There's something that's been troubling me a bit recently, and I want to get it off my chest. It's an irritation about the photographic equipment available today, and its fitness for the purpose for which it's most likely to be used. It has germinated over the course of testing an array of 50mm prime lenses, developed further with the recent arrival at the dpreview offices of an array of new fast primes, and finally crystallized with the relative lack of interesting new products and ideas at PMA. And it's this; most manufacturers seem be be thinking very conservatively, treating digital as though nothing's changed from the days of 35mm film, and simply aren't making the right lenses for photographers today.

My line of reasoning goes like this. Through the long history of photography, there's always been one constant; the most popular subject is people. The hardware, materials and techniques may have changed beyond all recognition, especially in the past decade, but when all is said and done our lenses are overwhelmingly trained on our family, friends and loved ones. And possibly the biggest advance over those ten years is the ability of the latest breed of DSLRS to operate effectively in low light, with such remarkable high ISO capabilities that it's now perfectly feasible to shoot indoors without the potentially ruinous effects of flash. This is in marked contrast to the days of film, as anyone who shot even ISO 800 colour negatives will attest; we can now use ISO 1600 or 3200 as a matter of course and achieve previously undreamed-of quality (remember Ilford Delta 3200 anyone?). Just throw on a fast prime, and Bob's your uncle.

The problem is though, which fast prime? The new age of the DSLR has certainly seen a resurgence in popularity of 50mm lenses, mainly because they are relatively cheap and gather lots of light. And the manufacturers appear to have cottoned on to this, with a new breed of 'fast fifties' appearing recently from Sigma, Nikon and Pentax (likewise Sony has been showing a 50mm F1.8 DT ‘concept lens’ at PMA).

But really, why 50mm? On an APS-C imager, that's equivalent to around 75mm-80mm in full frame terms. Problem is that this is a strange focal length, too long to be considered ‘normal’ yet just a bit too short for portraits (few manufacturers ever made a 75mm prime for film). The portrait range has classically been considered as being between 85mm and 135mm for comfortable 'head and shoulders' shots; personally in my book, 100mm counts as 'about right'. So it seems to me that manufacturers may be misinterpreting the appeal of those 50mm lenses; they’re popular just because they are fast and cheap, not particularly because of their focal length.

With a classic portrait lens you can shoot indoors in low light, and blur the background to oblivion

It’s not just the focal length that’s a problem, though, there's another issue with those 50mm primes, and that's the much-misunderstood concept of 'bokeh'. Now contrary to popular belief, a mere ability to blur the background is not enough; the concept of ‘bokeh’ refers to the aesthetic quality of that blur, which ideally needs to be smooth and attractive, not harsh and fussy as rendered by many 50mm lenses (a by-product of the traditional design goal of the 'standard' lens for maximum sharpness). True portrait lenses need a different optimisation, for attractive imaging at large apertures that balances sharpness against bokeh. And quite simply they need a large physical aperture, to achieve both that background blur and proper selective focus; 60mm F2.8 macro lenses don’t quite cut it I'm afraid.

Now the longer end of the portrait range can still be served quite reasonably on APS-C by 85mm lenses designed for full-frame, and at the lower end the Pentax DA* 55mm F1.4 looks like a step in the right direction. The problem is though that there's nothing much in the middle, in that 'just right' 65-70mm region. The only really convincing offering comes from Pentax (the one company, I think, that really understands primes right now, as evidenced by the new 15mm F4 ED AL), in the shape of the 70mm F2.4 AL Limited, although its compact design results in arguably too much compromise over speed. 

So what I'd like to see is the other manufacturers join in on the act, and produce a new breed of 70mm lenses optimized for shooting portraits on APS-C. These could perhaps come in two flavors, a ‘cheap and cheerful’ F2 and higher-end F1.4. No need for the manufacturers to obsess over pure sharpness or minimal vignetting wide open; let's just have something small, light and discreet to work in harmony with the new capabilities of our DSLRs.

So Sony, if you're listening; scrap that 50mm F1.8 DT, it's just 'old think' and a hangover from the days of the film. If you're really serious about making an APS-C prime, start afresh and offer something more suited to the digital era. The world will be a better place.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a0105359858e3970b01127936af7828a4

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Where are the portrait lenses?:

Comments

I like the Canon EFS 60 2.0 macro for an APS-C portrait. (=96mm). A little slow on AF, but I prefer manual focus for portrait anyway.

Sorry, make that 2.8 EFS.

I'm amazed no one's mentioned the excellent Nikkor 85/1.4 lens. I used to do portraits in the old/film days with a 135, so 85mm in DX format (127.5mm in FX format) seems to me to be a pretty good portrait focal length. And 1.4 has to be fast enough for anybody, surely...

Jens

Sigma do a very nice 70 macro which is just in the range you suggest - I've not got one, but hear some very good stuff about it from others.

50mm was always a bit long for a standard on 35mm and I always liked shorter (40 or 45) or longer (55 or 58).

Which is why Nikon comes out wiht a 35mm f1.8 DX =)

Whats the problem with using 85mm lenses on APS-C sensors? Nikon/Canon/Sony offer great 85mm lenses.

For me the classic portrait lens has always been the Leica 85/2. Nothing else even comes close.

I have been shooting portrait lenses for years. I wish someone would make 35mm versions of all the great large format portrait lenses. Rodenstock Imagon, Cooke Portrait with Knuckles, Kodak Portrait Ektar. One of the biggest problems is the APS-C size sensor. Its just not as easy to throw out the background on a small sensor. For now I use a Canon 50 f/1.0 on a 5D Mark II. This is as good as I've found in the digital age.

I quite like the Gelios 58mm f2 manual M42 lens for portraits.

I have the Russian text version: looks like it says "Teamoc" but is read out as Gelios, not as Helios like the westernised-text versions would have it.

Nice, creamy bokeh...a smooth sharpness wide open, rather than razorsharp like the Canon EF 50mm f1,8.

And very cheap too...around €20 or €30, I reckon. If you can find one.

The 58mm Nokton f1.4, mentioned by a previous poster, makes a fabulous portrait lens on DX. I used mine with my S5. Now I have a D700 the problem of portrait lenses was solved by buying a 85mm f2 and a 105mm f2.5 Ais lens. I had to buy these old lenses as there are no modern manual portrait lenses for FX. I have been hoping that Cosina would reintroduce their 75mm f2.4 and 90mm f3.5 lenses, but all we got was the 20mm wide angle which will compete with all the other wide angle designs out there. By the way, very wide aperture portrait lenses are not necessary as most people who buy portraits will, without realising it, buy the ones with the eyes and the end of the nose in focus, and for that you need f4 at most.

hey, where did my comment go?

oh right, there it is:)

can't we format these blogs like the discussion forums? they're a bit clumsy in current form.

Great discussion- hope the manufacturer's take note! Ever since I went Nikon I have been after a prime in the 85-135mm area. A 1.8-2.0 would be great, ideally with AFS (for D40/60) and VR. It should be low-ish cost and low weight.

I will get the 50/1.4AFS but it is not what I really want. And these lenses would also be great for indoor/outdoor sports.

C'mon Nikon, or at least Sigma, Tamron or Tokina....

Zooms are flexible, but a prime is a prime!

Great post!!

I like the Canon 100 f/2... if you just go full frame you won't miss a thing!!!

Some good portrait pictures here.

Exactly what I've been thinking. I bought the Canon 50/1.8 because everybody seemed to think it was a good idea, and it is cheap, sharp, relatively fast -- and fairly useless, as it does not fit any particular purpose on a 1.6x camera

I'd second Tom on his wish for a Nikon 70mm f1.8 DX portrait lens - the new 35mm DX gives some hope it may happen, but not holding my hopes too high.
Of course there is the 85mm 1.4 - but it is too darn expensive. And the 85mm f1.8 is a bit average on the bokeh side.
Personally I've ended up with an 105mm f2.5 AIS - but it is too long indoors and no AF. Gives wonderful pictures though.

Leica seems to be the only company still thinking in "Photography" terms bringing us even now some of the most wonderful portrait lenses.
One should not disregard this patient passionate that still believes in the "Spirit of Photography", I think that simply requesting more from developers that are only interested in the figures at the year end is wasted words and we as a photography community should try to protect Cies like Leica , Zeiss cause these are the mainkeepers of the true photography today, and still holders of the flame.

I guess the bigger companies reckon that those who care a lot about availability of primes will switch to full frame. I would not be surprised if they mostly bring out budget primes (like e.g. the new Nikon 30mm) for APS-C.

Great article. I have to say that my favorite lens right now is my Olympus 50mm Macro. It works out to 100mm in FF circles and is a supurb lens. In fact, it's the only prime lens I have at the moment. I love it.


No focal length is better than another. It's just a question of
what kind of a shot you're after. You'll never get any kind of
consensus about what focal length is good for portraits in general.
Some use 35mm, others 50mm, 85mm, 105mm or even 300mm.
This is because there are so many different types of portraits and
individual photographers' preferences vary.
Non-macro 85mm to 135mm lenses tend to be made so that they make people look good. If this is what you want, use full frame and your problem is solved.
I think 50mm on DX works very nicely. The reason it's popular is simply
because it produces good images and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.

Frankly f/1.4 is way to large an aperture for portraits. To get the whole head sharp you need to be at least at f/5.6, maybe f/8. If you want to
play with available light and make a shallow DOF portrait, that's fine too
but again using f/1.4 is going to desperate measures and the result is rarely
attractive. (I have three f/1.4 and six f/2 lenses, I've been there). I
prefer to stay at f/2.8 for indoor available light people shots. Much
better image quality and a more reasonable part of the head is in focus (not all).

If manufacturers really want to support reduced frame sensors, they need
to make a full set of lenses optimized for these formats. It's clear
that this will never happen. Olympus has the cleanest system with no
legacy glass to worry about yet they only have a couple of primes. Not
good. Nikon and Canon have lots of primes, all but three (if I recall correctly) are full frame. This is why if you want to use primes, you
should use them on full frame. Get over it. APS will be relegated to
newcomers in the long run and very few even consider a prime.

Yes! On my Nikon DSLRs, I tend to use the 85/1.4 as my portrait lens...and it's just a little too long (although it is an AMAZING lens). The low end of my 70-200mm f/2.8 also works, but that lens makes for a bulky portrait lens indeed.

What I'd love to see? An AF-S VR Nikkor 70mm f/2.

I have not plunged into purchasing a digital professional camera because I cannot part with my Nikkor 180mm 1/2.8 portrait lens. The digital Nikon's I have tried, have vignetted the corners. Is there a digital Nikon body that will accept this lense and perform beautifully without this problem? I am attached to those beautiful, blurred backgrounds!

I found my Micro-Nikon 60mm f/2.8 quite adecuate for portraits. I like it better over the 50mm f/1.8 since I can focus closer if I need to.

This lens has both great bokeh and is razor shark.

The 60mm Micro Nikkor is not bad at portraits on APS-C.

It's not that there are no good portrait lenses out there, it's that the author of this editorial just isn't looking at them. They are not quite what he wants, so he dismisses the whole lot with a wave of his hand. But in that process, he dismisses 30 years of product-development while asking for more at the same time. Be realistic. We all reach that point. That doesn't make it sensible, much less profitable, to develop and bring to market the exact gear that we want. Especially when we clearly don't even need it. Of course you might buy it if it's made to your exact specifications...but then again you might not. Maybe by the time it is developed through design & product-testing and brought to market, you'll change your mind, or else say that it's too expensive. Manufacturers cannot afford to develop products on the whim of a few possible customers. Not to mention that a 50mm lens on APS-C seems to fit the bill just fine and the market is saturated with high-quality 50mm primes and APS-C cameras, and it's clear that if you want an exotic lens you'd have to pay exotic prices and the market is full of expensive yet still excellent primes.

You're reading this issue wrong, plain and simple. Sure, in a highly-competitive market excellence is of even-higher value, but you still have to buy the gear and sell the shots. Make it worth the markets' time & money to make the gear that you want, and you will find it on the market. Short of that, don't expect to see what you want anytime soon. Or, just do a good search on portrait-primes and make the best of what is already on the market, maybe even start a DP forum just on primes or portraiture. I think that the latter is a much more effective position.

I doubt that manufacturers think that demand for cheap 50mm primes reflects a deep-seated demand for that particular focal-length. I imagine that most of them just don't want to re-tool their manufacturing facilities to produce novel, inexpensive primes. I daresay that 90% of their volumes are accounted for by a handful of cheap zooms, and spending R&D dollars on capturing whatever proportion of the remainder is in the market for a 70mm f1.4 isn't terribly compelling.

Well, for the time being the 4/3 sigma 50/1.4 or ZD 50/2 combinations seem to be the best portrait camera/lens combinations;-) So, the title should have been. Where are the portrait lenses for APS-C cameras? ;-) Nice blog though! I hope manufacturers will listen up.

JaeArt seems to exhibit the kind of thinking, or should I say arrogance, that has ultimately brought whole industries to their knees. I did put a 50 mm lens (the cheapo Canon 1.8 II) on an APS-C, but it was made to be a street lens, and it behaves like one. No matter how you crop, you have as many chances to turn it into a good portrait lens as to teach a fox how to supervise your chickens. I get MUCH better results with an even cheaper Tamron zoom, set up appropriately.

I long for a Canon 85mm f/1.2L... but until the money for that will be available, I find that the 70-200 f/2.8L IS does a more than decent job on my 5D mkII for the few portraits I take.

For this reason, I bought the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS. But it's expensive, and it's heavy, and it looks absolutely menacing to your subjects. A smaller lightweight 70 would be nice, but let's be honest, Canon wants me to buy a 5D Mk II and an 85 L.

Does anyone know if Canon is going to release either 24 - 70mm f2.8 IS or 24 - 105 mm f2.8 IS lens soon? I would like to get a good portrait lens at f2.8 IS lens. Any suggestions?

Any coments on the Cannon 135 f2.8 soft focus lens?

Funny, but last time I checked in Nikkor F-Mount we have:

Nikkor 50mm f1.4 (APS-C)
Nikkor 50mm f1.8 (APS-C)
Nikkor 85mm f1.4 (FF & APS-C)
Nikkor 85mm f1.8 (FF & APS-C)
Nikkor 105mm f1.8 (FF)
Nikkor 105mm f2 (FF)
Nikkor 105mm f2.5 (FF)
Nikkor 105mm f2.8 VR (FF)
Nikkor 135mm f2 (FF)

Zeiss 50mm f1.4 (APS-C)
Zeiss 50mm f2 (APS-C)
Zeiss 85mm f1.4 (FF & APS-C)
Zeiss 100mm f2 (FF & APS-C)

CV 125mm SL f2.5 (FF)

Plus a few options from Sigma I won't bother to name because I have no experience with them.

So, not sure what is grandly lacking here? There are plenty of choices out there for folks prepared to look beyond the latest and greatest. Some at a price for sure, but you usually get what you pay for in the glass department.

Excellent points Andy. Ever since the first APS sized digital sensors appeared, a lingering question has been "where are the appropriate primes?" Of course, the first focus was on wide angles - an area still not addressed adequately (IMO). The other obvious areas were the 'fast' normal lenses (the fastest zoom is not really 'fast' in this range), and the short to medium telephotos for portrait work. Last weekend I was reminded of this while visiting my grandkids. I deliberately decided to use only my 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 (on my D300) instead of my zoom. I got some of the best pictures yet. Autofocus is better with the faster lenses; and while zooms give flexibility in composition, not having that to fiddle with caused my pictures to come out a lot more spontaneous - just frame and shoot. And naturally, available light at reasonable ISOs just looks good.

We need to keep making this point. This is not a pro vs. amateur issue, or about the quality of primes vs zooms, it's about having the right tools available for the kinds of pictures we want to take, and this is one area where the pickings are slim.

(FWIW, TRI-X in Accufine at 1600 was the best/worst I could ever stand).

good

I am a newbie to the dlsr field and was wondering if someone could shed some light on something for me please.

I was looking to buy a lenses for my Sony Alpha 200 to take portrait pictures and came across the Sony 50mm f1.4 & f1.7 but was surprised to notice that there was a massive price difference between the Cannon 50mm f1.4 and its Sony & Minolta counterpart with the sony lenses almost 3 times as much as a canon equivalent is there any specific reason for this.

im from the UK and you can buy a new Cannon 50mm f1.4 for £99 but the sony version is £249 i dont understand the price difference even used lens cost almost as much a brand new cannon lenses.

I have to say that my Helios-44M 58mm F2 is a the perfect little manual focus portrait lens. The length is right, the F2 is sharp enough and it cost $20 u.s.. So a 60mm AF lens might be just the ticket.

The DA 70 and Sigma 70 that were mentioned are also fine portrait shooters.
The Tamron 28-75 is a nice family AF option too although limited to constant F2.8

Fantastic post! I really agree with you!

Pentax is currently the leader in the prime lenses market IMO!

The 70mm f/2.4 is a very interesting lens!

I'm tired of the 50mm lens and dont find the new 35mm lenses that interesting too!

Canon's traditional portrait lenses are just as good with FF as with film (85mm f/1.2L and 135mm SF). Nikon has its legendary 105mm and 135mm DC, and now at last bodies to go with them.

Hi Andy,

I think you made a valid point. Yet you omitted a very important set of lenses that simply didn‘t exist in the years when portrait lenses were immensely popular: the fast zooms. At least in the case of Nikon there is perfect alternative for the old portrait lenses: the 70-200/2.8. This lens has both for DX en FX the right focal length, exactly the right shortest distance (beware of getting closer than 1.5 m when making portraits!), has a beautiful bokeh, is fast enough plus it adds VR as bonus. For DX it’s exactly as long as the famous 105/2.5 and for FX it even offers shorter focal lengths.
Other manufacturers offer similar lenses (although of not such a high quality :) . It has it's price though, which might be a problem for some.

In the case of FX lenses there is no shortage on portrait lenses anyway: two 85’s, one 105, and one 135, all fast and with beautiful bokeh (well the 1,8/85 somewhat less, but still quite ok).
If you don’t mind to use a slightly longer lens, the 80-200/2.8 is a cheap alternative for the 70-200.

If you like your portrait lens for DX shorter then you might consider the new 50/1,4 G or another zoom: the 24-70/2,8 mm, a lens that also has a very nice bokeh. In other words: there are some alternatives, at least if you don’t mind spending some money.

Yet if you want a cheap portrait lens in the DX range, your only option at the moment is to find yourself an old 35-70/2.8, and that lens doesn't focus on the D40/60.

So to come back at your original point: If Nikon would offer a 70/2.5 DX at the same price point as the new 35/1.8 DX, it might very well become a great success.

Best regards,

Dré

Very good points - especially about bokeh.

Nikon has those mind-blowing defocus control lenses optimised for this.

It's been rightly pointed out by others before that this designation has been widely misinterpreted to mean a soft-focus lens - instead of bokeh control.

Since 35mm sensors are becoming affordable, they will attract portrait fans, meaning that those people will be well served by the 90's lens line-ups.

For APS sensor users, the notion of a 85 or 100mm lens as a 'portrait lens' is largely an age-old marketing gimmick. They're basically the *minimum* focal lengths for 35mm.

Many portrait photographers use the longest, fastest lens they can (300 f2.8 not at all out of the question).

So the Nikon 180 f2.8, or the 70/80-200 f2.8, or the 200 f2 are still ideal lenses for APS portraits.

For portability, I also use an ancient 105 f2.5 with a D200 for posed portraits where autofocus is of no advantage. Not too pricey, you may imagine ;)

AND don´t forget the CARL ZEISS T* Planar 50/1.4 - in ZK Version also available for PENTAX. Great tonal response and extremely fine build.

I feel lucky because I was able to afford a fast 85mm prime as well as a 70-200mm for my 5D. I highly recommend both lenses for portraiture.

Hurrah for Tamron ! A DX 60mm f2 and it's macro too ! Woooohoooooo ! I'm at the front of the queue okay ? No pushing....

I have a section on my website about digital portrait photography where Mark Wallace discusses the best lens that he finds useful for portraits. He doesn't use a prime lens but instead uses a telephoto lens.
http://www.digital-photography-tricks.com/digital-portrait-photography.html

In the '60s a Nikon manual stated the 105mm/35mm was the exact perspective the eye perceives...and it seems they were right - a wonderful lens (their 2.8 at the time) ...but I also enjoyed the 55 1.2 ...I'm using all zooms now, but shopping for a prime to do exactly what you say - portraits with the wonderfully intimate look of selective focus! Nice article! BEst, Jack

I think the Canon 100/2 is underrated because it is essentially a slightly longer 85/1.8 and the 100/2.8 macro doubles as a great portrait lens. Shot at 2.8 it has incredible bokeh and I am not sure that it would be any better with the f2 version. Who really wants to own 2 different 100mm menses?

great article!
thanks for taking the time. ;-)

My favourite is Konica Hexanon 60mm/f1.2 on a cropped sensor. It looks best on Epson RD1, then M8 then G1. Funny, my ranking is 6MP, 10MP, 12Mp sensors...Too much detail I don't like for portraits.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Copyright 1998-2008 Digital Photography Review, dpreview.com Ltd.