I'm looking at either a EF-S 60mm Macro or an EF 100mm Macro that I could
also use as a portrait lens. The 1.6 multiplication factor provided by the
APS-C format digital camera will give a 60mm lens a 96mm perspective. This
is where my thinking gets fuzzy. I think that to get the minimal distortion
that a 100mm lens, which has always been considered optimum for portraits, I
have to stick with the 100mm lens. After all, the distance from the lens
focal plane and the camera's film plane of the 100 lens doesn't change from
a 35mm camera or an APS-C format camera. Is my thinking correct, or is the
60mm lens the ideal portrait lens for APS-C format camera's?
Thanks
Eugene
Mark² - 07 Nov 2006 02:09 GMT
> I'm looking at either a EF-S 60mm Macro or an EF 100mm Macro that I
> could also use as a portrait lens. The 1.6 multiplication factor
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> 35mm camera or an APS-C format camera. Is my thinking correct, or is
> the 60mm lens the ideal portrait lens for APS-C format camera's?
Distortion comes from proximity to your subject, and the ratio of distance
created by the protruding features of the face compared with the reast of
the face. What happens with the 1.6 crop factor is that you end up shooting
from a similar distance from your subject as you would with a 100mm
lens...and this takes care of the perspective problem. Here's another way
of thinking of it... Even if you shoot with a wide angle lens...as long as
you're the same distance away from your subject...you won't get the "big
nose effect" since the distance ratio is the same. -Of course you'd have a
very small portion of your frame... The reason those super-wide close-ups
of dogs look so strange is because they are shot so close to the dog...that
the difference in distance to the nose can be HALF the distance (or less)
than the rest of the dog's face. If you were to take that exact same wide
angle lens and back away...the distortion goes away as the distance ratio
decreases.
Bottom line... Your perspective will remain the same because with the
cropped sensor giving you a similar field of view will mean that you shoot
from roughly the same distance...even though it's a 60mm with 1.6 factor
instead of a 100mm without it.
-Mark²

Signature
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson
Prometheus - 07 Nov 2006 06:46 GMT
>I'm looking at either a EF-S 60mm Macro or an EF 100mm Macro that I could
>also use as a portrait lens. The 1.6 multiplication factor provided by the
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>a 35mm camera or an APS-C format camera. Is my thinking correct, or is the
>60mm lens the ideal portrait lens for APS-C format camera's?
The perspective is a result of your distance from the subject, since the
sensor is smaller than a 35mm frame you will need to be further away for
the same size in the field of view, thus a 60mm lens on a 1.6 crop
factor will impose a distance that gives the same perspective as a 96mm
lens on a 35mm full frame camera.

Signature
Ian G8ILZ
Bill - 07 Nov 2006 18:17 GMT
> I'm looking at either a EF-S 60mm Macro or an EF 100mm Macro that I
> could also use as a portrait lens. The 1.6 multiplication factor
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> 35mm camera or an APS-C format camera. Is my thinking correct, or
> is the 60mm lens the ideal portrait lens for APS-C format camera's?
Nor, you're not thinking correctly.
I had the same thought until I was tasked to verify it myself. Read
this page about the subject to get some perspective on the issue (pun
intended):
http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/crop.html#per
Ben Brugman - 08 Nov 2006 12:37 GMT
>> I'm looking at either a EF-S 60mm Macro or an EF 100mm Macro that I could
>> also use as a portrait lens. The 1.6 multiplication factor provided by
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~gisle/photo/crop.html#per
Nor, you're not thinking correctly. (I am referring to your webpage).
From Wikipedia :
"Perspective (visual), is the way in which objects appear to the eye"
And this is determined by the length of your arms and the focal length.
Why? because to get the 'correct' perspective there is only one
viewing distance for a picture so that all angles you see do correspond with
the angles in real life. If the angle is 'Larger' in the picture than in
real
live the picture seems to be "compressed", if the angle is 'Smaller' in
the picture than in real live, the picture will seem "expanded".
The viewing distance is determined by the length of your arms.
(I am making the assumption that you can touch your monitor while
reading this, and therefore the distance of your monitor is still within
the length of your arms. I might be mistaken about this off course).
The correct viewing distance of any picture :
Viewing distance = focal length * width of the picture / width of the
sensor.
Examples prints on 6 x 4 inches. ( 150 mm x 100 mm)
Focal length 28 mm, 50 mm, 85 mm and 300 mm
With of the sensor (36 mm for analogue 24 mm for some DSLR's)
I'll be calculating with the 36 mm from the analogue because this
is often used for the equivalent focal length's.
Viewing distance for 28 mm focal length
(focal length 28) 28 * 150 / 36 = 116 mm (About 4.5 inches)
(focal length 50) 50 * 150 / 36 = 208 mm (About 8.125 inches)
(focal length 85) 85 * 150 / 36 = 354 mm (About 14 inches)
(focal length 300) 300 * 150 / 36 = 1250 mm (About 48 inches)
Most people can not focus on 116 mm (4.5 inches) so the 28 mm focal
length pictures will be looked at from a distance which "expandes" the
picture.
Most people have arms shorter than 1250 mm (48 inches) so the 300
focal length pictures will be looked at from a distance which "compresses"
the picture.
The appearance to the eye therefore is different from a 28 mm compared
to a 300 mm. And therefore according to the definition in Wikipedia;
"(Perspective (visual), is the way in which objects appear to the eye",
the perspective of a 28 mm is different to a 300 mm.
Off course when the picture is taken and the result is never viewed by
an eye, the description of Wikipedia is not applicable because the result
does not appear to an eye. So your description is totally correct for
taking pictures, but I think the viewing part is more important.
Why is a portraitlens a portrait lens. Because we like to look at people
undistorted. If you look in the above calculations you see that a 85 mm
or 85 mm equivalent has a viewing distance of about 14 inches which
is a fairly standard distance to hold our pictures. To get a portrait
with say a head and shoulders in a picture with a 85 mm we need some
distance from the subject. About 1.20 meters to 2.00 meters (about
4 to 7 feet). This is also the distance where we are closest to people
without letting them into the comfort zone. So this is the distance where
we are still comfortable with people and are close enough to see them
well. The portrait lens is very suitable for making pictures where a large
part of the frame is filled with the head of the subject.
If the subject gets closer to us and it is not a close member of the
family we feel threatened by the proximity of the person. So we do
not like to see this type of distortion in pictures, because the person
looks to close. (This is build into our genetically).
Ben Brugman
*)
To do the calculations you need all distances in the same system.
Focal length is in mm. And in the metric system the other distances
are easily converted to mm. This is a bit more difficult when using
the imperial system, so I used the metric system instead.
For readers not confident in the metric system I added
some imperial distances. My apology for that.
**)
Off course we have other enlargements of pictures and other
ways of viewing them. But still most pictures are viewed on
arm length distance, even pictures on a monitor.
***)
People are nowadays so used to pictures compared a few
decennia back that for example wide angle lenses are now
completely acceptable even for taking pictures of people.
Where a few decennia back pictures taken with a 28 mm
were considered not suitable for taking pictures of people
because of the distortion when viewing them at normal
distances. Now we have to use a 17 mm lens to get the
same reaction from people.
Fred McKenzie - 07 Nov 2006 18:37 GMT
> I'm looking at either a EF-S 60mm Macro or an EF 100mm Macro that I could
> also use as a portrait lens.
Eugene-
In addition to perspective/distance considerations, also look at the
maximum f-stop/depth of focus. The 100mm lens could be used at a
greater distance, if it had the better out-of-focus-background
characteristics.
The 60mm might be best with respect to focal length vs perspective, but
the 100mm would have shallower depth-of-focus at the same f-stop.
Fred
Ben Brugman - 08 Nov 2006 12:44 GMT
> I'm looking at either a EF-S 60mm Macro or an EF 100mm Macro that I could
> also use as a portrait lens. The 1.6 multiplication factor provided by
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> Eugene
It's the angle of view which determines the suitability as a portrait lens.
For full frame (36 mm) 90 mm is considered to be a very suitable focal
length
for a portrait lens.
So you need a 90 mm or a 90 mm equivalent lens for a digital camera.
So you should go with the 60 mm lens.
There is a second factor which determines the suitability as a portrait lens
and that is the DOF should be limited to create a nice unsharp background.
So a large aperature and/or a large format are suitable for portrait.
(That's why small digital camera's (and APC sized sensors) are less suitable
for portraits.)
ben brugman