Phase One Owners - What lens do you use for headshots?

[timn420]

I've been using the 80mm for corporate/business headshots but it's simply too wide and I have to throw away a lot of pixels in order to get a tight headshot. Just wanted to hear from others what lens they use for this work. Was thinking about the 150mm or a 210mm. This is for use on a full-frame back (IQ160)

 

[kscott]

I've been using the 80mm for corporate/business headshots but it's simply too wide and I have to throw away a lot of pixels in order to get a tight headshot. Just wanted to hear from others what lens they use for this work. Was thinking about the 150mm or a 210mm. This is for use on a full-frame back (IQ160)

I'm a big fan of the 120mm macro. You can get in close enough for tight headshots (very tight if you so choose) without having to worry about focus issues, and can pull back far enough to get the upper torso in the shot in a small room still allowing plenty of distance to the background.

 

[kdphotography]

150mm

 

[DrakeJ]

150mm

 

[Chipcarterdc]

The 110mm and 150mm 2.8 blue rings both work well for me.

 

[Qamaro]

myself the 110mm LS and 120mm M and AF models.

 

[Wayne Fox]

150mm

150mm

+1

A 120 would be better than an 80, but i think the 150 will yield the most natural looking proportions. the "old school" rule (sry, but I started in portraiture back in the mid 70's so old applies to me) is double the normal focal length for a head shot. So that meant a 150 on a hasselblad or a 180 on a Mamiya RB/RZ 67. Not many did portraits with 35mm back then but those that did typically used a 100mm.

Also helps because the background can be narrower and will be a little more out of focus.

 

[jamesdfloyd]

Like most, either a 110mm L/S or 150mm L/S.

 

[timn420]

Looks like it will be the 150mm for me then. Thanks everyone

 

[existenceproduct]

+1

A 120 would be better than an 80, but i think the 150 will yield the most natural looking proportions. the "old school" rule (sry, but I started in portraiture back in the mid 70's so old applies to me) is double the normal focal length for a head shot. So that meant a 150 on a hasselblad or a 180 on a Mamiya RB/RZ 67. Not many did portraits with 35mm back then but those that did typically used a 100mm.

Also helps because the background can be narrower and will be a little more out of focus.
I do not have my own studio, and typically drive to the client and/or find temporary studio space nearby. Additional images and retouching services are offered separately. I am located in the Midwest United States, and have been unable to find much information on what other professionals in the vicinity charge of Sara Anne Wilson Photography. My current pricing is near a minimum of what is necessary to turn a profit. I would like some opinions on my current pricing for this type of work. Does it sound reasonable, or am I possibly asking too little / too much for what is provided?

Being the only lenses I own are big guns, I think I need to invest in a nice Nikon Portrait lens and thinking either the 85mm or the 105mm.. I am brand nuts and want to keep it in the family in NIKON...? Don I se your using a Nikon D850 and 85MM..?

 

[baudolino]

Usually 110 BR, or 150 for tighter crops

 

[Mexecutioner]

I like the results of the 150 2.8 BR, it is amazing for portraits, but heavy and if your sessions are long you begin to feel the weight. Same for the 120, though I have not shot portraits with it.

I also like the 110 2.8 BR, very light in comparison and while not being as good as the 150 the working distance from your subject results in a a more intimate environment.

 

[Pieter 12]

I've been using the 80mm for corporate/business headshots but it's simply too wide and I have to throw away a lot of pixels in order to get a tight headshot. Just wanted to hear from others what lens they use for this work. Was thinking about the 150mm or a 210mm. This is for use on a full-frame back (IQ160)

Get closer.

 

[Mexecutioner]

Get closer.

It is not that simple. Some people are not super comfortable with a camera right on their face, also you may obstruct the light source. If it were that easy then we would all use a 35mm lens and be on a pair of roller skates to go back and forth.

 

[Pieter 12]

It is not that simple. Some people are not super comfortable with a camera right on their face, also you may obstruct the light source. If it were that easy then we would all use a 35mm lens and be on a pair of roller skates to go back and forth.

An 80 is not that short, how tight are you wanting to shoot? Plus you do have an excess of pixels for all but the most demanding needs (especially corporate head shots--how big are they ever reproduced?), so cropping should not be a problem. Longer lenses introduce problems of their own, like shallow depth of field and the need for lots of light to use fast enough shutter speeds to eliminate shake if hand-held.

 

[Mexecutioner]

I'm not wanting to shoot anything, but perhaps the OP can share more of his preferences. I think he just wanted to know what others were using.

I agree with you as I personally like the 80 quite a bit, maybe enough to upgrade it to a MkII

 

[earburner]

I love the 150mm f2.8 but it is a tank of a lens. also consider if you have enough space in studio to zoom in and out (walk forwards and back) i often have reverted to my 110mm and 80mm just because of space issues

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

150 mm or the 80mm cropped.

 

[Paul Spinnler]

More love for the Macro!

The 120mm focal length macros have been a studio staple so to their dual use nature - portraits and the random product shot or vice versa depending on your studio photography specially.

It is also arguably the sharpest blue ring…

 

[Pieter 12]

More love for the Macro!

The 120mm focal length macros have been a studio staple so to their dual use nature - portraits and the random product shot or vice versa depending on your studio photography specially.

It is also arguably the sharpest blue ring…

The 4.0 maximum aperture could be limiting for portraits, depending on the style.