Treating a 85mm like a wide angle?

[Pjdavisphoto]

Hello all,

Just wondering if anyone has used the 85mm sorta like a wide angle in portrait sessions? The 28-70mm interest me for this reason, but the 85mm is beautiful. Anyway thanks for the input. 

[Tronhard]

It would help to have some more detail:
What camera model are you using - it makes a difference
There are multiple versions of both of the two lenses to which you refer:
Which 28-70 are you referring to?
Which 85mm are you referring to?

[p4pictures]

Can you possible explain what you mean by using the 85mm lens as a wide angle for portrait?

I do have the EF 85mm f/1.4L and also the RF 28-70mm F2L and capture a lot of portraits with them, but the field of view of the 85mm on a full-frame EOS camera is not what I'd call a wide angle. 

[Tronhard]

Totally agree!  I am curious as to what system is in use and what the OP means by "like a wide angle in portrait sessions".

[rs-eos]

Do you perhaps mean taking a panorama? I have used a 135mm f/2 lens at its minimum focusing distance and taken nine images of a headshot. Then combined in post. It will give you a wider field of view.

[Pjdavisphoto]

I’m shooting with the R5 and RF 24-105mm L. What I mean is, sometimes in portrait sessions I like to incorporate the environment as well as full body images. I can do this easy with the RF 28-70 but wondering if this is easily achievable with RF 85mm. I assume I would just stand further away with the 85mm to achieve this. 

[Pjdavisphoto]

I’m shooting with the R5 and RF 24-105mm L. What I mean is, sometimes in portrait sessions I like to incorporate the environment as well as full body images. I can do this easy with the RF 28-70 but wondering if this is easily achievable with RF 85mm. I assume I would just stand further away with the 85mm to achieve this. 

[rs-eos]

Yes.  If you need to incorporate more within the frame and will not be doing panoramas, you will only have two options:

1. Move further back.  Clearly, some cons here: your subject will be smaller in the frame, depth of field will not be as shallow (if wanting to minimize DOF is a goal).
2. Use a wider angle lens.  Can lead to distortions in faces when doing headshots, especially if using focal lengths at around 50mm or less.  Though the subject can now be larger in the frame.

[Pjdavisphoto]

Thank you! A few things (and I may be answering my own question here). My work as a portrait photographer is picking up and I  figured I’d invest in the best portrait lens (85mm). Creativity I love it but not fond of it being a fixed lens. Figured the 28-70mm would be a better option but it’s at F2 not F1.2. Basically I love the results of the 85mm at 1.2 but the 28-70mm is more versatile. Also, going through my camera roll, most my portraits aren’t going above 60-70mm and I have the RF 24-105 L already. 

[rs-eos]

Are you using a full frame camera or crop sensor? While there's no absolute rule for capturing portraits, you typically want to be in the 70 to 200mm range on full frame (or 44 to 125mm on crop sensor).

"Best" focal length is also very subjective.  Personally, I prefer 135mm (full frame).  What I did was looked at various headshots of the same exact subject taken at multiple focal lengths between 70 and 200 while keeping the framing the same.  I just liked the look of the 135mm the best.  You may want to do the same to see which specific focal length you may like best.

If you're going to vary between headshots, head & shoulder, half-body, full body, then having a zoom will definitely make life much easier.

I recently posted a topic about minimizing depth of field.  Note that the list doesn't include any f/1.2 lenses at the top.  So if your goal is to obliterate the background, there are many options.  Though I also now have to ask if that is your goal.  i.e. you mentioned wanting to include more within your frame.  But if shooting at a narrow depth of field, any extra background elements will all be out of focus.  Seems like a competing requirement.