Pye, you are the absolute heavyweight on the Adorama channel (in every sense). Your videos have a "business seminar" vibe; So much to, that I dress up biz casual to watch and learn. Thanks for adding so much value to the industry.
Adorama’s Creative Director, Daniel Norton, recently did a much better, more thoughtful video on his own channel called “50mm vs 85mm for Portraits”: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-ief_M-_kLF8.html
One of the best buys you can get is the old fashion first version 85mm, f/1.8 primes. They’re marked down but still terrific. One recommendation, there’s more to this lens then f/1.8. Compact as well.
Thanks for the video. Back in 1968, the 85mm f/1.8 Nikkor was the 2nd lens I purchased for my Nikon F 35mm SLR. The 35mm f/2 Nikkor was my 1st lens. I used both for reportage. I also used the 85 for head & shoulder portraits. In 2016, I finally upgraded my manual focus 85 to the 85mm f1.4 D AF Nikkor. The 85mm autofocus and the manual focus 135mm f/2 Zeiss are my two favorite portrait lenses. Both lenses have a 77mm filter thread.
Brotherman im listening to you in head phones you sound tremendous wowwwww your voice is made for this and yes i have an 85 MM i slept with my lens the first night i bought it lol seriously
I was going to leave a comment about this. I purchased a used Sigma 50mm 1.4 for my Nikon DX. Would I get the same benefits shown in the video? Thanks this was great content
While I wouldn't use my 85 for fast motion or things like that, the Canon 85mm f1.8 actually focuses quite fast, much faster than the 85mm f1.2. It has a USM in it that helps. And I have taken some absolutely creamy shots with with. I have talked to a few photographers that wished they got the 1.8 instead of the 1.2 for the faster focus alone. And I talked to one that told me he sold his 1.2, bought two 1.8's (one for use and one for back up) and put the other thousand dollars in the bank. Lol. But the 85 is an absolute beast of a lens for image quality and sharpness. :)
Why are you shooting your portraits in Live View? Do you shoot ALL your portraits in Live View? I know LV has face recognition and might be slightly better at AF. But holding a heavy camera and lens out in front of me to shoot something as intimate as a portrait really changes the experience for me (I'm a portrait photographer also). Far less enjoyable. There is magic in looking through a lens and drawing closer to my subject that is totally lost when holding the camera out in front of me. It distances me from both my subject and the joy of looking through the lens and entering another world -- and a beauty beyond all distractions.
Manual focus lenses are not a pain at all if you are using the right focusing screen. I shoot with a Zeiss Otus 85 and I can nail the focus, every single time.
Well said! I absolutely love the 85 1.4 as it’s my favorite lens. But yes it does have a couple draw backs which was also nice to see you noted but this lens is definitely a lens that’s great to have in your tool bag as a portrait or wedding photographer. Ok now you can take a nap 😴 haha
Hi Pye, just a note about an honest mistake in the video, in the image with the 24-70mm 2.8 it mistakenly says 24-70mm F/2.8 II L @24 1/250, F/1.4, ISO 800 If it's an F/ 2.8 so you cannot shoot it at F/1.4 :-) The mistake was made most likely because you made the video at 2am LOL
@@payamjirsa Writing f/1.4 resulted as typo result ? What a coincidence!!! I ABSOLUTALLY love this photo. But I 'hope' f/2.8 is a typo too. (for it too look 'that' technically good also in a larger fine art print. Certainly not a exemplary theoretical advice for such a scene
What is a portrait? I’m legitimately asking… is a portrait supposed to focus on the face? I mean, not a passport photo, but I guess… what’s a portrait to you?
I have a 50 mm and 85 mm prime .... I find it easier to get as good picture with the 50mm but giving in a little effort in the end the 85mm gives the most satisfying results looking back at my photos .....🧐😀
Nutella is OK but we found something even better. We make our own walnut butter. We use a variety of English Walnut that has little tannin and is perfect for our home made Walnut Butter. Add a touch of maple syrup and you are golden. Nutella move over.
I typically use my XF 90(135mm equivalent) for tight corporate headshots. Not for the 'bokeh' or background compression, I'm almost always shooting on a plain background, but rather it is more forgiving of distance and angles with regard to distortion. I use my XF 56(85mm equivalent) mostly for environmental portraits of my corporate clients. It gives we a wider frame while still providing a similar leeway with regard to distortion. That said, for the handful of 'online dating' shoots I do or photos at grandma's birthday party, I mostly stick to a 50mm equivalent lens(XF 35 or TCL-X100 conversion lens). Yes you need to be more aware of your distance and angles to prevent distortion of someones face, but images captured at shorter focal lengths tend to be more representative of 'being there'. Personally, I find those images more compelling. For photos of the kids at family functions, particularly the very young ones, I actually tend to go wider FOR the distortion which make the images more lighthearted and fun. IMHO there is no 'perfect' lens for all portraits. There are 'better' lenses for different types of portraits but the only 'perfect' lens is the one that produces the image or tells the story the photographer sees in his/her mind. Caveat: 𝘐 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘤𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘢𝘯 𝘪𝘮𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯 𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘐 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘏𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳, 𝘪𝘧 𝘺𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘴𝘵𝘺𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘣𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘸 𝘠𝘖𝘜 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘴.
Nice video Pye but you forgot to mention that is on a full-frame camera! For me, a Full-frame camera is not for me, I need a lighter and smaller camera body and lenses for medical reasons! There are times that you need to shoot @ f1.2, f1.4, and f1.8 I prefer to shoot with more depth of field when I can if there is a good background to be found!
Regarding focusing fast 85/100/135mm primes manually, my suspicion is that they'd be more popular if more people had a dedicated body just for them ... _so long as the camera could be fitted with a proper manual focusing screen_ like in Days of Yore. This is particularly true compared to slow-focusing AF lenses. Also, some camera bodies cannot focus a fast lens as fast as they can slow lenses regardless of aperture being used, because AF points must be optimized for "expected / typical" apertures used. At least with manual focus, you're in control and not waiting/hoping for an AF lens to get it right, even with focus peaking/confirmation that newer cameras might offer.
Yes, slow AF is partly lens, partly camera body. For example, the Canon 1DX3 is incredibly fast to focus even with slow primes like the 85/105. But, price-wise it's out of reach for most people.
The Next Hobby I have a wedding photographer friend who shoots entirely in manual. It’s madness but it works for her and she has the same hit rate as me using AF 💁♂️
Thanks as always. Questions please. 2:58 your graphics show F/2.8 lens being used but you state the photo was F/1.4. Apologies if I've missed something but could you please clarify? thanks Lee.
You used the 100mm macro. But this one won't give a defocus background as a 85mm 1.8 or so. I have 24-70 f2.8 n planning for a portrait lens of either 85mm 1.8 or d macro lens as d macro will serve dual purpose .
I have a problem. I don't like my photos taken with 85mm, I always feel like it makes my face looks wider than it is. It's probably just me as everyone says is the most flattering focal length for portraits.
On the photo of the bride surrounded by a bunch of women, it’s noted that a Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 II L lens was used @ 24mm, 1/250 sec, f/1.4, ISO 800. How do you get to f/1.4 on an f/2.8 lens?
Pye, asking for advice. With a limited budget, which lens would you choose for the canon 6d mark I: Canon EF 100 mm f/2.8 L Macro IS USM or 85 f/1,8 USM. The main application is, of course, portrait, but with 100 mm, the spaces for macro photography open up.
Okay, there's a difference between "loose" and "lose." I'm in the 100mm macro camp for portraits. I'd love a 90mm Thambar for my M10 but, um, yeah, cubic $$$. Maybe one day, when I grow up. My wife has a very round face: it looks fat at 50mm. I have to be careful with my angles when using anything under 100mm if I don't want her to throw hard objects at me. 135mm treats her well.
Very good pye. If you have100mm 2.8 Do yoy also require the 85mm 1.8 As they do mostly the same job. I like the 50mm 1.8 very versitile light weight and a great lens too
At 2:52 you claim you've shot a wide portrait of the bride's group at f1.4 with a 70-200mm f2.8. I'm curious how you pulled that off and found a workaround to achieve that ignoring laws of physics.
Hi, Pye! I have 70-200 f2.8, but i am thinking of buying 85mm 1.8mm. Is it worth if we dont count weight? Its heavy dilema for me couse I need other lenses too. My lenses are 11-20 in dx mode on z7. So there i get only 20mpx. 24-70mm f4 and 70-200mm f2.8. So i could use full frame wide for landscapes, mb 50mm lens with f1.8.
Newbie question, I see you’re using a higher shutter speed on a lot of your photos and it seems like your models are standing still. Why is that? Thank you in advance!
Perspective compression. If you have taken perspective drawing class and went to photography school, then the former has taught you some rules of thumb how to draw perspective going in the distance, but you may have missed the formality (aka math). In photography school you will have learnt about the inverse square law (for artificial lighting, like flash). To start with the latter - this simply says that the AREA you shoot gets bigger when you step away farther. But when you double the distance, the area in your shot does not get 2x as large, but 2 squared, i.e. 4 times bigger. Or at 3 times the distance you get 3 squared, is 9 times, more in the picture. In lighting, this means the light (energy) out of your speedlight must illuminate 9 times the area when you increase the distance to the subject by 3 times. With increasing distance, we get exponentially more in the picture. And the intensity of light diminishes by the inverse of that: 9 times bigger area becomes 1/9 intensity of light. Perspective compression is that same (inverse) square law. With things in your picture at different distances, you will feel that it seems as if things farther away are closer to each other than they really are. That inverse square law also works the other way around. Get nearer and the effect seems to be dramatic. In lighting we use that to get more dramatic light-dark, differences between foreground and background. In perspective we use this inverse square law to raise the attention of the viewer later to elements in the foreground. By the way, with some asymmetry in faces, we can use perspective to make the asymmetry invisible. A portrait with a 35mm (full frame) could help here.
Great video! I have struggled to get comfortable with prime lenses but your examples definitely have shown me that they have a reason to be in my camera bag. Many thanks.
Slow focusing? Not a problem on crop bodies! 50mm focuses quick and is equivalent to an 85 (give or take). Though my favourite focal length is 135, it’s just magic to me.
Canon costs too much, they are way over priced so I use my Tamron 85mm 1.8 with vibration control :) Better than Canon at a much more affordable price.
I am about to go for a photo shoot one of my friend and i was doubting using my 85 and or 24-70. So like you sid for indoor it was scary thing to use my 85 so I most probably use my 24-70... Many thanks for advice
I have a Canon R6. I want to add a 85 mm and I'm considering the usm85 which is more budget friendly. what are your thoughts on this lens? Even a comparison? Thanks for your great videos and I use your dark mode preset all the time ☺️
