Q: Half body portraits on full frame cameras

[Madison]

Hi,





I want to study portraiture for the next period of time. I own a full frame camera. I want to do half body portraits. What (prime) lens do you recommend. I was thinking 135 F2 L, but somebody said that would be too tight and better for head/shoulder shots. They recommend 85 F1.8.


I am a bit lost. What do you recommend. I was looking at the 135 because of it's impeccable quality. I've had it on my cam before (rented) but not for studio portrait so I am a bit uncertain: what to do?

[Jon Ruyle]

I guess it depends on how far you want to be from your subject. The extra reach, even for a half body portrait, might be an advantage if you don't want to get too close to your subject. If you can't get that far away, or don't wan't to, then you obviously need something shorter.

[Madison]

I was thinking 7 feet at least (or two metres, since I am metric over here). I am concerned about distortions if you come closer. I know some photographers (like Avedon) would come ridiculously close. I dont think I can pull that off.





But at say 7 feet, which would be the better lens for half body portraits?

[Jon Ruyle]

In that case, I think you're better off at 85mm.

[Alan]

Yep. The 85 f/1.8. I love that lens. Sharp, excellent color. And, inexpensive.

[Keith B]

We just shot the cover of our magazine, mid thigh up on a woman. The photog shot at 70mm wiht the 24-70 2.8L from about 7-8 feet away. I would say the 85mm if you going prime. The 135 would do great but you may not always have the luxury of having enough room.

[Dallasphotog]

[img]/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.UserFiles/00.00.00.24.00/TN_5F00_8x10_5F00_IMG_5F00_8136.jpg[/img]





EF24-70MM @ 70MM, ISO-100, F/2.8, 1/125


I'm totally addicted to the versatility of the EF24-70MM F/2.8 L. I have this blown up 16x20 on Kodak Endura Metallic on my office wall and it is really flawless. Just a great lens.

[Madison]

That is a nice photo indeed, but I do want my lens to have better corner sharpness.The face is in focus, but the necklace and the arms are too soft, even at 2,8, for my personal portrait plans. But that could be a matter of taste. I really like the shot overall. Her expression is very sweet.

I think I decided and I should get me a 1.8 85MM prime then, somewhere next week. I think that would work best, and it is inexpensive yet still good.





Thanks everybody for helping out! I really appreciate it.

[Jon Ruyle]

I'm not sure, but it looks to me like the corners aren't in perfect focus (and I believe this is intended).


I don't think the lens has any sharpness problems that can be seen when shrunk down to this size.

[Dallasphotog]

I'm not sure, but it looks to me like the corners aren't in perfect focus (and I believe this is intended).


I don't think the lens has any sharpness problems that can be seen when shrunk down to this size.



<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

You're have it rightJON. The depth of field is thin enough at F/2.8 that you need to focus the EYES, becuase the rest falls off quickly. That background is only about 4 feet beyond the model and it is obliterated.