

(And likely Nadine would have been standing on a ladder, to take the shots). And if the Shooting Angle is the same for both shots, the Subject will appear quite similar, provided the Shooting Angle is not too severe apropos as to how the Compression (of the face) will be seen.Į.g.: in Nadine’s two shots above, if the same framed shots were taken with a 135mm lens at the SAME Shooting Angle - the Length of the Face from Forehead to Chin would appear slightly more compressed. If we Frame a Subject Tightly with a 50mm lens and a 135mm lens and contrast and compare the results. Recognising these following examples of “framing tightly” are slightly looser framing than the OP’s definition “a tight head shot where you cut the hair and chin”, let me explain what I mean (relative to 135 or “Full Frame” cameras). ?Yes, I agree.īut there are other considerations and I believe we need to look beyond Shooting Angle and the Tight Framing. I think the shooting angle becomes more and more important the tighter in you are framing the subject. it was the first sample shot I found where I was using the 12mm tube on the 70 to 200/2.8 and they kind of resemble a Married Couple) I was shooting at about 7ft from them using FL = 160mm, with a 12mm extension tube on the EF70 - 200/2.8.

#Hocus focus photo club full#
This is full frame crop and these folk are about 8 inches tall, including tentacles. This Bride and Groom were having an hissy fit and I didn’t want to get too close to their fight. With a 12mm tube on a 200mm lens, we get that Very Tight Head Shot, you require – (about 6” FoV Vertical) at a “comfortable” shooting distance of about 8ft. Never leave home without the set of three extension tubes: light weight, inexpensive and oh so versatile. If I wanted “ a more comfortable shooting distance”, I would grab for my rings - NOT a macro lens., Obviously, there are enough Pixies in the "FF" sensor to crop this a bit tighter, from forehead to jaw line, if that is what you require and still have reasonable Image Quality. This is a full frame crop at about SD = 2’4”: The 50/1.4 used at around SD = 2ft -3ft, gives you that Tight Head Shot.Īt 2ft it just frames the head (Horizontal Camera Orientation) and at 3ft provides some neck and air in the shot. In fact, as I collect shooting trivia for my later reference and use in the field - I know that at the closest FD on the 135/2 gives a Very Tight Head Shot, with about 6” Vertical FoV.Īlso I note that 6”, is about the distance from the middle of the Forehead to the Jaw Line of an Adult. Obviously, if I went closer, the shot would be tighter. This is a Full Frame crop of the 135/2 at a working SD of about 6ft: Both those lenses at their Minimum FD, give a tight head shot just about as you describe. The minimum focussing distance for the 85/1.8 is just under 3ft and for the 135/2 is dead on 3ft. But maybe I am wrong? Do you have the tech specs?

My other guess is the picture of the woman was cropped very tightly in PP from the Full Frame image. I suspect the woman was taken with somewhere between 70mm to 200mm and the other shot was a slightly shorter FL (relative to 135 format). Perhaps with 50mm but I haven't tried it.I am not sure that the two sample images to which you linked, were taken with a macro lens in a macro mode. I cannot make such shots with my regular tele. If your clients pose, it's not a problem to get this close. I dial in f/8 and get within 50 - 100 cm to get a similar effect. By extreme close up I mean a tight head shot where you cut the hair and chin.Take this example I picked up from the net. I was wondering if others have discovered the broader benefits of a macro tele but apparently most limit themselves to shooting flowers and insects. Although I use a regular tele for portraits, my best shots are often made with a macro lens, whether shooting products or people. A macro lens can be used at more comfortable distance and still produce a shot that a regular tele cannot. You can get extreme close-ups of people with a macro lens which make for very expressive pictures.
