Portrait photography has a very long history. From the very earliest days of image capture, people and their immediate environment have been the main subject matter.
Technique has change a little over time, from the first “person and environment” record keeping shots, through still life, street capture, boudoir, and journalism, style has changed a great deal, but technique only a little. The adoption of the 50mm lens as the standard is an indication of our draw to portraiture. The true “standard” or truly neutral lens is closer to 40mm (FF), but 50mm is better for traditional portrait images.
The basic principals are;
The subject(s), sharply in focus, posing or not as required and the their surrounds either in focus (deeper depth of field) to give context, or blurred out (shallow depth of field) to remove all other distractions.
This is a gross over simplification of course. There are plenty who break these rules, but they work as a starting point.
Lets have a look at four lenses I use regularly for portraiture and street photography.
The Environment lens, the Olympus 17mm f1.8.
I love this lens. It is not my first stop for portraiture because it needs to be employed differently and is at the extreme end of my personal portraiture style. Including the environment and to a certain extent needing some action to fill the space, is ideal for candid street imaging, but in confined spaces, with larger groups or simply to expand the viewers awareness of the subject, it can be useful.
The strength of a wider lens is your ability to use placement and depth to either dilute or to reinforce the main subject’s importance. This is especially useful when the place is actually more or as important as the person.
Actually taken with a 40mm on a full frame (much the same dynamic), this shows the importance of the surrounding environment to some subjects.
The 17mm has a “hard” or micro-contrasty look, that is not ideal for general portraiture, but is designed to purpose. Olympus have made a lens that has ideal properties for street imaging. The out of focus elements blend seamlessly with the sharper parts, so unlike any portrait “hero” lens, this one actually promotes environment inclusion. I have no issue using this lens wide open at night.
The best application for a lens like this is multi layered primary subjects. You can emphasise one primary subject, but also include other, less obvious ones. You can tell story in layers.
The geometry of the space and the light were the primary drivers for this image. A tighter composition would have emphasised one or two people, but lost the feel of the overall image and spoilt the balance.
The first of the true portrait lenses, the 25mm f1.8.
Actually, it turns out this lens is closer to a 45mm lens on a full frame, not a true 50mm, it took a while to gel with me, but is now a faithful friend. I think my 25mm is a little unpredictable. Maybe it has an optical issue that only comes up occasionally (mildly de-centred, or better up close than at longer distances etc.), or maybe not. Either way, it seems to fit well now that I am used to it. The reality is, a lens is as good as the best image it has taken.
I think copy variation is a thing with most brands, but has two sides. I think it is genuinely hard to find a real dud lens, but relatively easy to get a different feel from one copy of a lens to another. Maybe I am just being a little too sensitive to something that is just in my head, but I have noticed the phenomenon with myself, friends and customers. One person’s “the one” lens can be another’s “so-so” optic.
This focal length is the ideal “two elements working together” portrait lens. Using it’s deeper natural depth of field allows for creative use of Bokeh and that Bokeh is good. It can be hard to get the sharp to soft balance right and this lens helps rather than hinders that process. M43 has a reputation for not offering enough blurring, but I disagree. Massive blurring is easy to achieve technically and looks great for a few images, but wears thin after a while. Creative blurring, that is using the blur as an element of balance rather than just blowing it away in to mush is far more beneficial, if a little more challenging.
“Thomas and Friend”. This one could have been taken either way, with the TV sharp and Thomas (true) softer.
This is an easy to use focal length, but lacks the strong focus drop off, slight compression and tighter cropping of more traditional portrait lenses, so it can feel a bit of a portrait light weight after extended use. I often start with this one, getting tighter as I work.
Also good for longer range street shooting. It has the ability to include, but also to control depth of field better or just differently to the 17mm. The Bokeh effect is more pronounced than the 17mm and the close focus better, so the two are a useful, quite different pairing.
Ground zero for portraiture, the Olympus 45mm f1.8.
By far my most used portrait (and probably general use) prime lens, the 45mm is a star. It has a magical feel at about f2 to 2.8 making it a good light gatherer when used at it’s best. I have two at the moment (three until recently), and do get a different mojo from each. They are all good, just some are a smidgeon better.
So small and discreet, this little gem rarely gets noticed (or taken seriously).
Apparently, this and the 25m are nearly identical in design, but the results (of mine) are quite different. The 25mm is less forgiving of it’s errors (like the 12-40), the 45 rarely makes them.
Another easy candid. The working distance is ideal for this type of grab.
This is one of those lenses that allows you to think in terms of Bokeh. It seems to help create it’s own compositions. This was taken sitting on a bed in a Tokyo Hotel room and the image just jumped out at me.
For official portrait jobs, this is the first lens picked. It is the core of the idea, guiding me to change (longer or shorter) as needed. I really like how it reminds me to include some context.
Super sharp detail is not always the models friend. This lens can offer high detail, but in a friendly manner, pleasing to the eye.
Not everything is perfect however. The closest focus distance could be better (making the 12-40 or 25mm handy to include) and the edges are a hair behind the closer focussing 42.5 Panasonic if you are a top-tier landscaper, but it is possibly superior in the centre for portraiture. I love it.
The one big trick pony, the Olympus 75mm f1.8.
When maximum compression and blurring are needed or if working distances are restrictive, the big gun is produced. The 75mm (150mm in full, frame terms) is an odd focal length. In truth I would have preferred Olympus made a far more useful 100mm f2, but that was not to be.
This thing is near perfect optically. There is occasionally the slightest bit of purple C.A. wide open, which is easily fixed. It also has a strong flattening effect, more even than the focal length would indicate. This seems to be the modern phenomenon of highly corrected glass losing some of it’s three-dimensionality.
Regardless of it’s very few and quite mild negatives, it has a role to play. Blurring is actually stronger than the 45f1.2 Pro, compression is handy and the “pop” of the images is indisputable. I can zoom through my catalogue and spot images made with this lens easily as I go. They are just “perfect”. Compared to the 45mm, the 75 has less character and perhaps less “generosity”. It is soo reliable in it’s rendering, but can be over used easily.
A quick grab in near darkness. The tightness of the focal length forces either perfect or more creative compositions, often compositions unseen by my eye until I look through the lens.
Big by M43 standards, it is smaller than a Canon 85 f1.8, and half the size of it’s nearest rival optically (that I have seen) the Canon 135 f2L. It’s performance against the Canon was the tipping point for me going fully m43. It not only had similar quality, but similar optical characteristics. The 45mm was more like my 200mm f2.8L, rich, smooth and character filled, the 75 and 135’s were just reliably perfect.
Tokyo Fish Markets are a tight space and you have to be quick, but there is enough room (just) for the candid reach of the 75mm.
A good working distance and ideal separation.
Sublimely sharp, every stitch on this Kimono can be seen in detail.
The lens has good focus. It is spot on accurate, which is vital for it’s speed and length and quick enough, although it could be slightly faster for indoor sports, where it would shine.
The working distance can be a terrific boon for candid street.
Looking at my image bank, there is a clear pattern. I use the 17mm and 45mm lenses almost exclusively for travel, street and general work (unless I take zooms), and the 75, 25mm lenses are ear-marked to fill specific roles. The 75mm tends to be left behind and a tele zoom used unless low light or portraiture are the job, the 25mm is the “walk out the door with only one lens” option or tends to be the last packed.
These are not my only choices, as I have a clutch of zooms that are seeing more use, but they are my primary “people” lenses.
The 40-150 kit os a surprise. It has many good to excellent qualities and will be the extra lens packed when in doubt. The slower speed does not lend itself to smooth background work, but the it’s fast AF and small size make it a contender for street.
My 75-300 is just a great bargain lens. Would I like it to be faster, better built, brighter? No. That would unbalance the bargain that it is. This lens renders beautiful images and can hold it’s own against the 75mm and 40-150 pro lenses in their own back yard, then offers a lot more reach in a compact package.
The 12-40 Pro. This is similar in rendering to the 25mm, rich and “glowacious”, but shares it’s Bokeh characteristic of being unkind to slight focus errors. If used for portraits, I would employ the eye detect function with this one.
Unlike the 17mm that tends to disguise focus plane differences, the 12-40 (and 25) tend to exaggerate them.