Why choose a 42.5mm f/1.7 portrait prime if my 35-100mm f/2.8 zoom already covers that focal length?
Asked 2/4/2017
1 views
2 answers
0
I shoot Micro Four Thirds and already have a Panasonic 35-100mm f/2.8 zoom. I also see the Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 recommended as a portrait lens. Since 42.5mm is already within my zoom range, what practical advantage would the prime lens give me? Please explain in simple terms, especially the difference between f/1.7 and f/2.8 for portraits.
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
9y ago
2 Answers
11
There is no such thing as a portrait lens. Just some are known to produce more appealing portraits. It can be used to shoot any other thing where the focal-length desired is the same. Note that I didn't say needed since portraits can and are shot with different focal-length.
A 42.5mm lens on a MFT gives what people consider a flattering perspective, making people's face's proportion and nose length shorter than perceived with the human eye. Your 35-100mm lens, set to 42.5mm will give exactly the same perspective.
With an F/1.7 aperture though, which your 35-100mm lens cannot manage, produces an image with a more shallow depth-of-field. This is considered desirable for portraits since the background gets more blurred and isolates the subject more than an F/2.8 lens.
The bottom line is that you can make portraits which are flattering with your 35-100mm, but a 42.5mm lens could be used to isolate your subject more from the background, given the same situation. It will not necessarily mean your portraits will be automatically better since there are so many factors that influence the results such as subject, lighting, position, distance, etc.
Specifically regarding those two lenses, when it comes to the quality of the resulting images, there is a small difference between the two. The 42.5mm is an extremely sharp lens and shows very little corner shading (aka vignetting) while the 35-100mm is quite sharp - just not as sharp - and shows moderate vignetting until stopped down to F/4. Such difference in sharpness would be visible in large prints only. Although the vignetting is easily noticeable, it is one of the easiest artifact to eliminate in software.
Originally by user1620. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user1620
9y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
At the same focal length, both lenses give the same perspective. So if you set your 35-100mm to 42.5mm, faces will look essentially the same in terms of framing and perspective.
The main advantage of the 42.5mm prime is its wider maximum aperture: f/1.7 vs f/2.8. That gives you:
- more light reaching the sensor, helpful in lower light
- the option to use faster shutter speeds
- shallower depth of field, so backgrounds blur more and the subject stands out better
That extra blur is one reason this focal length is often liked for portraits. It’s not that it’s a special “portrait lens” by definition; it just has traits many portrait photographers want.
Other possible benefits of a prime lens are smaller size and weight, and sometimes better sharpness than a zoom at the same focal length.
So you don’t need the 42.5mm if your zoom already does what you want. You’d buy it if you specifically want more background blur, better low-light capability, a smaller lens, or simply prefer shooting with a prime.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI9y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Does the Panasonic Leica Nocticron 42.5mm OIS work on non-Panasonic Micro Four Thirds bodies?
Panasonic Lumix G 25mm f/1.7 vs Olympus M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8: is the Olympus worth more?
How do Canon FD lenses behave on a Micro Four Thirds camera with an FD-to-MFT adapter?
Should I replace a Panasonic L1 with a Four Thirds or Micro Four Thirds camera?
Can I mount a filter on the Panasonic Lumix G 20mm f/1.7 lens?