Talk:Portrait lens

"Portrait" vs real-world portraits

I read:

Portrait lens is the general term for a lens suitable for making pleasing portraits, i.e. a photograph showing a subject's face and perhaps a bit of their shoulders.

Ummmm. . . .

If I get a book of portraits, then most show quite a bit more than head and shoulders. (No sniggering in the back row, please. I am not talking about "portraits" of unclothed ladies.) Hugely more were taken with "standard" lenses than were taken with those of longer focal length.

If the kind of portraits that get into books seem rather arty and/or rarified, fine, let's forget books and instead consider Flickr. Most of what I'd call portraits there too show much more than head and shoulders.

How about something like:

Portrait lens is a term for a lens suitable for making pleasing photographs of a subject's face and perhaps some of their shoulders.

(My own favorite lens for moderately close portraits -- the person; not the whole room, and not just the head 'n' shoulders -- would be 50mm or thereabouts.)

Zuleika 18:30, 7 April 2011 (PDT)

This is an explanation of the origin of the term portrait lens—that is, why lenses somewhat longer than "normal" in focal length. Naturally there are an infinite number of ways to photograph a human being, from a closeup of one eyeball to a tiny speck on the horizon.--Vox 20:32, 7 April 2011 (PDT)

Well yes, yes -- but we don't have to go to such extremes. And if we do go towards these extremes, we rarely call the results "portraits".

When I hear the term "portrait", I don't first think of head-n-shoulders. Indeed, I don't think of any one kind of photograph, but rather of multiple kinds. And most (though certainly not all) would be easier to take with a standard or rather wide lens.

I'm in favor of describing the term "portrait lens" in the way that this term is used, which I think is pretty much the way you've described it. But I also don't want to give the wrong impression. Zuleika 21:08, 7 April 2011 (PDT)

I've recklessly gone ahead and edited the article as I prefer it; feel free to revert my edit, I won't mind. Zuleika 01:35, 8 April 2011 (PDT)

I've reverted, but made another try for clarifying the points you raised. The one area where I have to disagree entirely is about aperture shape, which despite all advertising to the contrary has a fairly minor effect on bokeh. The references in the bokeh article from Rick Oleson and Dr, Nasse (Zeiss Camera Lens News) give more background on that if you're skeptical.--Vox 03:49, 8 April 2011 (PDT)