PDA

View Full Version : Are Telephoto lenses good for portraits?



StoneNYC
28-Apr-2014, 15:24
It occurred to me, that for LF and maybe ULF, a Telephoto lens would be beneficial for portraits, as you need less bellows draw, so less need for exposure adjustment.

Also possibly for macro work?

Am I confused?

Alan Gales
28-Apr-2014, 20:53
A lot of your 4x5 field cameras only have 12" or so of bellows draw so telephotos are especially popular for portraits where you don't need a large image circle.

StoneNYC
28-Apr-2014, 22:00
A lot of your 4x5 field cameras only have 12" or so of bellows draw so telephotos are especially popular for portraits where you don't need a large image circle.

That's what I was thinking, however I don't see a lot of portraits nor still life that are shot on telephoto lenses, I just don't see it happening as much as I see regular lenses being used, which I thought was strange, so I wondered if there was some reason for that?

Alan Gales
29-Apr-2014, 08:47
That's what I was thinking, however I don't see a lot of portraits nor still life that are shot on telephoto lenses, I just don't see it happening as much as I see regular lenses being used, which I thought was strange, so I wondered if there was some reason for that?

My guess is that most people prefer regular lenses because they have more coverage than telephotos. The extra coverage of course makes the lens more versatile. I owned a 4x5 Tachihara field camera with 13" of bellows draw and wanted to use a 300mm lens (for portraiture) so I purchased a monorail in addition to the field camera to do portraits with instead of buying a telephoto.

Leigh
29-Apr-2014, 09:04
Realize that lenses of longer-than-normal focal length tend to flatten facial features, which may not be desirable.

Obviously, the effect becomes more dramatic as the focal length increases.

- Leigh

Jason Greenberg Motamedi
29-Apr-2014, 09:32
I suppose it depends on the lens but I have found that some telephoto lenses create awful looking out-of-focus backgrounds. But then again, some folks like that.

cowanw
29-Apr-2014, 10:06
And, just to remind, that the bellows adjustment for close up is based on the lens's rated length not the actual bellows draw at infinity.

Lightbender
29-Apr-2014, 18:32
Adjusting exposure for extended lenses is not too difficult. Lots of calculators around for it.

the telephotos are nice (for portraits) though considering you can put more distance between you and your subject. That flattens out perspective a little more.

Mark Sampson
29-Apr-2014, 18:53
Long ago I used a Wollensak 15" Tele-Raptar for portraits on 4x5. It worked fine- although with a standard studio lighting setup and a seamless backdrop, questions about corner sharpness and out-of-focus rendition never came up. It's probable that LF tele lenses are rarely used for portraiture, simply because LF tele lenses are rare themselves.

StoneNYC
29-Apr-2014, 21:05
Adjusting exposure for extended lenses is not too difficult. Lots of calculators around for it.

the telephotos are nice (for portraits) though considering you can put more distance between you and your subject. That flattens out perspective a little more.

Yes but some shots (like using collodion) will benefit from less drop in light due to bellows draw, giving you a shorter exposure time. Giving a better chance of a subject without motion blur etc.

That's where this all came from.

Doremus Scudder
30-Apr-2014, 01:49
Yes but some shots (like using collodion) will benefit from less drop in light due to bellows draw, giving you a shorter exposure time. Giving a better chance of a subject without motion blur etc. That's where this all came from.
(emphasis added)

Stone,

You are working from a false assumption. Just because the physical bellows draw with a telephoto lens is shorter doesn't mean that there is more light to work with at any given magnification. At infinity, f/22 will still be f/22 and at 1:1 you will still need 2 stops correction. That's because you measure the bellows extension compensation factor from the nodal point of the lens, which, with telephotos, is somewhere forward of the lens itself.

Short story, you won't get shorter exposures at higher magnifications with a telephoto lens. Now, you will get easier handling and less bellows draw, which may be worth getting one for, but you won't be able to change the laws of physics and conjure up more light :)

Best,

Doremus

StoneNYC
30-Apr-2014, 02:42
(emphasis added)

Stone,

You are working from a false assumption. Just because the physical bellows draw with a telephoto lens is shorter doesn't mean that there is more light to work with at any given magnification. At infinity, f/22 will still be f/22 and at 1:1 you will still need 2 stops correction. That's because you measure the bellows extension compensation factor from the nodal point of the lens, which, with telephotos, is somewhere forward of the lens itself.

Short story, you won't get shorter exposures at higher magnifications with a telephoto lens. Now, you will get easier handling and less bellows draw, which may be worth getting one for, but you won't be able to change the laws of physics and conjure up more light :)

Best,

Doremus

DOH!!! I never thought of that fact!! Thank you, this makes a lot of sense. Thanks.

EdSawyer
3-May-2014, 09:56
Teles are some of the best lenses for portraits. They seem to have a unique bokeh signature, esp. the Nikkor T and Tele Artons that I have tried. Very smooth. The wide aperture helps too (Tele Arton 360 @ 5.5 has very shallow DOF). Frankly, unless you are into the soft-lens craze for portraits, I think Teles are the best choice overall.