In the 1970’s I mostly shot with a Nikon 105 f2.5, arguably the best portrait lens ever, and in the 1980’s I shot with a MAmiya RZ and Pentax 67 and there used a 180mm lens for 6x7 and switching to Canon shot with their very nice 100 (although not as nice as the Nikon 105 f2.5). Nowadays I still shoot portraits on film with a Mamiya 180 or 210 APO on an RZ, or a 150 on a Mamiya 645. I rarely use a zoom lens for a portrait as it is just something else to go wrong. For the really odd portrait, I use a 50mm lens o na Noblex.
jan
Stepping in 'where angels fear to tread' can I ask a naive question. In the context of digital photography and post processing does it make any difference. When I used film I found that I got good results with a 135 lens but for me the biggest advantage was the fact that I could keep my subject at a distance so I was not, figuratively, Breathing down their neck. My viewpoint and experience is amateur rather than professional. I only ever got to 'shoot' professional models at auto show Press Days.
Michael in Norwich
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Davidhazy < andpph@xxxxxxx>
To: PhotoForum educational network < photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Mon, 6 Apr 2015 20:24
Subject: best focal length for portraits?
I’ve pondered about this for a while … which is the most appropriate focal
length lens to use for portraiture (head/shoulders) and which is the most
“flattering”? I realize that it would vary for different sensor formats. So pick
a format. Or is distance between subject and camera the major deciding factor?
Andy
Art Faul
The Artist Formerly Known as Prints ------ Camera Works - The Washington Post
.
|
