Is it a bad idea to make portraits from a 24mm Nikkor?
anurag
Or is it better to do them using a 28, or 35 mm lens? I have a 85 mm
lens and i wanna buy a wide angle. wondering which one should i buy.
Portraits is my main area of interest and i am looking forward to
making those environmental portraits using a wide angle. It will be
nice to hear from you all.
thanks, regards,
anurag
Eric Brehm
get one lens that can serve reasonably well for both 'normal' and 'wide'
subjects, to go with your short telephoto. The pictures however won't be as
dramatic as you can get with a wider angle (strong emphasis on foreground,
with a sweeping background).
The choice between 24mm and 28mm seems to be one of the most often asked
questions concerning lens selection, and is often heard on this newsgroup;
it is a tough one. 28mm is the classic wide angle and I would say is
probably the best choice if you are mainly interested in portraits of people
in their environment. You can get pretty close to the subject(s) without
having them appear distorted or grotesque. A 24mm however is a real 'sweet
spot' in the focal length range if you have any interest in landscape or
architecture type photography, and if you are careful with your compositions
you can do good 'environmental' portraiture with it as well.
Yet another option, which might fit in with your long term lens acquisition
strategy, is to get both a 24mm and a 35mm. Many people have found this to
be a great working pair of wide angles, that can cover just about
everything.
Eric
"anurag" <somo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1c6f4.0107...@posting.google.com...
Roger
Eric has summed it up very well. I find that the 35mm is an excellent
"wide angle"(WA)/"normal" lens for environmental portraiture. I use
lenses from the 24/35/50/85 sequence and find the 24/35 pair very well
matched for street and urban work. I used to use the 28/50 pair for
most of my work, however as I gravitated to a 35mm for a "normal"
lens, the 24mm added the extra broad look that I was looking for in my
pictures.
IMO, anything wider than a 50mm lens to photograph people becomes a
very personal choice. It has a lot to do with how comfortable the
photographer is in working at short distances from their subject. If
you are not comfortable in working a few feet from the subject, your
discomfort will be reflected in the subject.
Some "famous" photographers have paired the 28/85 very effectively.
The WA that fits your style, should be the one you choose to go with
your 85. If you've been shooting with an 85 almost exclusively,
anything wider than 50 is going to seem very wide. Try it for yourself
at a shop and take along a friend. Try framing your friend, trying to
emulate the WA pictures you find appealing.
Best of luck on your choice.
Regards,
Roger
"Eric Brehm" <ebr...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>A 35mm lens is a good choice if you don't have a 50mm lens, and you want to
>get one lens that can serve reasonably well for both 'normal' and 'wide'
>subjects, to go with your short telephoto. The pictures however won't be as
>dramatic as you can get with a wider angle (strong emphasis on foreground,
>with a sweeping background).
>
>The choice between 24mm and 28mm seems to be one of the most often asked
>questions concerning lens selection, and is often heard on this newsgroup;
>it is a tough one. 28mm is the classic wide angle and I would say is
>probably the best choice if you are mainly interested in portraits of people
>in their environment. You can get pretty close to the subject(s) without
>having them appear distorted or grotesque. A 24mm however is a real 'sweet
>spot' in the focal length range if you have any interest in landscape or
>architecture type photography, and if you are careful with your compositions
>you can do good 'environmental' portraiture with it as well.
>
>Yet another option, which might fit in with your long term lens acquisition
>strategy, is to get both a 24mm and a 35mm. Many people have found this to
>be a great working pair of wide angles, that can cover just about
>everything.
>
>Eric
>
>"anurag" <somo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:21b1c6f4.0107...@posting.google.com...
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Or is it better to do them using a 28, or 35 mm lens?
.. snip ..
>>
>> thanks, regards,
>> anurag
Ray Paseur
they tend to distort perspective and make noses look big. But I've used
wide lenses in close-up sports photography and gotten some great images.
I'd lean toward the widest angle to give the most variation to your
compositions. Good luck,
---
Ray Paseur
www.non-aol.com
"anurag" <somo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1c6f4.0107...@posting.google.com...
Reasoned Parker
It's a great lens for portraits.... espeically coupled with a step
ladder (I know, it's sort of a cliche now, but it's still an effective
"people" shot).
The 24mm is plenty wide with just the right amt ofdistortion, and
opens up a whole new world when dealing with two or more people.
Unless you just want standard head shots, you can't go wrong with the
24.
Paul Rubin
that you see the subject's whole body in the context of surroundings.
It's terrible for conventional close-up portraits because of the
distortion.
Lewis Lang
>From: Paul Rubin phr-...@nightsong.com
>Date: Thu, Jul 26, 2001 12:43 AM
>Message-id: <7xlmlct...@ruckus.brouhaha.com>
...but its great for unconventional shots when you want to emphasize the
presence of your subject and when you find conventional shots too boring...
Lewis
I've set (anti-spam) controls to allow in only people on my list. If you want
to be on my list contact me through the newsgroup. I regret the inconvenience.
Thanks.
Check out my photos at "LEWISVISION":
Davey
equipment.
"anurag" <somo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1c6f4.0107...@posting.google.com...
Mxsmanic
close to your subject in order to fill the frame with his or her face,
and in the case of a wide-angle (short) lens, you have to get so close
that the difference in distance from the camera between one part of the
subject's face and another becomes substantial, which causes strong
perspective effects (which are nothing more than the reflection of these
relative differences in size) to become apparent. Put more simply,
using a short lens tends to distort the features of your subject if you
get close enough to fill the frame with your subject's face.
For this reason, the usual preference for portraits is long lenses, from
70-80 mm on up. It is not unknown for portraits to be shot with
extremely long lenses (200 mm or more), although this is not very
convenient logistically (because the subject has to be quite a distance
from the camera).
"anurag" <somo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:21b1c6f4.0107...@posting.google.com...
Abhijit Bhattacharya
Hi Anurag,
this is a classic tradeoff between showing the foreground object in
the context of the background vs. distortion of the foreground object.
The different angles of view of the two lenses make two pictures from
the same location compositionally different enough that it is really a
personal preference. I personally prefer 35mm generally for street
photography but I know others who prefer 24, 28, and 50mm. You should
probably borrow these lenses you're interested in, shoot a few rolls,
and then decide.
Regards,
Abhijit
Mxsmanic
news:b024mt88krdoeoc85...@4ax.com...
> The wide angle lenses are not for facial
> portraits...but for full length only.
Ah, okay. Even then, you have to be careful about your subject's face,
or you end up with a caricature.
> If you have never taken portraits with a 24mm
> lens...you are really missing something!!
> It has a great look when used right!!
I've tried it for full-length shots, on rare occasions, with mixed
results. I don't get much chance to shoot portraits in general, though.
Dilbertdroid
ANY lens can be used for portraits. Full-face with a 24mm, why not? The
photographer makes the portrait in his mind's eye first, then uses his
technical knowledge and experience to select the appropriate equipment to
translate that mental image into reality. The wide angle lense is a perfectly
legitimate tool for portrait photography. The fact that it will emphasize
features closer to the lens isn't distortion, it's physics. Get close to
someone's face and look yourself, and you will find your eyes give exactly the
same effect. But instead of using conventional portrait technique with the
wide angle lens and creating the "potato nose" effect, try shooting from a
higher angle where the subject's eyes will take center stage. How about a
profile? Have you tried different angles? Have you used the great depth of
field and shown the subject's hands, perhaps with an object that depicts a
favorite activity or hobby like a baseball glove or needlepoint? See the
hands prominent in the frame with the subject's face in the background?
Portraits are a helluva lot more than a face shot, nice and flat-looking, taken
with the "proper" focal length lens. A real portrait is a work of art, takes
an awful lot of time and film to accomplish (and sometimes more than one
session) and truly captures the personality and soul of the subject. And
(shudder) it might be taken with a wide-angle lens.
<<<The wide angle lenses are not for facial portraits...but for full
length only. If you get so close that you get face only you will
indeed get distortion...but portraits are not JUST faces...there
are lenses that do waist up well, shoulders up, face only, and
full length.
anurag
Dear all,
I haven't bought the lens yet. Still wondering what to do. The more i
think about it, the more i lean towards a 24 mm lens. For i know that
once i bought anything else, i will start missing the landscape
capability of them, which i won't incase of a 24. What i really wanted
to make sure was, 'is it impossible to make portraits from a 24?',
which i guess is not. Other reason is that i can anyday go out and buy
a 50 1.8, but i won't be able to do that with 24. I don't want to buy
many lenses, and i know if i buy 28 or 35 in place of a 24, that will
be it for long for i can't afford everything. Yet another reason is
that i will want something truely wide apart from the long 85 which i
have.
The only other lens which is attracting me is 35 and not 28. But then,
i have a stylus epic which has a pretty good 35 2.8 lens. I hope you
think i'm right here.
thanks, regards,
anurag
Lewis Lang
>From: somo...@yahoo.com (anurag)
>Date: Sun, Jul 29, 2001 8:31 AM
>Message-id: <21b1c6f4.0107...@posting.google.com>
>
>somo...@yahoo.com (anurag) wrote in message
news:<21b1c6f4.0107...@posting.google.com>...
>> Dear all,
>>
>> Or is it better to do them using a 28, or 35 mm lens? I have a 85 mm
>> lens and i wanna buy a wide angle. wondering which one should i buy.
>> Portraits is my main area of interest and i am looking forward to
>> making those environmental portraits using a wide angle. It will be
>> nice to hear from you all.
>>
>> thanks, regards,
>> anurag
>
>Dear all,
>
>I haven't bought the lens yet. Still wondering what to do. The more i
>think about it, the more i lean towards a 24 mm lens. For i know that
>once i bought anything else, i will start missing the landscape
>capability of them, which i won't incase of a 24. What i really wanted
>to make sure was, 'is it impossible to make portraits from a 24?',
>which i guess is not.
You guess wrong Anurag. You can make portraits w/ any lens, I've even made
portraits w/ fisheye lenses! Usually 24mm is used for more environmental
portraiture to show the subject in its surroundings but you can use it closer
to the subject's head too, depending on the nature of the shot. The least
distortion of a fisheye lens (an ultra wide angle, usually between 15 and 17mm,
but could be an even shorter focal length, full frame image lens that bends the
line more towards the edges w/ barrel distortion) is at its center. By putting
your subject near the center of a wide angle lens and shooting from a distance
of a meter or two away from your subject and keeping your camera's back
perpendicular to the ground/parallel w/ your subject you can minimize
distortion effects. Or you can go for the oppositte effect in order to make
your subject appear more forceful by shooting low and tlting up to include your
subject, or you can place your subject in the corner of the frame and allow
both the subject’s position near an edge/corner of the frame and the
“keystoning”/tilting/squeezing/leaning of the subject’s body and/or face
towards the corners of the frame (especially prevalent when done w/ ultra wide
angle lenses) provide an effect/mood of “alienation.” For more standard
headshots you could use your 85mm (or longer) lens. Let your eye determine what
works and doesn’t work for a portrait, not the numbers/focal length on your
lenses...
Here are some links to some “portraits” of mine taken w/ wide angle to fisheye
lenses:
These shots were taken w/ various 16mm fisheye lenses:
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn3/we1.htm">"YOUNG AMERICANS #1"</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll9.htm">"CHARLIE AND ME #1"</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll13.htm">"SILVER DREAMS"</A>
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st6.htm">"LONG-TERM
PARKING/SHORT-TERM MEMORY…"</A>
And this portrait shot was taken w/ a 24-70mm Tamron zoom at 24mm:
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn3/we4.htm">"JUST ANOTHER DAY"</A>
This shot was taken w/ a Nikon 24mm AF lens (D? lens):
<A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st4.htm">"WHO'S ON FIRST?"</A>
Dilbertdroid
24mm as a portrait lens...but it is mostly used for full length unless
your wish is to distort the facial features.
I said "The wide angle lenses are not for facial portraits...but for
full length only.." . In saying this I did not SAY they can not be
used for facial potraits...just that their typical use is for full length. >>
Sorry, you're doing a far better job of arguing with yourself than I can.
Perhaps YOU should reread your own post.
anurag
portraits with a fish eye lens, i can definitely make them with a 24.
That gives me confidence. Thanks,
anurag
cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message news:<20010729050036...@ng-cn1.aol.com>...
> both the subject’s position near an edge/corner of the frame and the
> “keystoning”/tilting/squeezing/leaning of the subject’s body and/or face
> towards the corners of the frame (especially prevalent when done w/ ultra wide
> angle lenses) provide an effect/mood of “alienation.” For more standard
> headshots you could use your 85mm (or longer) lens. Let your eye determine what
> works and doesn’t work for a portrait, not the numbers/focal length on your
> lenses...
>
> Here are some links to some “portraits” of mine taken w/ wide angle to fisheye
> lenses:
>
> These shots were taken w/ various 16mm fisheye lenses:
>
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn3/we1.htm">"YOUNG AMERICANS #1"</A>
>
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll9.htm">"CHARLIE AND ME #1"</A>
>
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn/ll13.htm">"SILVER DREAMS"</A>
>
> <A HREF="http://members.aol.com/Lewisvisn2/st6.htm">"LONG-TERM
> PARKING/SHORT-TERM MEMORY…"</A>
Lewis Lang
>From: somo...@yahoo.com (anurag)
>Message-id: <21b1c6f4.01073...@posting.google.com>
>
>I saw your pictures, they are cool. If you can make such nice
>portraits with a fish eye lens, i can definitely make them with a 24.
>That gives me confidence. Thanks,
>anurag
Your welcome, anurag, glad to be of service ;-) :-)
Mike Simanyi
beach that has an identical bluff and stair structure as captured in your photo.
Mike
Lewis Lang wrote:
snip...
McEowen
portraits shot with a 24mm. How else do you think they show the environment in
the background.
Stephen M. Dunn
$Look at any newspaper or magazine. You'll see lots -- the majority maybe -- of
$portraits shot with a 24mm. How else do you think they show the environment in
$the background.
If you're planning on filling the frame with your subject's face,
24mm is usually a bad idea, because you'll be moving in quite close
to the person and you get some perspective effects that you probably
don't want. For example, their nose will appear to grow, and it
may look like someone's stretching their head from front-to-back.
For an example, look at yourself in a mirror from a meter or so away,
then move up close to the mirror, and notice how different you look.
If that's not the effect you're looking for, then don't shoot
full-frame faces with a 24mm lens :-)
But like McEowen points out, if you want to show the person in
a given environment, making the environment part of the portrait,
24mm may be a good choice. If you're standing far enough back from the
person that you don't get weird perspective effects, the person will
look normal, and the wide view and extra depth-of-field of a wide-angle
lens will do a good job of showing the whole scene.
--
Stephen M. Dunn <ste...@stevedunn.ca>
>>>----------------> http://www.stevedunn.ca/ <----------------<<<
------------------------------------------------------------------
Say hi to my cat -- http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/toby/
Lewis Lang
>Date: Sat, Aug 4, 2001 6:19 AM
>Message-id: <3B6B85E4...@redsand.com>
>
>Just curious, Lewis... was "Young Americans" shot in Encinitas, CA? I live
>near a
>beach that has an identical bluff and stair structure as captured in your
>photo.
>
>Mike
>
>Lewis Lang wrote:
>
>snip...
>
>> These shots were taken w/ various 16mm fisheye lenses:
>>
>>
Mike:
No, that was shot somewhere near Goleta, but I don't know if it still lookslike
that or not - that particular bluff is very "Californian" and probably, as
such, is evocative of many other bluffs that stretch up and down the coast. The
blond-haired kid on the right of the surf board reminds me of/looks to me like
Christopher Titus from the tv show sitcom "Titus" - I don't know if it is him
or not, they're probably about the same age though...
anurag
for full frame portraits. fine. but can somebody discuss which lens is
better in making environmental portraits: a 35, a 28 or a 24? I mean
you got to include the person even in an environmental portrait and
the wider you go the smaller the image of the guy becomes. On the
other hand, there must be some qualities specific to 24 that will make
the portraits distinctive than the above two. Can we discuss that? (I
haven't bought the lens yet, shooting with a 85 and a FM3A, sold my
28-105 and felt lighter after doing that)
love,
anurag
cont...@aol.comnospam (Lewis Lang) wrote in message news:<20010804215508...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
Lewis Lang
>Date: Mon, Aug 6, 2001 9:47 AM
>Message-id: <21b1c6f4.01080...@posting.google.com>
>
>Everybody says that 24 mm is good for environmental portraits and bad
>for full frame portraits. fine. but can somebody discuss which lens is
>better in making environmental portraits: a 35, a 28 or a 24? I mean
>you got to include the person even in an environmental portrait and
>the wider you go the smaller the image of the guy becomes. On the
>other hand, there must be some qualities specific to 24 that will make
>the portraits distinctive than the above two. Can we discuss that? (I
>haven't bought the lens yet, shooting with a 85 and a FM3A, sold my
>28-105 and felt lighter after doing that)
>love,
>anurag
anurag:
Every situation is different. Sometimes a 35mm will work better than a 24mm for
an environmental portrait and sometimes the oppositte. If you want to keep the
subject the same size w/ a 24mm as w/ a longer 35mm lens then you'll have to
move in closer w/ the 24mm lens than you would be with the 35mm. This changes
perspective of both the person and the background and their relationship in
space to one another - you might end up liking the stretched out/in depth
perspective of a 24mm used up close to your subject yet including a large
expanse of background due to its wide angle of view or you might prefer the
more "flattened" environmental portrait you get w/ a 35mm lens used from
further back to get the same sized subject but see less of the background than
w/ the 24mm lens.
The best piece of advice I or anyone else could give you would be to, in leiu
of borrowing/renting all 3 wide angles, get yourself a zoom (rent it if you
can) and go out and start making some environmental portraits and see which
focal lengths along the zoom range work best for the types of shots you'd like
to do. You might find out that you favor one focal length over all the others,
or you may find you prefer to shoot at a couple of focal lengths, or you may
find yourself using most of the wide angle focal lengths along the zoom's range
(or any combination of the above) so you might end up w/:
1. One favorite fixed focal length wide angle lens
2. Several favorite fixed focal length lenses
3. Just one zoom that covers all of your wide angle focal lengths (and possibly
some of the telephoto focal lengths too)
4. One zoom and one or more fixed focal length lenses for their brighter
apertures, less flaring, less vignetting, closer focusing properties, better
contrast and/or color rendition, etc.
5. Many zooms and/or fixed focal length wide angle lenses (ie. a 20-35mm and a
24-85 or 28-70mm zoom(s))
6. Too many lenses and a broke bank account ;-).
I've tried to be as objective as possible and keep my own focal length
preference s out of this post because what I may like for environment al
portraits/the lenses that work for me might not work for you as we may both
have very different tastes and/or styles of composing.
Hope this helps...
McEowen
for full frame portraits. fine. but can somebody discuss which lens is
better in making environmental portraits: a 35, a 28 or a 24? I mean
you got to include the person even in an environmental portrait and
the wider you go the smaller the image of the guy becomes. On the
other hand, there must be some qualities specific to 24 that will make
the portraits distinctive than the above two. >>
The 24mm is "JUST RIGHT." It provides the right amount of background with a
spacial relationship that seems normal to the viewers eye. As long as you don't
go much tighter than mid-chest up on your subject (in a horizontal frame) and
you keep the camera level, the wideangle distortion is not a problem. The 24mm
is just a perfect focal length. A 20mm is TOO wide (background objects appear
too small) and the 35mm is too restrictive. It may take a while to get the hang
of the 24mm -- my advice: get closer! -- but once you do, you'll love it . . .