35mm(50) vs 50(75) for portraits

Bobby T

Out Of Nowhere
So, this isn’t another typical which focal length is better for portrait work. That discussion has been beaten to death, resurrected, and beaten to death. In the Fuji lineup I’ve been able to shoot great portraits with nearly every lens they make

Recently, in an effort to simplify down my kit, I sold off my 35mm lenses. And in the past week I’ve done some portrait stuff with the 50mm f2. Which is what lead to this post.

As mentioned above, the quality of the photos using the 50 f2 is a non issue. What does seem to be an unforeseen issue, is the working distance. When I shoot portraits, I have a ton of interaction with the person I’m photographing. By switching to the 50 from the 35, I feel like it moves me farther enough away that there is a disconnect from the person I’m photographing. I loss of intimacy from the photo because of not being close to the subject. Everyone who tours the loner focal lengths for portraits always do so on technical merits. To me, a good portrait is just as much about connection with the person as it is about the technical side.

I would love to hear the thoughts of other people shooters.
 
I prefer my 45 over my 85 for just that.
I've been enjoying conversing with my subjects while taking "test" shots. A high number of keepers come from it. It relieves the pressure and allows for a natural, relaxed look.
 
I do the same thing with “test shots”. I was actually surprised that the ladies we worked with yesterday never caught on that we were “setting the lights” the entire time.
 
I find it tougher with 50 equivalent. I know portraiture is more than just head-and-shoulders, but my mental and muscle memory are too long ingrained - I automatically fall back to an 85mm working distance.
 
I uses to be all about the 50mm FL. I then recently switched it up to the FF 45mm/85mm lenses like John who mentioned it in his post above. Focal lengths that don't do it for me are 35mm and anything longer than 85mm. If you have working space, I think one should only use wider focal lengths when in cramped spaces. Beyond 85mm and you lose the ability to properly direct your subject. I'd rather hit the key prime portrait lengths and then compensate for wider/longer FLs using zooms.
 
Last edited:
I’ve been finding I feel disconnected from the person I’m photographing with anything longer than FF 50mm. While that isn’t shouting distance, it loses some intimacy. But one of the great things with photography is that it allows for people to work the way they like best.
 
I’ve been finding I feel disconnected from the person I’m photographing with anything longer than FF 50mm. While that isn’t shouting distance, it loses some intimacy. But one of the great things with photography is that it allows for people to work the way they like best.

Yeah 50mm is also my favorite, but sometimes you might have a model with a very tall or flat nose and going longer actually helps in minimizing "nasal" distortion! Also I found with some body types, 35mm might make skinnier people look too elongated and 50mm might make curvier people look more stockier. Hence the focal length also correlates just as much with the appearance of the subject.
 
Posting examples of the type of portraits that you shoot would be helpful.

"Environmental Portraits" - a longer focal length lens would be appropriate.
Interacting with the subject to gain the desired portrait means getting closer in.
 
Yeah 50mm is also my favorite, but sometimes you might have a model with a very tall or flat nose and going longer actually helps in minimizing "nasal" distortion! Also I found with some body types, 35mm might make skinnier people look too elongated and 50mm might make curvier people look more stockier. Hence the focal length also correlates just as much with the appearance of the subject.

I’ve found that exploring different angles and compositions helps with all of this also.


"Environmental Portraits" - a longer focal length lens would be appropriate.
Interacting with the subject to gain the desired portrait means getting closer in.
Longer focal lengths would take some of the environment out of environmental portraits. Unless you are farther back.

Getting closer in is what I find I really prefer.
 
I'd like to check in on this thread, It's been over a year since the last post- what has happened? What distances are we talking about?
Who's grown accustomed to working differently?
Did anyone revert to their old ways?
Are you blending your approach(es)?
 
I haven't done portraits much at all but if I had the chance, I'd probably choose the road less traveled: 35 and 50mm (equivs). Backgrounds are much easier to manage with a 90mm but that's what I think.
 
My definite favourite in the last two years - with the best results - is the 1.8/75mm .
I even used this for application photos for my son who was put off by the job the local pgotographer did.

As I prefer taking portraits with "natural" features this gives me enough distance to be "out of focus" for the person. I prefer to have them conversing with someone so I get as many different facial expressiona as possible. And the background is just a beautiful creamy bokeh, so the portraits are isolated from the background.

If however the background is important, the 35 is my preference over th 50 . As to "breaking the ice" with the models I start talking with them telling them I need to do the settings first. With the LCD flipped to horizontal position I take some shots without them realizing it ... still conversing. Quite often some of these were the keepers.

Often enough I've heard them say "I always look bad on photos" before the shot and "I like myself this way" when they see the shot.
 
I'd like to check in on this thread, It's been over a year since the last post- what has happened? What distances are we talking about?
Who's grown accustomed to working differently?
Did anyone revert to their old ways?
Are you blending your approach(es)?
While I was still working with primes, I found myself shooting lit portraits with the 35mm(50mm FF) around 85% of the time. Now that I have switched to the X-T3/16-55, the exif is showing I stay in the 35-45mm range still. For me, it seems being closer to the subject for better interaction has become a habit. I do wish to explore shooting some portraits with the 50-140 as it is an excellent lens. Although I have a feeling everything would shot around the 50mm range knowing how I work.
 
I've been enjoying shooting more with wider lenses.
Full lengthers in my short garage with 28 and 35 equivalents.
The 45/50(Fuji 35) is still my go-to.
Note to self: shoot more with 85(Viltrox 56).

I prefer my 45 over my 85 for just that.
I've been enjoying conversing with my subjects while taking "test" shots. A high number of keepers come from it. It relieves the pressure and allows for a natural, relaxed look.
 
I do a lot of walking and talking. Meaning, if I am using a longer focal length I actual increase my verbality to the subject when at shooting distance, and when not....I walk right up to them and have further conversations.

Sometimes I cannot do that. I had a wedding shoot a few years (when I still did weddings....toofah....). I was at a yard sale and someone there had some high quality walkie talkies for sale for $10 for 4 of them. I brought those along and positioned my wife off scene. She relayed any instructions I had to the wedding party while I shot this scene with 200mm across the park. That 200mm was on the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8D lens on a D700! There are times when I miss that old 80-200mm. It was the first "professional" Nikon optic I could ever afford.

09-29-2012_D700_gabrich_wed_DSC_2123.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Sometimes you've got to think outside the box and be creative.
 
You were mentioning lack of intamacy Bobby - well you know that Fuji 16mm F1.4 lens? I thought that was absolutely fantastic for portraits, particularly wide open, which I know were not supposed to do. I remember wondering why this was. Possibly the ability to focus really close which you can’t do with most ‘portrait’ lenses? But some of my best portraits have been with that lens (the 35 F1.4 too, but that’s a bit more obvious). I think also, the wider focal length resulted in more, I dunno, character being revealed in the person when composing on just the face. I’m pretty sure a lot of this had to do with that lens. I have a rangefinder setup these days but I can’t do with that what I achieved with the 16mm and I do miss it.
 
I have shot some amazing portraits with the 16mm 1.4. You are spot on in saying the close focus capability is the reason why one can get away with using such a wide focal length for a portrait. The Fuji 16mm 1.4 is unique in the realm of 24mm equivalent focal length lenses in it's ability to focus so close. Coupled with it's beautiful rendering, the 16 is a great all around lens. And now you're making me miss having one as well.
 
Back
Top