Portrait Photography: 85mm (Canon f/1.8)
click image
click image
Hi Gang,
Today’s post is about a new portrait lens I’m using. Its also about lighting.
The lens I’m using in these images is an 85mm f/1.8 (Nikon also makes this lens, but the reviews aren’t as strong as they are for the Canon). Its amazingly sharp, gives GREAT control over depth of field, its fast (f/1.8) and its relatively cheap ($400). If you don’t have this lens, rent one for your next street photography outing, family reunion, or studio shoot.
The first image is a client/studio shoot I did recently, using the 85mm. The lighting in this is complicated, perhaps more so then necessary, but essentially there was a lot of layering of light. Some of the lighting is fairly obvious. I have a background light, “rim” lights coming in from behind and both sides of the subject. Then I used two umbrellas/lights to give a base of lighting to the full torso. The last light was a beauty dish, to finish off the exposure of the face. Additionally, I shot on a neutral gray background. This allows me, with a great amount of detailed photoshop work, to tone the background exactly the way I want it. Technical: f/5.0 with the 85mm
The second image was shot this past weekend at a Johnson family reunion and the lighting was much more simple. One strobe with a large octobox (softbox). I used a shadow cast by the house to soften the direct sunlight, dialed in my exposure to manage the background and adjusted the light to what I wanted for output. I shot 30 family portraits in the afternoon using this setup. Technical: f/13 with the 85mm
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=c26c4a90-3a0a-4164-88d0-438716666ac1)
Related posts:
Very nice, what distance (or range of distance) are you away from the subject with the 85mm? I cannot believe that is a $400 dollar lens……. the results are terrific. I have a Canon 100mm f.2 which is not a prime lens but all the results look like a prime lens for a similar price. For me the 100mm simplifies things because it all but eliminates the background except for needing to watch the blobs of color in the negative spaces, but its a up close a personal lens. Thanks for sharing – looks like a nice gathering.
Travis
Alec, I have two dumb questions:
For the second shot, did you use exposure compensation for either the flash or the camera?
If you set the camera for a certain f-stop, how do you control for depth of field? Won't that always be the same for any particular f-stop??
Hey T,
In both cases I'm within a few feet. I also shot some large group portraits where I had to pull back to 10 feet or so, and still loved the lens.
Man that is AMAZINGLY sharp!
The effect with your little girl is especially striking – the sharpness of all the curls and waves only accentuate her smooth baby skin. I love the angle of how you captured her too – right at her level, and the fact that she is looking out makes it all about her (not the relationship between her and the camera).
Hi Kevin, these are excellent questions:
1) Technically no, practically yes. I was shooting in manual mode and FIRST got my exposure set for the background. This was at ISO 100 f/13. This was probably a stop below what would be considered a neutral or averaged exposure. So practically speaking, I compensated about a stop for the camera. I was shooting with a studio strobe light which DOESN'T have the feature of exposure compensation, so I just set it to what I wanted, which turned out to be full power (Alien Bees 1600).
2) So, this is a dangerous question because I'm not overly technically competent on optics, but here is my experience. The wider the lens, the harder it is to get LITTLE depth of field. That is, even at f/2.8 on 16-35mm lens, I get incredible (but not critical) sharpness everywhere outside of about 3 feet from the lens. This is probably as much to do with proximity to subject. Then again, if I shoot with my 70-200mm in the studio at f/5 and a working distance of 5-7feet to subject, I have to worry about both eyes being critically sharp, so I never shoot it below f/10 in the studio. With the 85mm at f/5 I had no worries. So, it seems to me there is this relationship between lens zoom, aperture, and working distance that makes a certain combination very nice to work with. There is something about the 85mm combination that is quite nice.
Now, I've read in other forums on this issue. Some very technically knowledgeable people have argued that zoom does not affect depth of field for a given aperture. On one hand I'd love a definitive answer to this, on the other I don't really care, I just learn how to use my equipment to get the most out of it.
I'm pretty sure I haven't answered your question though. 
Amy,
Just for clarification SHE'S NOT MINE
Cheers,
alec
You have to love the 85mm 1.8; even if it is Nikon.
What I love about the image of the girl is the separation from the background. I see this as such a strength of this lens. Although the studio shot does the same thing, you are not as aware of it given the background. It has always been my favorite lens for portraits.
I can't wait to see more from the family reunion.
KG
You motivated me. I went out on Friday and bought a 50mm f1.8 prime lens for my camera. (Up to this point, I've used a 18-200mm zoom for everything.) It's a Nikkor, and is only $150 new. Now I can take those shots I wanted before, but without a flash, high ISO, or slow shutter speed. With the conversion to digital, it's equivalent to a 73MM lens on a 35mm or full frame digital. The sharpness far surpasses anything I could get with my zoom lens. Thanks for giving me that “boost” to finally get what I knew I should have had a long time ago!