 105 mm f 2.5 with my old Nikon FM2. It was really sharp--but if you mount that FC on you camera, it will be a bit long. I am thinking in your case is use the 85 mm which would be 128-ish. Much cheaper than getting the 135 mm f 2 for the full frame camera.

p.s. You know, I was able to get very usable portraits with 50 mm on my old Nikon FM2.  

Answer 2

In the days of 35mm a 105 was considered the best focal length for portraiture. I work for a studio using a 28-135 mm lens and consistently find myself on or around 70mm on a head and shoulders shot. Since I have been doing these portraits for over 30 years I feel that my eye naturally senses that that is the proper length.

Answer 3

Jim M's given you the best answer.  I use my 60mm f/2.8 macro, which is a 90mm equivalent, for portraits.  I CRAVE the 85mm f/1.4, though, after seeing Pooky's full-format results with his 135mm f/1.4.  (You are right.  The 85mm would be "127.5" on a D300.)  I used to have a 105mm lens on my film camera and it was just the best for portraits for all the reasons your tech friend and Jim mention.  Great perspective, nice workign distance, control of the background...

SO, was that vague enough for you?

100 mm is the classic FILM portrait length.  I say it's anywhere from 85 to 135 mm, with 105 being right in the sweet spot.  In the D300, this means about 70mm would be right there.  I so want that 85mm, though...

Answer 4

There are all kinds of opinions and "authoritative" theories about the "ideal" focal length for portraiture.

The ideal is what works for you.  With a D300 (1.5 factor) any quality lens that gets you somewhere between 50 (75) and 90 (135) should give acceptable results. (Camera to subject distance is also a factor)

Anything wider will certainly distort features (bulbous nose, bugged out eyes, etc.), and longer will - sooner or later - result in foreshortening.

Have you seen these self pix taken by kids with their little p&s or cellphone held out at arm's length?  I'm amazed that they haven't yet figured out how distorted their little faces are, and how goofy they look!

And at the other extreme ... think of a sunset taken with a high-powered telephoto, and how disproportionately large the sun looks relative to objects in the foreground.

Your 50 mm 1.4 is effectively a 75 on the D300.  The 85 is a 127.5 mm.  Both should work well as portrait lenses under various circumstances.  

Answer 5

In a 35mm film format, I would use nothing short of a 135mm - you get exaggerated facial distortions under 90mm, which I think is too short.  Figure, then, the factor for you camera and make the appropriate adjustment if you are using a digital.  

Answer 6

Hmmm..... I don't believe that story.

The way our eyes see is actually fairly close to the equivalent of a 50mm lens.

Due to the crop factor, that would would mean you need something like a 35 mm lens, which I think is just way too "in your face".

I know that many photographers like to use their 50 or 85 mm lens for portraits.

Answer 7

I have heard this before... in fact, I learned it from my portraiture instructor. She encouraged us to only use lenses that had a focal length between 100 to 200mm. Anything smaller would result in distortions of the figure... bigger nose, arms, etc.

Your D300 has a crop factor of 1.5... so a 50mm lens on your camera would be equivalent to a 75mm lens on a full frame (50 x 1.5 = 75).

Hope that answers your question. Best of luck!