Why 85 mm lens

heartyfisher

KnockKnock said:

Did a search, no one has mentioned it yet. Weight, size, light-capturing at f/1.8-2.7999.

??

PeachBlack

Thanks Hearty.

I just want to emphasize something that you keep ignoring because you're focused on the technical aspects of the shot. I know that this is a gear-focused forum, but we have to remember something: portraits are not simply taken, they are *created.* Other types of photos, for instance street or architecture, are taken. Sure you have to know a lot about getting good angles and stuff like that, but you don't actively interact with and mold the subject.

Any monkey with a camera can set up a few lights and take a picture. What separates a great portrait or fashion photographer is the ability to get the subject to give the right looks. Now I'm not a great portrait photographer, but I'm pretty good. I'm constantly talking to the subject... constantly. Typically I'll be like "chin a little down, lean a little forward, not so much, look at me like I just broke your heart, front shoulder down, angry, less angry. open your mouth a little, a little left, there, great, beautiful, we've almost got this, you're bored, not that bored, am I that boring? lean a little left, not that much, etc. for a few hours.

The vast majority of novices simply just take pictures. Would-be fashion photographers too often say things like "okay, do some poses" and then wonder why their pictures aren't great (or worse don't wonder thinking they did a great job). First of all, the model has no idea what to do and is just making stuff up, and secondly, the model is probably thinking "this dude has no clue what he's doing, these are going to suck, oh well, let's get through this." That's not a recipe for great photos.

So 85mm allows you to communicate easily with the subject when doing head & torso shots. Well, you say, I can use a zoom and get all kinds of shots, especially if I'm shooting ƒ8. True, but consider: certain focal lengths lend themselves to certain types of composition. We are all creatures of habit, and we all tend to fall into certain patterns of behavior. I have often gotten home and thought, crap, all of my photos look the same. A few years ago I used the 85/1.4g almost exclusively, and all of my photos tended to have really tight compositions. At one point I decided that my photos needed more cinematic compositions that incorporated not only the subject, but the scene. Sure you can do this with an 85, but you need tons of room and you lose contact with the subject, which as I note above, is critical.

So the upside of zooms is that they are versatile, which is great if you are shooting a wedding. It's true that zooms are also less sharp and don't provide the open apertures that I like, but to me their versatility is also a downside. In the midst of shooting with a 24-70, my natural inclination is to shoot at 70, and I drift to those kinds of shots. If I go to a shoot with one camera having an 85 and the other having a 35, I will have very different shots because of the way the lens forces me to compose shots. To me, this is a good thing. I purposefully change cameras and force myself to take different kinds of shots.

So sure, you insist that you can theoretically take the same kinds of shots with other lenses, but the truth is more subtle and complicated, and misses the human factor.

KnockKnock

Great to have you back PB. Hearty: I guess I was being too brief. One of your earlier entries asked, why choose 85mm over a 70-something zoom f/2.8 (?). So I bring physical dimensions into the conversation. The 85 is lighter and smaller. Most experienced photographers here know what that can imply so I chose not to explain further. Briefly, I don't like big heavy gear, or the price of the big zooms.

Everyone else has discussed the look, the light-gathering ability, so I reference that by the f-stops you can't do with an f/2.8 lens that you can do with, say, an f/1.8 lens.

Hope that makes sense. I know that I do tend to write in shorthand - but you wouldn't like me when I blather on :-P

heartyfisher

Thanks for explaining Knock2 :-)

However, I also suggested that the (24,28,35)-70 could also be a replacement. I have been using my Nikon 35-70 F2.8 for many years and recently got the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC. The size/weight is close(still a bit heavier and larger) but of course no F1.4-2.7999 Magic :-)

PeachBlack

If you're at all concerned about weight, don't even think about the 85/1.4 Art from Sigma. It feels more like a 70-200/2.8 on the camera more than anything else.

donaldejose

This is a worthwhile discussion Heartyfisher. "Magic" lenses and "magic" cameras equal "hype." There is no "magic" other than in our post-processing software which now allows us to easily create images which no camera could take. When people claim this or that piece of equipment is "magic" they are just exaggerating. IMHO the 85 mm is a "good compromise" for portraiture. Specific 85s just have different characteristics: understand the characteristics and select the tool best able to achieve the effect you are going for. If you are going for a "Joe Edelman" type of portrait (www.youtube.com/watch?v=MLplI78p8Zg) you can use the Tokina 100mm f2.8 at f5.6 or f8 or use any zoom in the range of 85 to 200 at f5.6. Joe thinks all this shooting at f1.4 is no more than a passing fad. He believes both eyes should always be in focus. On the other hand, if you are going for a "PitchBlack" type portrait (http://www.pitchblackpolo.com/) use Sigma Art 35, 50 or 85 lenses at f1.4. Neither approach is "magic." They are just different.

I would rephrase the original question which started this thread to "Why is the 85mm length considered a good length for portraits?" and I would answer: Because for head and shoulder portraits 85mm is the start of the range (from 85 to 200) which does not distort the face so it is the lens that allows you to get the closest to the model without being uncomfortably close to them so you can form a "relationship" with your subject to better evoke the expressions you are seeking. As a rule of thumb for avoiding facial distortion for half body shots you can use a 50mm lens and for full body shots you can use a 35mm lens. I think a 24 or 28 mm lens is most likely unusable for any portrait shooting unless you are trying to achieve some type of "artsy" effect using distortion.

I should add that I find something a bit different than the usual recommendations in my experience shooting head and shoulder shots. I find shooting at around 135mm at f4 to give me the best results. Why? 1. Because my subjects are not professional models so they get more uncomfortable the closer I get to them and at 135mm I can comfortably crop to a head shot while they are the distance from the photographer they are used to being when someone is making a quick three fourths body snapshot. 2. Because my subjects want both eyes in focus; they are not going for an "artsy" effect. 3. Because I almost always shoot portraits in a studio where I can create separation from the background by selecting a blurry or plain background so I don't need to "bokeh" out nature. I could say 135mm at f4 is "magic" for me because it works most of the time. But It is not "magic;" it is just useful in my situation. I would like to do more work at f1.4 but my subjects are not pretty enough to create "art!" If I had PitchBlack's subjects I would shoot at f1.4 also!

MegapixelSchnitzel

85 is a handy focal length. I like the fact that you can get 'em fast for available light and the lens has just enough compression to make human torsos and heads look very nice for portraiture. That being said I tend to default to a 105 for people...

PeachBlack

Hahaha... Thanks donaldejose. To be fair, on the main page of my web site, only 67% of the photos were shot wide open (I counted).

I'm not sure that ƒ1.4 is a "fad." Maybe a couple of years ago a company analyzed which photos were the most popular on Instagram. They analyzed several characteristics, and shallow depth of field was definitely a contributing factor to making photos more popular.

Additionally, full body shots at ƒ1.4 do have both eyes in focus, generally. Even tighter crops often have both eyes in focus, often. Still, I'm not sure why it's such a bad thing to have one eye out of focus. Many people don't even notice since our brain naturally looks at the nearest eye, and my most popular photos on 500px have one eye out of focus. It's something that bothers some people, but many not at all.

I mean you don't look at this photo and think, "gee, her ears aren't sharp."

heartyfisher

@PeachBlack LOL ! was that supposed to be a test ?? ( to see who was paying attention ? )

1) Its not 85mm but 50mm
2) The ears are in focus but Not the eyes !! LOL !
3) Nice Bokeh/background :-)

Rx4Photo

Here's one of my recent samples of Nikon's 85mm f/1.4 G shot at f/1.6. When Anley and I set up this shoot little did I know she'd been dealing with some boyfriend issues. I think it shows in her eyes.
I don't think shooting at wide apertures and creaming the near background is a fad at all. In fact it sets one's ability apart. No Photoshop in this effect here - it's all lens. The look is not for everybody or for every situation, but the more I know the story, the more I believe that this look adds to the mood.

WestEndFoto

Sometimes the backgrounds that are the ugliest when in focus are the most beautiful when out of focus. Sometimes out of focus backgrounds are beautiful in their own right. Sometimes they complement or highlight or remove a distraction from the subject.

This is not a fad. It is an artistic decision.

BVS

I believe it's because, at typical portrait distances, 85mm (well, a range from about 70-135mm or so) produces the most natural looking result. If the lens is too wide the face gets too distorted, and if the lens is too long the face gets too flattened and looks wider. If you Google image search "portrait focal length comparison" you'll see a number of examples.

85mm is probably a sweet spot between natural result, IQ, size, cost, ease of use, etc.

Vipmediastar_JZ

Thanks to this and 85mm art thread im been shooting with the 85mm 1.8g mostly. I`m liking the results. Glad I never sold it but im interested in the 85 art now vs the 105 1.4

Here is a recent at 1.8

heartyfisher

One of the reasons why I started this thread is to help me decide if i should get an 85mm.. :-) Thanks for all the great discussions and insights !!.

donaldejose

Yes, you should and might as well get the Sigma Art 85 f1.4!

heartyfisher

donaldejose said:

Yes, you should and might as well get the Sigma Art 85 f1.4!

LOL !

After considering all the comments and insights as best as I can... and adding to that my own tendencies .... I have the following ideas and thoughts to share.

85mm lenses on FX is indeed a "special" lense.

1) On DX its 127mm FOV is also ok but different and loses the "special-ness" of being in the optimal proximity to the subject. Still very nice.

2) It works well for FX and paired with FX there is an "extra-specialness" due to its use for Portraiture.
2.1) Optimal-Proximity to subject. For communicating and interacting with the subject.
2.2) Thinner DOF compared to DX. Not that DX is bad but because the thin DOF is a desired main attribute of portraiture and portraiture is the primary functionality for someone getting the 85mm. Almost all other 85mm functionality have more general lenses which provide better value.
2.3) Size - some say its small. I think its not really because of the size/weight but because when you are using it you are usually only using it for one thing and that's portraiture. You are focused on no other functionality at that time so why carry more weight, both physical and functional !

3) Besides Portraiture like almost all lenses it can be used other forms of photography. Eg. landscapes since it is usually a very sharp lense. However, a key secondary functionality is for street photography which extends its primary use-case of portraiture. However, it has a few key differences.
3.1) distance to subject is further and more varied. But these days you can "zoom" with crops !! A DX camera can also be used for the extra reach.
3.2) Thin DOF is not a primary requirement, nice to have but not a key attribute.
3.3) There is also a "special-ness" associated with street photography with the 85mm.
3.3.1) Size of an 85 F1.8 is small and not very intimidating eg : compared to a 70-200 F2.8.
3.3.2) The distance to subject is usually just outside the personal space of the subject !! So the photographer disappears from the subjects consciousness, and/or is not alarmed when noticed. Compared with 28 or 35 or even 50mm!
3.3.3) Extra aperture and thus more light helps a lot for night or evening street photography. ( Tamron 85 1.8 VC !! )
3.3.4) For night street photography .. Bokeh Balls !!

My own FOV preference has been 70mm on DX when using my zoom lenses ie: 105 fx but you can zoom with crop these days due to magical mega-pixies ;-)


So ....


yes.. I got a Tamron 85mm F1.8 VC !!! ...

decentrist

heartyfisher said:

So the 85mm is supposed to be a "classic" focal length for portraits...

These days with the 1.5 crop cameras it also becomes a 127.5 which i guess can be considered as the other classic focal length of 135mm. So lets talk about these 2 uses of the 85mm ... or is it exclusively used in the "classic" FX format?

Why would you get an 85mm prime when you can use a bunch of 70-200 or 24-70(or 35-70) zooms? is that aperture so important ?

All in all ... why 85mm prime? what is the hype about ?

There's no "hype". It is a combination of rendering,lack of distortion,compression,bokeh,sharpness. An 85 has the same compression whether your camera is DX or FX. It will not have the same compression as a 135mm. Your question is very broad in scope. A 24-70/35-70 will still have perspective distortion(bigger noses anyone?) up close at 70mm for facial/head shoulder shots. 70-200 zooms are nice but render flat and are big,heavy,pricey. A 85mm F/1.8G will outperform any of the other mentioned lenses from 1.8-2.8 easily regarding portraiture.

heartyfisher

WestEndFoto said:

There is nothing my bag of primes can't do that my 24-70 or upcoming 70-200 will not be able to do. However, the reverse is not true and what the zooms can't do is the photography that I really love.

The only reason that I am getting the zooms is convenience when I am shooting events and laziness if I am not shooting something serious.

So what are your "bag of primes" ?

[ I am sure we agreed here sometime ago its was a RAGE of primes .. oh well .. ;-) ]
http://forum.nikonrumors.com/discussion/3960/collective-nouns

WestEndFoto

15 3.5 AIS
20 2.8 AIS
24 2.8 AIS
24 3.5 PCE
28 2.8 AIS
40 2.0 Ultron
50 1.2 AIS
50 1.4 G
60 2.8 Macro
85 1.4 G
100 2.8 Series E
135 2.0 Dç
200 4.0 Macro
400 5.6 AIS
800 8.0 AIS
1000 11.0 Reflex

Ironheart

That's it? I have more lenses just at 50mm than that (obviously this is a joke, I only have 5 50mm lenses)

WestEndFoto

Actually, I have more than a dozen pre-AIS 50 mm lenses, but until I get a DF they are not that useful.

Vipmediastar_JZ

I only have 50mm art 50mm 1.8g 50mm 1.2 ais 55mm macro ais and 58mm G. I like the 50mm range.

KnockKnock

wait... wait...

YOW!

WestEndFoto said:

15 3.5 AIS
20 2.8 AIS
24 2.8 AIS
24 3.5 PCE
28 2.8 AIS
40 2.0 Ultron
50 1.2 AIS
50 1.4 G
60 2.8 Macro
85 1.4 G
100 2.8 Series E
135 2.0 Dç
200 4.0 Macro
400 5.6 AIS
800 8.0 AIS
1000 11.0 Reflex

In the modern world, FX, I think I could be happy with the f/1.8 AF-S versions:

20mm
24mm
35mm
58mm f/1.4
85mm

Seems like there should be a modern 105, 135, 150 in there... Nikon?

WestEndFoto

Regarding the AIS lenses from 20 to 50 mm I prefer them to the 1.8Gs. I bought them brand new a couple of years ago. They are smaller than the 1.8s, just as sharp at the apertures I shoot them at, much better built and manual focus which I love when I use them for the genres I use them for. They were made for manual focus first, not as an afterthought like on modern lenses.

If I decide to shoot editorial photography, I will buy a 35 1.4E when it comes out.

Yes, Nikon needs to some more primes in this range Knock Knock.

Pistnbroke

Peachblacks comment about photos being made not taken is the best most sensible post I have read in a long time ...I have always said photos are taken with your mouth not the camera ... nice job PB