Best lens for portrait reference taken with DSLRs

[Karine Monaco]

Thank you Mike and Marvin,

Both your posts are very instructive and helped me understand better what I needed to take into account when making my choice.

Mike, I have read the information that you posted on the other thread, which was very informative and helpful. It took me time, though, to understand the contents of the article you linked it to!

I still had a question when reading that information, which was : How can I know, in the future (with new advanced technologies coming), that the ratio (FLM) you are talking about, has changed?

And I have got my answer. So I might post it in that other thread so that people like me can get an answer to their question too ;-)

Marvin, you explained many things in a very clear way. Thank you for taking the time to share this information in such a simple manner. It's so much easier to understand things now.

I told you I was illiterate...

So I have a few more questions...

I still cannot quite understand all that I am reading, like, for instance, what means a

[Laurel Alanna McBrine]

Ask and you shall receive – here is a review! Hopefully some other people will chime in as well, as I would also like to hear what has worked for others.

After a lot of research, I chose to buy a Nikon D50 camera along with a Nikkor AFS 24-120 mm VR lens in January 2006. I am still searching for the holy grail of lenses, but initially I wanted an all-purpose lens I could just leave on the camera, especially for travel photography. Despite the fact that I already had Canon lenses from my old film camera, I switched to Nikon mostly because I really wanted spot metering, which was not available on the equivalent Canon DSLR model at the time.

My reasons for choosing this combination were:

• relatively lightweight
• reasonable cost
• good all-purpose lens
• spot metering
• comparatively little distortion
• good range for portraiture
• works well in low light

Some reviewers have found that the lens produces images that are a bit soft, but it has worked out fine for my purposes, which include photo reference for painting and travel photography. Buying a lens that takes sharper photos would likely cost a great deal more and be far heavier and bulky. When I use photographs as a reference for painting portraits, I don’t make color prints at all, so I am not worried about making crisp blowups to paint from. Instead, I view a number of images on my computer screen which show different exposures.

Sometimes there is a bit of difficulty with the camera trying unsuccessfully to focus in low light situations, but I usually just focus manually when the need arises. I have some travel photographs at www.pragueidyll.blogspot.com, all taken with this setup. The main frustration with the lens occurs when taking pictures of interiors (can’t capture as much of the room as I would like) and buildings (where you definitely see some barrel distortion). For this, I really need to get another lens with greater wide angle capability. If you are mostly going to use the camera for photo reference for painting portraits and shooting artwork, you may be perfectly happy without the wider angle.

When I was making a decision about which lens to buy, there were lenses with greater range than the 24-120 VR, but the distortion was worse, whereas the 24-120 VR has relatively little distortion, especially in the middle range of the zoom.

I believe that the 18-55 mm lens you are considering is not the best choice for portraiture. It would be great for travel, but will not allow you to take close up shots of the head and shoulders without distortion, as you will have to stand too close to the subject to accomplish it. As Marvin already pointed out, you need to get far back from your subject to avoid photographic distortion.

[Jeff Morrow]

I would absolutely not use any lens shorter than a 50mm for most reference photography. If you are shooting from a distance and including the entire body you can get away with a more wide ange lens. But generally you are safer to stay at least 40 mm and longer to avoid distortions. For instance, using a wider angle lens, a hand will look too large if it is much closer to the lens than the face.

By short lenses I mean small mm numbers, and longer lenses refer to larger mm numbers.

Also remember that the farther you are from the subject the less distortion you will get.

[Steve Craighead]

Karinne,
Back in the pre-digital days when almost everyone used a 35mm film camera, a 50mm was and is considered the standard lens. It is called the standard lens because it records in the typical photograph, i.e. a figure in a landscape, pretty much the way we see the world. Any lens shorter than a 50mm lens, like a 35mm lens etc., is considered a wide angle lens. Any lens longer than a 50mm like a 100mm lens is considered a telephoto lens. The 50mm lens works well for a figure in a landscape when the landscape is the primary subject. When you get up close to the figure and fill the frame with either a 3/4 or a head and shoulders shot, there is significant distortion. Noses get longer. Hands get huge if they are on a different plane than the body. You have to go to a telephoto lens if you want to fill the frame with your subject and record him/her without distortion. Photographers have had arguments for generations over what is the best lens for doing this or in other words what is the best portrait lens. In the 35mm format some claim an 85mm is the best, to my eye there is still some center distortion. Others claim a 135mm is the best, I think at this length the face starts flattening a little too much. From my experience, in the 35mm format, most professional photographers would say that a lens somewhere around 100mm is the best portrait lens. That's the portrait lens I have on my full frame or 35mm format camera.
Now that we're in the digital age, that 100mm portrait lens has to be translated to the kind of camera you have, to the size of the sensor in your digital camera. Although professional digital cameras have sensors in them that are the same size as a 35mm frame, many of the prosumer cameras, like the D40 you wrote about have sensors in them that are smaller than a 35mm frame. When you shrink the size of the sensor you are in effect lengthening the lens. This is called the crop factor or focal length multiplier or field of view crop (different words for the same thing). Every camera is different. The Canon D40 has a crop factor of 1.6. The Nikon D50, the camera Laurel has, has a crop factor of 1.5. That means a 62mm lens on a Canon D40 (100mm divided by 1.6= 62.5mm) and a 66mm lens on Nikon D50 (100mm divided by 1.5= 66.66) are the equivalent of a 100mm lens on a 35mm full frame camera.
A really good website to find out all about photography is DPReview (http://www.dpreview.com/), go into the discussion forums and you'll be able to acquaint yourself with every aspect of photography. There are professional as well as amateur photography questions being discussed. DPReview just did a review of the Canon D40. Check out fredmaranda.com also (http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/) for reviews and comments about lenses.
If you're going to shoot photos indoors using natural light, you need a lens with a very wide aperture. Spend the extra money to get a lens that opens to f2.8. F2.8 is what photographers call a fast lens. Fast lenses are worth every penny.
Theorectically, a zoom is the perfect lens, but there's often a trade off in detail. Zooms sometimes are a little soft when compare to primes, or lenses of one focal length. Go to the camera store with a compact flash card and take photos with a zoom and a prime lens on the camera you want to buy, bring the card back to your computer and see if you notice a difference.
And finally, yes, you can use the same lens both both to photograph your subject and to photograph your art work.
Hope this helps. Steve

[Mike McCarty]

As a caveat to the so called "fast lens" variety, such as those in the f2.8 and less variety:

These lenses are great and I wish I had a hand full, but keep in mind that aperture - AKA f-stop, is what controls "depth of field." The lower the number the narrower the depth of field.

When you take a picture of your friend standing in front of the mountain range you might wish to select an "f" number of 11 or greater (usually to a max of 22). This small hole in the lens will give the greatest depth of field and bring both your friend and the distant mountains into focus. When you select "landscape" on the program dial the camera will do it's best to push the f-stop to the upper end. When you select "Portrait" on the program dial the opposite will be true.

Most zoom lenses of the moderate price variety will not go down this far. They usually stop out at the f3.5 range. Usually, this is enough depth of field to bring the entire head into focus.

At the lowest end of the f-stop range (the biggest hole) is the so called fast lens. When you select this lower number f-stop you will get all the attributes that accompany (ample light at higher shutter speed). One of those is a very narrow depth of field. This may mean that having focused on the end of the nose, the eyes may be slightly out of focus. If you correctly focus on the eyes, the ear may be blurred. At any rate, the full depth of the head will probably not be in sharp focus.

This very narrow depth of field is no tragedy, but it can be very annoying if you are not paying attention to this detail.

[Jeff Morrow]

Yep, a good point about depth of field. If you absolutely have to use your lens wide open, then cheat a little by moving back from the subject. This will help you gain some of that lost depth of field on the subject. You can always crop later before you print out the photo.

[Laurel Alanna McBrine]

Karine,

I was wondering if you have made a decision about which camera and lens to buy and whether you could post a review about how you like your choices, from the perspective of a portrait artist?