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

Speaking of portrature, there is a nice exhibit of photographs by Yousuf Karsh at the Chicago Art Institute, in Chicago, IL. If you have any interest in lighting technique this is a must see exhibit.

I have to admit to "Pixel peeping", getting very close to the photos to see the lighting details reflected off the subject's corneas. The museum staff is very good and a chat with one of them will be rewarding while you are there.

I think one of the biggest reasons is the huge improvement of zoom lenses over the past 15 years. They evolved significantly with the evolution of digital photography. I once was a big fan of primes, but I get such good results from my high quality Zuiko zooms that I find limiting myself to a single focal length limiting on the creative process.

Yeah I agree with you on some points, Getting close with the lens is good for some, I prefer landscapes myslef :)
I must side with one of the earlier commenters that the Pentax 70mm f/2.4 DA is great for capturing portrait photos.

I had the same problem, so I bought a Sigma 70f/2.8 Macro. The lens is very sharp, well made and well backed. Have done many portraits, and never been disappointed. Would be nice if it was faster, but I can deal with it.

Here is a different twist for an amateur... what about a non dslr? what camera with built in lense does the best job with portraits? That is exactly what I am looking for... a point and shoot that is able to blur out the background.. any suggestions would help.. Thanks!

I found the blog items on “What is a standard lens” and “What are the portrait lenses” very useful. It is certainly a complex area. I would welcome comments on the following summary just in case I have misunderstood some items:
The two key parameters are picture angle and perspective.
The picture angle is determined by the focal length of the lens, the perspective is determined by the camera to subject distance.
If you take a shot with say a 50mm lens the picture angle is 46 degrees using a full frame (35mm) sensor. If you switch to a smaller sensor (say Nikon DX format which I use) then the picture angle decreases to 31.5 degrees so you are effectively cropping your picture. The perspective stays the same. If you move backwards to take in the original subject then the perspective changes.
This is where I become confused in that we now move on to discussing the effect of the optics (physics) and the effect of framing subjects in the viewfinder (art) and the relationships between them.
If, for example, your subject is fixed such as a group of people and you fill the viewfinder with the group then I will often select a perspective that renders distant objects larger in the frame and hence use a telephoto lens and remain some distance away from the group to give the required perspective. I do this because in this type of image both people and location are important. Similarly if I photograph a tree I will often go close and use a wide-angle lens so that the subject is clear and you are not distracted by distant objects.
Regarding portraits my understanding is that the critical parameter is perspective and that the most flattering picture comes from using focal lengths between 85mm and 135mm on full frame sensors where the viewfinder is filled with the full head and shoulders. For this discussion let us assume we use a 100mm lens which has a 24.7 degree picture angle. The implication is that the camera to subject distance (and hence perspective) is now defined. From this point on the choice of sensor size and lens is almost irrelevant (assuming satisfactory resolving power). You could for example use a 50mm lens on a full frame sensor and crop the image for an identical result. This implies using a 65-70mm lens on a DX format sensor etc. I personally use the Nikon 85mm f1.8 (128mm full frame equivalent), which gives better results than my 50mm f1.4 although I must try standing at the correct distance and crop my 50mm images to compare results properly.
I would welcome any comments on the above. Perhaps I have got it completely wrong.

There are only so many head and shoulder portraits one can take before boredom sets in: so I can see many compromising with a cheap 50mm lens on APS-C, and selling their expensive 85mm lenses.

However at 30mm (normal on APS-C) there is the infinite variety of contextual portraits. But these lenses are few and don't have portrait quality bokeh.

So I agree with the editorial, but for a different focal length.

Thank goodness we have this website... Lots of companies listen and track stuff in dpreview... I hope it has feedback and we see some great offerings soon...

I grew up with a Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AI-s (during the previous analogue millennium) and I'm still quite fastidious regarding optics quality.

Today, I'm really more than content with the results delivered by the Zuiko Digital ED 50mm f/2.0 Macro, even on the subject of selective focus or subject isolation.

(I just need a decent focusing screen with a split-image rangefinder spot on the Oly, as I still haven't understood the point of shooting portraits by means of auto focus.)

The OLD portrait lenses, as used on plate cameras, used to be soft in the middle and softer still towards the edges. Many of the 50mm standard lenses were just too sharp for classical portraits so a selection of soft focus filters used to be in everyone's bag. My favourites were the Rollei concentric ring and the Hasselblad waterdrop filters. These items are not so important with digital post taking manipulation. I always remember buying a Summar lens for my Leica just because it had a reputation for softness and being disapointed, for the moment, when I discovered it was sharper than my Summitar.

Did you overlook this lens from Pentax?

Pentax SMCP-FA 77mm f/1.8 Limited Edition Black Finish Telephoto Lens.
Mfr. Part: 27980 SKU: PX7718AFAB

Sorry, I see now that Pentax's 77 F1.8 has already been mentioned several times. As Emily Laetella used to say, "Never mind!"

All my portrets taken with the excellent 50 mm F1.4 Zeiss lens on my Canon EOS 5D MarkII and even on my older EOS 40D delivers an excellent boke combined with a superb sharpness and exceeds the best Canon L-serie lenses !

Old enough to recall the Nikon SP lens choices: included the 105mm f/2.5. Now that was a portrait lens. Furthermore, around 100 mm lenses are easiest to design well: no need to stretch to get the corners of the frame, no need to put in telephoto design to shorten. Nikon still makes a 100mm for full frame cameras: in the meantime for small sensors use their 85mm but note no autofocus motor!

The Olympus 50 f2 is an ideal portrait lens for Oly and other 4/3 bodies. Shoot it wide open for out-of-focus backgrounds, and with its macro capabilities, get in as tight as you want.

You said "But really, why 50mm? On an APS-C imager, that's equivalent to around 75mm-80mm in full frame terms."
I believe that this statemtent is incorrent. On an APS-C imager a 50mm lens is cropped as though you were shooting with a 75mm lens but it is NOT magnified as though you were shooting with a 75mm lens.

It's a shame (to me) how manufactures keep marketing 50s as the portrait lens of today, of the APS-C format sensors. As mentioned before in some comment, they only make such success because are cheap. To me, the Pentax 77 mm seems to be the best of all mencioned. I think that most people prefer pay more for a convinced portrait than buy these options, these crap options.

About bokeh, Sony has just the best lens in the world. It's its 135 mm STF. It's an awsome lens. Just perfect for portraits. Of course that for APS-C it should downfocal a little bit, and its maximum aperture also is not the ideal, but in terms of bokeh I can't see other better until now. Dream with a 60 mm (93) and a 90 mm (140) with the bokeh technology of that Sony STF. Just perfect, wouldn't it?

There's nothing unusual about using a 50mm on DX for portraits. 75mm on full frame gives the same angle of view, approximately as 150mm which was a typical lens for head and shoulders on 6x6 and 6x7 cameras. 50mm lenses work very well, of course and are inexpensive.

Fast lenses and too small formats are an ill fit. The wide aperture performance on DX sensors will be poor compared to full frame, no matter what you will do.

How about this lens? 60/2 1:1 should be just about right for a macro/portrait lens an APS-C?

http://www.tamron.com/news/35mm/60mm_09.asp

A somewhat devil's advocate question: Ehrik above refers to the Sigma 1.4 as being "a bit too short".

Might it be that the lens companies are thinking that you could just use the 50mm and just crop a bit? With the ongoing megapixel race, they could be looking at engineering 60 or 70mm portrait lenses as solving a problem that might not even exist in a few years... that could be pretty costly.

Just FYI: I own a Canon 5D and except for a wedding shoot where I borrowed an XTI, have never really worked with a crop sensor. That being said, I'll be receiving a Rebel T1i any day now, and I already have the Sigma 1.4, so I could end up coming around to Ehrik's view.

Great article. Lot of guys will get benifit of the ideas and discussions from this piece.
Thanks a lot!
Cheers!
Sukalyan..

I use a Canon 85mm F1.2, a simply peerless lens for portraits, incredibly sharp (for beautiful eyes) and has that beautiful bokeh you allude to. However, I think it unlikely that a mainstream lens manufacturer will spend serious money on R&D for such a lens (even F1.4 or F1.8) for APS-C, in my opinion, and that's probably why we havent seen many. Also, I think one needs less than F2, preferably 1.4 or less (and a true round aperture) to achieve that beautiful bokeh that so makes a portrait, a portrait!

And what about an old 58mm adapted?

I'm thinking about using an old Zeiss Jena 58 mm f2 m42 ( http://www.mflenses.com/index.php/Carl-Zeiss-Jena-DDR/Carl-Zeiss-Jena-Biotar-58mm-f/2-alu-M42-Lens-Review.html ) that has a lot of blades on a modern digital. On 35mm the background is excellent, and the lens is quite ok and quite inexpensive. Also has preset for apertures, so it's quite handy.

Focal length would be 87.

The comments to this entry are closed.

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