Zooms or primes for portraits?

I shoot almost nothing but portraits anymore and over the years sold all my zooms except for the 70-200 which I still like a lot
I love my 35, 50, 100 combo on FF
the crucial points for me are low light, distortion and weight

I dont really like the 50mm on my crop body

File: DSC04463.jpg (3MB, 3264x4912px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x4912px

primes are great for just how well the isolate the subject

use a 35 50 85 100 and maybe 135mm

try to get the absolute lowest f-stop you can find/afford

50mm is the most "real to life" look for portraits, and 85 gives the best out of focus backgrounds

also cheaper old primes tend to be extremely sharp, and a focal reducer isn't bad if you aren't autistic and want that FF look if you own a mirror-less apsc camera, but FF is always preferred if money isn't an issue

pic related is some quick snapshit with a 50mm 1.4 on an apsc sensor

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	NEX-5R
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:04 19:47:13
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	2.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3089307
50 on crop is basically all you need for basic portraits

>>3089314
i dont really ever do portraits

>>3089318
well too bad that's what this thread is about

>>3089318
B-but why comment?

50mm is perfect OP. go for it.

a 'professional' set of primes just would be 35mmF1.4 and 85mmF1.4 for portraits but you can achieve a good results with a F1.8 either, and zoom would be a 24-70mmF2.8.

I like to shoot with prime lens, but I'm considering a 24-70 because portability and just keep it attached to my camera instead of changing lens.

the cons and pros you might have read any other place. Just ask your wallet what you should do

Doesn't matter unless you want to have the best possible quality. Then you would want to use primes. Portraits are not about the lens. It's all about how you frame with what you've got. You can do portraits with a 50mm or a 500mm if you understand how it works. Sure it's unnatural to do it with 500mm, but the point is understanding the elements that make a portrait good come first before concern of the lens being used.

>>3089329
I know that 50mm is a good focal length, but I'm looking at getting a 17-50 f/2.8 first and see how that serves me before I get a dedicated portrait lens, because right now I'm using the 18-55 kit lens.

The facial distortion is what I'm mainly wondering about because I used to shoot with a 35mm f/1.8 and I liked that focal length more because I have a big ugly wide head so making it look slimmer with a wider lens looked better for self portraits, but it seems like most pros rarely use anything below a 85mm FF equivalent.

I'm mostly wondering what pros and other people do with regards to zooms vs primes, I mean, the benefit to primes is that it usually is sharper and has a shallower depth of field, but how often do you need to shoot at f/1.8 or lower? It seems like you'd be better off with a zoom so you can adjust the facial distortion to what looks the best for your model instead of having to switch between a bunch of different primes.

>>3089281
85mm on FF all day. enough separation without too much face flattening, doesn't make people uncomfy because you are so close

It doesn't fucking matter.

There is no practical visible difference between a prime and a zoom.

The best portrait lens is a 70-200 f/2.8.

>>3089318
it's almost as if you didn't read what the thread was about and just came here to let loose a brain fart

most of the stuff I do is cosplay photography which is kinda like portraits.
I personally use a 35mm Nikon when I'm at cons and a 58mm Helios for private shoots because I prefer the bokeh on it.
Primes allow for a shallower depth of field and better subject isolation.
If you need to zoom in/out just walk to and from the subject.

>>3090134
>Primes allow for a shallower depth of field and better subject isolation
this isn't true

>>3090141
primes tend to be faster. most zoom lenses have a higher minimum f-stop.

>>3090146
that's not what you/they said

>>3089705
Kys

>>3089281
>zoom lens if you're a fat oily bastard
>prime lens if you have 2 functional feet

File: 1432774340.png?250.png (168KB, 475x249px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 475x249px

>but it seems to me like primes are more common than zooms for portraits.
1. Your lens needs to be a certain distance to the subject, or else the perspective will cause undesirable distortions.
2. People just sort of found out the 85mm focal length forces you to be at a good distance to the subject, and therefore good at portraits.

>Q. Why primes though?
People would rather hold a smaller 85 prime than the 70-200 zoom. I think it's that simple. Also F1,8 and F1,4.

>Does it just come down to the sharpness
Technically, yes.
You could actually just use a 24-70 zoom, and use the 70mm end, and stand at a similar distance as you would with an 85mm.
This will give you the same perspective, and avoid those big noses.
But your 70mm would have more environment in the frame, compared to just having the subject in the frame.
Thus, in the 70mm you get less resolution of the subject, because the subject occupies less area in your censor than otherwise with an 85mm.

File: 20170604-DSC06388.jpg (337KB, 2048x1152px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 2048x1152px

>>3089281
Both. What you need is to get the right framing at the right distance. Don't fall in the lolbokeh trap, shoot at least f/5.6. Also sharpness isn't critical on a portrait, especially when your $2000 Zeiss ™ lense gives you too much skin details.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Windows)
Photographer	David Mornet
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:06:06 20:25:30
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	640
Brightness	-1.2 EV
Exposure Bias	0.7 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Hard
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Hard

>>3089281
200mm 2.8 for portraits.

>>3091104
300mm f/2.8, medium format

>>3089281
if you're shooting portraits, that means you're a studio setting or doing a photoshoot where you get to decide when you take the picture and from where. there's no need for the flexibility of a zoom in this situation

>>3089281
>Zooms or primes for portraits?
You're not asking the right question.

>>3093563
>Needs a new question
Are you a pedophile or are you really fucked up?

>>3089281
Good primes. Of course you can change focal lengths if you need to. You just swap the prime.

Not that I expect most portrait shoots for using more than just one or two lenses, but I guess YMMV.

primes if you want best IQ possible.
Zooms if you don't like to change lenses, need to be able to change focal length quick, or are lazy.

>>3089312
>50mm is the most "real to life" look for portraits
Keep in mind this only applies to a full-frame sensor.
On your APS-C sensor, it'd actually be 35mm focal length.