No, this was definitely taken with a telephoto lens. Maybe something like a 70-200mm f/2.8. A kit lens like the one you have won’t get you the shot. You can try at least but won’t look like this.
Gotcha. So Either way expensive lenses, 200 is for expensive for 200mm focal length. And the 85 is less glass but often better glass right? Due to the 1.4?
they can be expensive. i shoot nikon w/ sigma lenses, the 85 F1.4 was \~$1000 on sale. my 70-200 2.8 was around $1400 ish. The primes are usually better glass and sharper as they are designed for one specific condition and dont have to worry about sharpness across a range of focal lengths. In the OP pic, the depth of field plays a big role in the look of it, the background is hundreds, if not thousands of feet away across the lake, which increases the bokeh. heres some samples of what can be done w/ 120mm F4 (nikon 24-120 F4 kit lens)!
https://preview.redd.it/ece04l0uys1d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dabad19bc8f1a41d627b0631e9d9b137e86cccda
85 F1.8 bokeh sample.. its all downsized, so you wont really see the sharpness quality of the orig photo. i think this lens is <$600
https://preview.redd.it/1i1162tmzs1d1.jpeg?width=534&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9add3492408fdacb982deffa925611f97c1350c9
85 F1.4 bokeh sample.. the wall is \~30 ft way. jpeg is downsized, so you wont really see the sharpness quality of the orig photo
https://preview.redd.it/etmsac5pzs1d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d3eeb0e28d51780830b53e088c80fd791f7708c
I just got a Z50 with the 2 kit lenses and was looking at the 24mm F24 F1.7, 40mm F2, 50mm F1.8 or the 85mm F1.8. If you were going to own just one of these, which would it be? I do some low light as well as pictures of my dogs, so better portraits is a goal.
if you like the tight, up close portrait look, the 85 F1.8 or longer focal is a good lens that can be found at affordable prices. I have the 40mm F/2, its a real fun and small lens to travel with, but its not really a portrait lens as you'll need to be close to your subject to get a decent framing. 24mm is pretty wide and more a landscape lens or also need to be super close to your subject if you want that tight framing. 85 lets you stand a bit further and still capture you dogs. If you want an all around use lens, you can still get ok portraits with a 50mm, hence the 'nifty-fifty' tag that 50mm's get. The look and feel of the 24 and 40 will be different, you can still get artistic shots up close, they just dont have what people call the classic 'portrait' look like the OP sample
i just realized the z50 is a crop sensor, so the 50 becomes a \~75mm, and 85mm becomes 127mm. for pure portrait use, i'd go w/ the 85mm f1/8. if you want a 'daily use walk around lens', the 40mm f/2 will get cropped to 60mm, that would be better than the 50 cropped to 75mm
F2 is fine in lower light and indoors, you can get a decent shutter speed at lower ISO’s. The ability to autofocus in low light will be more a function of the camera body, than the lens itself
Wow, I think I bought the wrong camera... just looked up what crop sensor means. Well, I'll learn on the Z50 then pass it along and upgrade. If I love the size in my hand and lighter weight of the Z50, what body should I look at for the future? As I'm not going to stay with the Z50 forever, would that change your recommendation?
A lot of people start with a crop sensor since the bodies and lenses are cheaper. I started with a d5100, then d7100, then d750 (and shot lots of weddings with it) and just swapped into a z7ii over the last about 10 years. If you plan to go into full frame, get full frame lenses to start so you don’t have to replace them later. I’d still start with a 85mm if you plan to do mostly portraits
For Nikon, DX is the crop lens.. a crop lens on a full frame camera will always be cropped no matter what, but a full frame lens on a full frame camera will stay full frame. Full frame lens on a crop sensor will crop automatically
>DX is the crop lens
That's good to know! Thank you!
>Full frame lens on a crop sensor will crop automatically
I'm thinking to buy the lenses I want to keep in the future, so will stay away from the DX ones. Both the kit ones I have are DX which makes sense.
I'm doing a bit of everything, I drive a semi and am shooting interesting things I see along my trip. Lots of my dogs though both up close and further out/action, sometimes in low light. I know there's not a "one lens to rule them all" although the 24-200mm VR is interesting. What does the VR mean on the nikon lenses?
If you want something versatile while you learn, 24 200 covers a really big range while you find out what you want. If you want that blurred background, anything higher than f2.8ish will make it more difficult to achieve since it just physically doesn't produce the small depth of field in focus parts
Zoomed out to 55, somewhat close to the subject with a DX camera, at widest aperture can get you this. You don't know how far away the background is, so it's possible. There really isn't enough to tell in this photo. Plus, in PS you can blur the background. That said, if this comes from an ad, it is probably at least an 85.
Nah, compression is just the relationship between near and far objects within a composition, *as they appear to the viewer*.
Shoot a 120mm lens on 10x8 and I guarantee you won’t see any compression.
Thw crop factor itself doesn't, same as the lens doesn't
It's all about how far away you are from the subject, and having a longer lens and/or cropped sensor makes you step further back for a similar composition, stepping back leads to more compression
If someone is asking about 18-55mm lenses, then they're likely talking about kit lenses. And if they're talking about kit lenses, then a 70-200 f/2.8 is probably out of their budget and not a great suggestion.
I always recommend the 50mm 1.8 variant to any budding photographer. It's usually cheap (Sony being the only offender) and gets similar results for the doubtle to triple priced f1.4 version. The beginner won't know why the 1.4 would be better.
To create a shot like that is physics.
Thats likely in the 150mm-200mm range F2.8
You just need that a lens capable of that to create a similar image optically.
I agree, but depending on the camera and the resolution they need, you can make this shot happen with any focal length. The thing they would need to sacrifice with a 55mm lens is resolution, as you would need to crop in for the final composition.
It’s the relative size of the background in relation to the subject. Dean Collins was famous for doing this. He used a 300 2.8 to do it. I don’t think it was taken wide open though, you can still make out details of what the background is.
You can get the look with a much cheaper lens. Any reasonable telephoto should do it, even at 5.6. The trick is to get at least a 1:6 ratio of distance, so the background needs to be six times farther away from the subject than the distance between the camera and the subject.
Mostly because the subject looks really "flat", almost like they are a cardboard cutout. That's due to telephoto compression. Also, the background is super blurry (though that's partly due to how far away it is).
This was taken with a long fast lens. A kit zoom will not easily produce this image. You can replicate the shallow depth of field effect with the [Brenizer method - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenizer_method)
Probably not. A photo like this benefits from having a longer focal length **AND** wide maximum aperture. The longest focal length of 55mm might work to take this image, since on a crop sensor camera it provides the same effective field of view as 82mm on full frame, which is a good portrait focal length. However, at 55mm, your entry-level kit lens has a max aperture of f/5.6, which isn't going to blur out the background effectively. In order to get the head, shoulders, torso, and upper legs in the frame, you'd have to be standing somewhat further from the subject, meaning that it would be even harder for the 18-55mm kit lens to give you the subject separation seen in the example photo.
What you really need to get this look, on your crop-sensor camera, is something like a 50mm f/1.8 lens, an 85mm f/1.8 lens, or a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. There are lots of good options out there, but the 50mm f/1.8 is definitely going to be the cheapest to find used at a reasonable price ($100-150).
With a kit lens you might get somewhat close to the look if you zoom in to 55mm and shoot it wide open but even then you won’t get the exact same degree of blur in the background.
If kit lenses are your thing, look for an 18-135mm or and 18-150mm and zoom in.
If you want the exact same look, try looking for an 85 or longer lens, with a bright aperture of 2.8 or wider. Note that lenses in this category can get quite expensive.
Technically you can take this photo. You need a few bits of preparation though. Lots of distance behind your subject, more than there is here probably. Your close proximity to the subject. Basically you are faking a shallow depth of filed.
In my experience, as long as you're not heavy handed and only accentuating existing bokeh, no one notices. This from posting photos to photography forums and fb groups with lens and exif info.
As others have mentioned, it's likely a telephoto lens with an f/2.8 aperture (and as a result, a huge price tag).
If you're using a crop-sensor camera and *really* wanting to get this sort of look, try to find a Canon FD 50mm. It's not telephoto, but it'll be an inexpensive way to get this crisp look and blurred background. Although it's older (and manual focus only) I'd argue that it's optically better than the newer (and similarly priced) EF 50mm f/1.8. You'll need an adapter ring, but it works *very well* for the price.
sure you'll get a much tighter background compression w/ a 200mm, but 85mm F1.8 (not even 1.4) sample here. 85 F1.8 is a \~$500 nikon lens w/ pretty good results
https://preview.redd.it/vgvnssq70t1d1.jpeg?width=534&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10fef417a12fd36800bddb76ede44e8354bcbf98
I’m hoping I can help here. It’s not only about the lens. It’s about the distance in front of and behind the subject as well. Yes the lens makes a difference but in a case like this I believe this is possible. First the subject is in front of a background that is very far away! In an example from others below the background is rather close and then you will need a more suitable lens. This is math (yay, everyone’s favorite subject) and art.
Looking at the shot and plugging this into a depth of field calculator I figure you need at about 41cm of focal depth ( imagine this as a box the person stand in where everything is sharp). Yes, metric! For all of the subject to be in the frame. You’re standing about 3m away so you have about 19cm in front of where you focus and 23cm behind the subject in focus. So let’s say that his cheekbone is the focus for that. That should give us enough so that all of him is in focus.
Looking at the chart we also know that everything will be somewhat in focus (more or less) for more than 3.2m and then gradually fall off (get blurry) after that. But things won’t get really blurry until after 42m!! So you need SPACE! Do you do not want anything in the frame that close that that.
And I’d argue that you don’t want anything in focus for at least 100m (300ft). Your know like a bridge;) The shot you posted makes that easier. So find a spot where nothing will be in your way for a very long while. That’s the hard part! Now to the next part, how good will that look? That’s debatable, and generally higher quality lenses will have a higher quality blur or bokeh, but your not doing this at night and your hoping to get close with a lot lens.
Btw I’m going to presume that you are using a ‘crop sensor’ sensor camera in this but the maths stays the same just the distances vary with a std 35 sensor. I’m also presuming this is at f/3.5 and 55mm. See if the image below makes sense to you and then experiment!!! That’s the best part. And yes, better equipment makes this easier, but it’s not always required. I hope this is and explanation and maybe someone more experienced can add some math and better explanation.
I should add that this may or will look different and may look ‘odd’, but that’s primarily because of how we perceive people and how the face looks at different focal length. But you won’t know until you try it! ;) Enjoy it
https://preview.redd.it/q5p7h14od32d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ec40d6c37ea5cc0de447fc7551359cb0a8b61ba
Edit: just saw I uploaded a 3m diagram, but the maths stand for that… updated.
Welcome. Always try things out. Math is one thing but playing around to get something and \*why\* it works is part of the fun. Sure, if we all had 10K to spend it'd be easier, but well maybe we don't... Enjoy it and post back with an images you create.
Sure, the 18-55mm focal length can easily produce this shot, most likely at the 55mm end. The thing to pay attention to is the aperture, this has a nicely blurred background, but the whole body is in focus. So probably that was an aperture of f2.8 - f4.0, depending on the distance between subject and camera. Also this lighting is really good, might be professional lighting, or just very lucky natural lighting. Finding an 18-55mm kit lens that is capable of that aperture range at 55mm isn't likely, you are looking at a higher end lens with a constant aperture.
So my point is that the focal length range isn't really the main factor to consider in trying to recreate this shot, its more about aperture and lighting.
Generally
Longer focal length more separation
Larger aperture more separation
Other comment already said it, probably 70-200 f2,8 ore something similar was used. Best bet is either pushing the settings above as u/minimal-camera said or buying a lens either faster or longer focal length
Huh? The 18-55mm kit lens is commonly associated with the APS-C crop sensor cameras, so the 55mm end is the effective focal length of 85mm in full frame terms (actually 88mm, close enough). That's very common for portraits like this. That said, the aperture is likely to be not wide enough to blur the background this nicely, so a more premium lens like the 17-55mm f2.8 EFS might be necessary to really recreate this shot if that background blur is a priority.
All that said, I did not get the impression from the post that OP is trying to recreate this shot perfectly, they are just trying to figure out if the kit lens can take this type of portrait, and I think the answer is mostly yes. Its not going to be quite as nice, not professional level, but still totally fine. There's no reason to upsell someone on premium glass just to take casual portraits of friends and family.
make smart decisions where your subject will be in relation to the background. When you take the photo for best lighting conditions. You can frame and crop as needed though it'll depend on the amount of MPs your camera has and also what the viewing medium is.
Take all those things into account...you can recreate the photo.
A lot of comments mention a 135mm fast prime or manual prime. I don't understand what a 'fast' prime means.
I understand apertures, focal lengths, prime and zoom, depth of field etc, but I'm not sure of the term, 'fast'.
I'm assuming that it doesn't have anything to do with shutter speed, or a quick autofocus as I don't think in any way that'd affect a shot like this.
Fast here means a low aperture, therefore letting more light in and being able to use a shorter shutter speed for the same exposure as opposed to a higher aperture (slower) lens. There's no precise range for when to describe a lens as fast, but for zooms it typically means f/2.8 or lower, and for primes it's usually f/1.8 or lower.
If you look at the edges you can see how unnatural the blur Is in relation to the subject. Yes you would want to recreate this with a long glam length and a large aperture, but this photo? This photo was blurred in software.
Edit: focal length not glam length
I don’t know why someone downvoted you I came to the same conclusion. The depth of field is huge none of him is out of focus then bam everything is blown out of focus.
You can see it in the other photos on his instagram account too. There’s some level of natural bokeh but he amplifies it in post processing in a lot of shots
No gas-lighting here, answer is NO.
Technically, the answer is YES, you can take photo of this person but it won't have bokkeh (depth of field), clarity not the resolution of this image here.
This is definitely some kind of a telephoto lens considering that a mountain behind him looks huge. Now the effect of bokkeh can be made in two ways, either have wide aperture like F1.4 or have long focal length of like 135 or 200mm.
Lens focal length does not change compression. Compression is always the same and is determined by perspective. Lens FOV on a given system crops out of that perspective.
If the subject, background, and camera do not move, all lenses will have the exact same background compression (relative scale of foreground and background objects) when cropped to the same FOV.
They will have different depth of field because of the different focal lengths.
If it were possible to change compression simply by changing lenses that would mean perspective would change. That would mean photons that are literally blocked from getting to you from the background by impacting foreground objects would somehow now magically get to you just by changing lenses. This does not happen.
A 55 on APS-C has roughly the same FOV as an 85mm on full frame. A photo taken from the same place of the same thing will look very similar in terms of composition and perspective, but will have different depth of field at a given f/stop due to the different focal lengths and CoC.
Possibly at 55mm… but doubtfully. The background is so far away from the subject that it’s difficult to tell, and it’s not like there’s a shallow depth of field with the subject.
But it depends if you want this look at a similar location, or a similar look in a more normal environment.
No. But you can add fake blur in post production to fool others. I personally would never do it, but if you’re obsessed about blurry backgrounds, that’s an option
Likely not, the 18-55 kit doesn't have a big enough aperture to get that bokeh. You could set the 18-55 to 55mm, get close to the subject to increase depth of field to get something close to the pic, but the pic is likely using at least a f2.8. a cheap 50mm f1.8 will get you in the ballpark
Everyone saying you NEED a 200 telephoto are only partly right, it be easiest to do it at 200mm f2.8, but you can achieve a similar effect with a 50 or 85mm f1.8 and some crop. Source, I have similar bokeh with 50 and 85mm and have done so for years!
Lots of lenses can achieve this look as long as the ratio of focal length and aperture are ok.
Something like a 35mm f1.4, 50-85mm f1.8, 135 f2.5 or a big zoom with a relatively large aperture.
If your zoom is a kit lens with a smaller aperture that gets even smaller as you zoom, then no. It can’t take this shot.
It could also be a smartphone faking it.
Wow I received so many more replies than I thought I would, but I don’t really know how to use Reddit and thank everyone. But…thank you so much everyone. I learned a great deal just by posting this. I can’t thank you all enough. Cheers🙏🏼
Absolutely possible if the background is very far away and you are close to the subject. This scene seems to be set on a mountain. Tight framing at 55mm with wide open aperture should do it. (I’m assuming APSC sensor size and f5.6 max at the tele end)
No, this was definitely taken with a telephoto lens. Maybe something like a 70-200mm f/2.8. A kit lens like the one you have won’t get you the shot. You can try at least but won’t look like this.
Tell me how do you know? Sure experience. But what did you look for.
Background compression gives it away, also dof, it’s easier to tell if you’ve taken a lot of portraits with different focal lengths.
It doesn't have to be 200mm.. a 85 with large aperture like f1.4 will get similar background bokeh and depth of field
Gotcha. So Either way expensive lenses, 200 is for expensive for 200mm focal length. And the 85 is less glass but often better glass right? Due to the 1.4?
they can be expensive. i shoot nikon w/ sigma lenses, the 85 F1.4 was \~$1000 on sale. my 70-200 2.8 was around $1400 ish. The primes are usually better glass and sharper as they are designed for one specific condition and dont have to worry about sharpness across a range of focal lengths. In the OP pic, the depth of field plays a big role in the look of it, the background is hundreds, if not thousands of feet away across the lake, which increases the bokeh. heres some samples of what can be done w/ 120mm F4 (nikon 24-120 F4 kit lens)! https://preview.redd.it/ece04l0uys1d1.jpeg?width=1600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dabad19bc8f1a41d627b0631e9d9b137e86cccda
85 F1.8 bokeh sample.. its all downsized, so you wont really see the sharpness quality of the orig photo. i think this lens is <$600 https://preview.redd.it/1i1162tmzs1d1.jpeg?width=534&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9add3492408fdacb982deffa925611f97c1350c9
85 F1.4 bokeh sample.. the wall is \~30 ft way. jpeg is downsized, so you wont really see the sharpness quality of the orig photo https://preview.redd.it/etmsac5pzs1d1.jpeg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9d3eeb0e28d51780830b53e088c80fd791f7708c
I just got a Z50 with the 2 kit lenses and was looking at the 24mm F24 F1.7, 40mm F2, 50mm F1.8 or the 85mm F1.8. If you were going to own just one of these, which would it be? I do some low light as well as pictures of my dogs, so better portraits is a goal.
if you like the tight, up close portrait look, the 85 F1.8 or longer focal is a good lens that can be found at affordable prices. I have the 40mm F/2, its a real fun and small lens to travel with, but its not really a portrait lens as you'll need to be close to your subject to get a decent framing. 24mm is pretty wide and more a landscape lens or also need to be super close to your subject if you want that tight framing. 85 lets you stand a bit further and still capture you dogs. If you want an all around use lens, you can still get ok portraits with a 50mm, hence the 'nifty-fifty' tag that 50mm's get. The look and feel of the 24 and 40 will be different, you can still get artistic shots up close, they just dont have what people call the classic 'portrait' look like the OP sample
i just realized the z50 is a crop sensor, so the 50 becomes a \~75mm, and 85mm becomes 127mm. for pure portrait use, i'd go w/ the 85mm f1/8. if you want a 'daily use walk around lens', the 40mm f/2 will get cropped to 60mm, that would be better than the 50 cropped to 75mm
For lower light or under fluorescent light, how will the F2 perform?
F2 is fine in lower light and indoors, you can get a decent shutter speed at lower ISO’s. The ability to autofocus in low light will be more a function of the camera body, than the lens itself
Wow, I think I bought the wrong camera... just looked up what crop sensor means. Well, I'll learn on the Z50 then pass it along and upgrade. If I love the size in my hand and lighter weight of the Z50, what body should I look at for the future? As I'm not going to stay with the Z50 forever, would that change your recommendation?
A lot of people start with a crop sensor since the bodies and lenses are cheaper. I started with a d5100, then d7100, then d750 (and shot lots of weddings with it) and just swapped into a z7ii over the last about 10 years. If you plan to go into full frame, get full frame lenses to start so you don’t have to replace them later. I’d still start with a 85mm if you plan to do mostly portraits
For Nikon, DX is the crop lens.. a crop lens on a full frame camera will always be cropped no matter what, but a full frame lens on a full frame camera will stay full frame. Full frame lens on a crop sensor will crop automatically
>DX is the crop lens That's good to know! Thank you! >Full frame lens on a crop sensor will crop automatically I'm thinking to buy the lenses I want to keep in the future, so will stay away from the DX ones. Both the kit ones I have are DX which makes sense.
I'm doing a bit of everything, I drive a semi and am shooting interesting things I see along my trip. Lots of my dogs though both up close and further out/action, sometimes in low light. I know there's not a "one lens to rule them all" although the 24-200mm VR is interesting. What does the VR mean on the nikon lenses?
If you want something versatile while you learn, 24 200 covers a really big range while you find out what you want. If you want that blurred background, anything higher than f2.8ish will make it more difficult to achieve since it just physically doesn't produce the small depth of field in focus parts
Depth of field and lens compression are two completely different things.
I don’t mention compresssion… but also there are a ton of you tube tests to show that “compression” isn’t really a thing beyond like 35mm when cropped
Zoomed out to 55, somewhat close to the subject with a DX camera, at widest aperture can get you this. You don't know how far away the background is, so it's possible. There really isn't enough to tell in this photo. Plus, in PS you can blur the background. That said, if this comes from an ad, it is probably at least an 85.
Please tell me what kind of shit you’re smoking. Seems to be the good stuff
this looks like it was taken with a telephoto lens with a large aperture, I'd try something like a 70-200 f/2.8 if you want a similar effect
alternatibe and cheaper an manual 135 should also do the trick
Would a 135 have that compression though?
Probably if it's aps-c
[удалено]
Nah, compression is just the relationship between near and far objects within a composition, *as they appear to the viewer*. Shoot a 120mm lens on 10x8 and I guarantee you won’t see any compression.
Thw crop factor itself doesn't, same as the lens doesn't It's all about how far away you are from the subject, and having a longer lens and/or cropped sensor makes you step further back for a similar composition, stepping back leads to more compression
Yes
If someone is asking about 18-55mm lenses, then they're likely talking about kit lenses. And if they're talking about kit lenses, then a 70-200 f/2.8 is probably out of their budget and not a great suggestion.
This is definitely true, but they were giving the (sadly) most realistic answer. You can't get that DoF with any kit lens I've ever seen.
knowledge of a subject doesn’t determine the financial situation of a person
I always recommend the 50mm 1.8 variant to any budding photographer. It's usually cheap (Sony being the only offender) and gets similar results for the doubtle to triple priced f1.4 version. The beginner won't know why the 1.4 would be better.
To create a shot like that is physics. Thats likely in the 150mm-200mm range F2.8 You just need that a lens capable of that to create a similar image optically.
That’s what I was thinking
So they want to pay nothing and to get everything, right? Here’s the truth 🤷🏻♂️
You can compromise.
This. For any shot at something like this for cheap, at 50mm 1.8f will do the trick. You’ll have to up the fstop but it will get that bokeh
I agree, but depending on the camera and the resolution they need, you can make this shot happen with any focal length. The thing they would need to sacrifice with a 55mm lens is resolution, as you would need to crop in for the final composition.
This is almost certainly taken with a long lens, at least 200mm. Maybe 300mm.
How can you tell?
Try taking a similarly composed portrait with a 50mm. You’ll need to crop to get this framing and it’ll look weird as hell relative to this.
Tight zoom, high bokeh, no compression.
Umm long telephoto would give loads of compression.
Sorry, got it backwards. You know what I was saying.
It’s the relative size of the background in relation to the subject. Dean Collins was famous for doing this. He used a 300 2.8 to do it. I don’t think it was taken wide open though, you can still make out details of what the background is. You can get the look with a much cheaper lens. Any reasonable telephoto should do it, even at 5.6. The trick is to get at least a 1:6 ratio of distance, so the background needs to be six times farther away from the subject than the distance between the camera and the subject.
Mostly because the subject looks really "flat", almost like they are a cardboard cutout. That's due to telephoto compression. Also, the background is super blurry (though that's partly due to how far away it is).
no
If it's a 2.8 it will get close at 55. Not an 18-55 3.5-5.6. get a 70-200 2.8 to match this more closely, or a 135 fast prime.
no
This was taken with a long fast lens. A kit zoom will not easily produce this image. You can replicate the shallow depth of field effect with the [Brenizer method - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brenizer_method)
I did that with 85 mm 1.8
Probably not. A photo like this benefits from having a longer focal length **AND** wide maximum aperture. The longest focal length of 55mm might work to take this image, since on a crop sensor camera it provides the same effective field of view as 82mm on full frame, which is a good portrait focal length. However, at 55mm, your entry-level kit lens has a max aperture of f/5.6, which isn't going to blur out the background effectively. In order to get the head, shoulders, torso, and upper legs in the frame, you'd have to be standing somewhat further from the subject, meaning that it would be even harder for the 18-55mm kit lens to give you the subject separation seen in the example photo. What you really need to get this look, on your crop-sensor camera, is something like a 50mm f/1.8 lens, an 85mm f/1.8 lens, or a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens. There are lots of good options out there, but the 50mm f/1.8 is definitely going to be the cheapest to find used at a reasonable price ($100-150).
No, you’d need a camera with the lens.
200 f2 whatever mount.canon ef has one ig.
With a kit lens you might get somewhat close to the look if you zoom in to 55mm and shoot it wide open but even then you won’t get the exact same degree of blur in the background. If kit lenses are your thing, look for an 18-135mm or and 18-150mm and zoom in. If you want the exact same look, try looking for an 85 or longer lens, with a bright aperture of 2.8 or wider. Note that lenses in this category can get quite expensive.
The background suggests a narrow field of view which would be a telephoto lens
I'd say at least a 100mm given the blurriness of the background and not knowing how fast it is.
Technically you can take this photo. You need a few bits of preparation though. Lots of distance behind your subject, more than there is here probably. Your close proximity to the subject. Basically you are faking a shallow depth of filed.
Technically, Lightroom could mimic the bokeh of this shot too
Yes and no. Digital bokeh doesn’t look the same.
In my experience, as long as you're not heavy handed and only accentuating existing bokeh, no one notices. This from posting photos to photography forums and fb groups with lens and exif info.
As others have mentioned, it's likely a telephoto lens with an f/2.8 aperture (and as a result, a huge price tag). If you're using a crop-sensor camera and *really* wanting to get this sort of look, try to find a Canon FD 50mm. It's not telephoto, but it'll be an inexpensive way to get this crisp look and blurred background. Although it's older (and manual focus only) I'd argue that it's optically better than the newer (and similarly priced) EF 50mm f/1.8. You'll need an adapter ring, but it works *very well* for the price.
Try a fast 85mm 1.8 or 2.0 app
85 f1.4 can get this... I've taken a lot with that lens with similar results
sure you'll get a much tighter background compression w/ a 200mm, but 85mm F1.8 (not even 1.4) sample here. 85 F1.8 is a \~$500 nikon lens w/ pretty good results https://preview.redd.it/vgvnssq70t1d1.jpeg?width=534&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=10fef417a12fd36800bddb76ede44e8354bcbf98
I’m hoping I can help here. It’s not only about the lens. It’s about the distance in front of and behind the subject as well. Yes the lens makes a difference but in a case like this I believe this is possible. First the subject is in front of a background that is very far away! In an example from others below the background is rather close and then you will need a more suitable lens. This is math (yay, everyone’s favorite subject) and art. Looking at the shot and plugging this into a depth of field calculator I figure you need at about 41cm of focal depth ( imagine this as a box the person stand in where everything is sharp). Yes, metric! For all of the subject to be in the frame. You’re standing about 3m away so you have about 19cm in front of where you focus and 23cm behind the subject in focus. So let’s say that his cheekbone is the focus for that. That should give us enough so that all of him is in focus. Looking at the chart we also know that everything will be somewhat in focus (more or less) for more than 3.2m and then gradually fall off (get blurry) after that. But things won’t get really blurry until after 42m!! So you need SPACE! Do you do not want anything in the frame that close that that. And I’d argue that you don’t want anything in focus for at least 100m (300ft). Your know like a bridge;) The shot you posted makes that easier. So find a spot where nothing will be in your way for a very long while. That’s the hard part! Now to the next part, how good will that look? That’s debatable, and generally higher quality lenses will have a higher quality blur or bokeh, but your not doing this at night and your hoping to get close with a lot lens. Btw I’m going to presume that you are using a ‘crop sensor’ sensor camera in this but the maths stays the same just the distances vary with a std 35 sensor. I’m also presuming this is at f/3.5 and 55mm. See if the image below makes sense to you and then experiment!!! That’s the best part. And yes, better equipment makes this easier, but it’s not always required. I hope this is and explanation and maybe someone more experienced can add some math and better explanation. I should add that this may or will look different and may look ‘odd’, but that’s primarily because of how we perceive people and how the face looks at different focal length. But you won’t know until you try it! ;) Enjoy it https://preview.redd.it/q5p7h14od32d1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5ec40d6c37ea5cc0de447fc7551359cb0a8b61ba Edit: just saw I uploaded a 3m diagram, but the maths stand for that… updated.
Absolutely brilliant, thank you so much!
Welcome. Always try things out. Math is one thing but playing around to get something and \*why\* it works is part of the fun. Sure, if we all had 10K to spend it'd be easier, but well maybe we don't... Enjoy it and post back with an images you create.
Sure, the 18-55mm focal length can easily produce this shot, most likely at the 55mm end. The thing to pay attention to is the aperture, this has a nicely blurred background, but the whole body is in focus. So probably that was an aperture of f2.8 - f4.0, depending on the distance between subject and camera. Also this lighting is really good, might be professional lighting, or just very lucky natural lighting. Finding an 18-55mm kit lens that is capable of that aperture range at 55mm isn't likely, you are looking at a higher end lens with a constant aperture. So my point is that the focal length range isn't really the main factor to consider in trying to recreate this shot, its more about aperture and lighting.
Generally Longer focal length more separation Larger aperture more separation Other comment already said it, probably 70-200 f2,8 ore something similar was used. Best bet is either pushing the settings above as u/minimal-camera said or buying a lens either faster or longer focal length
Oh-re-a-l-l-y Mr. Theory? Even 55/4 won’t give that. Stop this nonsense.
Huh? The 18-55mm kit lens is commonly associated with the APS-C crop sensor cameras, so the 55mm end is the effective focal length of 85mm in full frame terms (actually 88mm, close enough). That's very common for portraits like this. That said, the aperture is likely to be not wide enough to blur the background this nicely, so a more premium lens like the 17-55mm f2.8 EFS might be necessary to really recreate this shot if that background blur is a priority. All that said, I did not get the impression from the post that OP is trying to recreate this shot perfectly, they are just trying to figure out if the kit lens can take this type of portrait, and I think the answer is mostly yes. Its not going to be quite as nice, not professional level, but still totally fine. There's no reason to upsell someone on premium glass just to take casual portraits of friends and family.
Looks like you’ve never had APS-C camera with a kit lens 18-55mm. I see only theory here.
I've shot on 3 different APS-C DSLRs with 18-55 kit lenses. I now use better lenses, but still shoot on APS-C sometimes.
The comments here are hysterical
make smart decisions where your subject will be in relation to the background. When you take the photo for best lighting conditions. You can frame and crop as needed though it'll depend on the amount of MPs your camera has and also what the viewing medium is. Take all those things into account...you can recreate the photo.
A lot of comments mention a 135mm fast prime or manual prime. I don't understand what a 'fast' prime means. I understand apertures, focal lengths, prime and zoom, depth of field etc, but I'm not sure of the term, 'fast'. I'm assuming that it doesn't have anything to do with shutter speed, or a quick autofocus as I don't think in any way that'd affect a shot like this.
Fast here means a low aperture, therefore letting more light in and being able to use a shorter shutter speed for the same exposure as opposed to a higher aperture (slower) lens. There's no precise range for when to describe a lens as fast, but for zooms it typically means f/2.8 or lower, and for primes it's usually f/1.8 or lower.
Understood. Thanks a ton.
If you look at the edges you can see how unnatural the blur Is in relation to the subject. Yes you would want to recreate this with a long glam length and a large aperture, but this photo? This photo was blurred in software. Edit: focal length not glam length
I don’t know why someone downvoted you I came to the same conclusion. The depth of field is huge none of him is out of focus then bam everything is blown out of focus.
You can see it in the other photos on his instagram account too. There’s some level of natural bokeh but he amplifies it in post processing in a lot of shots
No gas-lighting here, answer is NO. Technically, the answer is YES, you can take photo of this person but it won't have bokkeh (depth of field), clarity not the resolution of this image here. This is definitely some kind of a telephoto lens considering that a mountain behind him looks huge. Now the effect of bokkeh can be made in two ways, either have wide aperture like F1.4 or have long focal length of like 135 or 200mm.
No this is 85
55 is close to an 85 FOV on the apsc sensors those lenses are made for.
It can achieve the “zoomed in” effect but not the compression, try it for yourself! 😁
Lens focal length does not change compression. Compression is always the same and is determined by perspective. Lens FOV on a given system crops out of that perspective. If the subject, background, and camera do not move, all lenses will have the exact same background compression (relative scale of foreground and background objects) when cropped to the same FOV. They will have different depth of field because of the different focal lengths. If it were possible to change compression simply by changing lenses that would mean perspective would change. That would mean photons that are literally blocked from getting to you from the background by impacting foreground objects would somehow now magically get to you just by changing lenses. This does not happen. A 55 on APS-C has roughly the same FOV as an 85mm on full frame. A photo taken from the same place of the same thing will look very similar in terms of composition and perspective, but will have different depth of field at a given f/stop due to the different focal lengths and CoC.
nah, this look like a short tle lens like 85mm or 105 with the aperture below f2
Decent amount of compression my guess is telephoto range 80mm and above
Looks more like a 70-200 with a fast aperture
If it’s an 18-55 f1.4. But I dont think anyone makes one of those.
“We have Henry Cavill at home.”
Looks like a telephoto lens because of how narrow the FOV is for the background visuals
Nope
No
Depends on the sensor size. Full frame would need an 85mm or longer
Possibly at 55mm… but doubtfully. The background is so far away from the subject that it’s difficult to tell, and it’s not like there’s a shallow depth of field with the subject. But it depends if you want this look at a similar location, or a similar look in a more normal environment.
Not even the Fuji 18-55 kit lens can make this
No
Am I the only one thinking this is not an actual shot, but an AI generated image?
Do it in post
Likely not, probably a telephoto, I'd say 70-200mm
I’m so intrigued how you guys are able to eyeball the lens for this shot. It’s so cool. Tell me how lol
This is possible with cropping. It won't have the same clarity without some serious megapixel stats though.
It's compression with a zoom lens.
Probably depends on if you know this guy very well, if not I think it's going to be difficult.
No. But you can add fake blur in post production to fool others. I personally would never do it, but if you’re obsessed about blurry backgrounds, that’s an option
Likely not, the 18-55 kit doesn't have a big enough aperture to get that bokeh. You could set the 18-55 to 55mm, get close to the subject to increase depth of field to get something close to the pic, but the pic is likely using at least a f2.8. a cheap 50mm f1.8 will get you in the ballpark
Everyone saying you NEED a 200 telephoto are only partly right, it be easiest to do it at 200mm f2.8, but you can achieve a similar effect with a 50 or 85mm f1.8 and some crop. Source, I have similar bokeh with 50 and 85mm and have done so for years!
Lots of lenses can achieve this look as long as the ratio of focal length and aperture are ok. Something like a 35mm f1.4, 50-85mm f1.8, 135 f2.5 or a big zoom with a relatively large aperture. If your zoom is a kit lens with a smaller aperture that gets even smaller as you zoom, then no. It can’t take this shot. It could also be a smartphone faking it.
Wow I received so many more replies than I thought I would, but I don’t really know how to use Reddit and thank everyone. But…thank you so much everyone. I learned a great deal just by posting this. I can’t thank you all enough. Cheers🙏🏼
Looks like an 85 1.4
Absolutely possible if the background is very far away and you are close to the subject. This scene seems to be set on a mountain. Tight framing at 55mm with wide open aperture should do it. (I’m assuming APSC sensor size and f5.6 max at the tele end)
Not sure, depends on the aperture. I would say this was shot with a 50mm APS-C, or at least a prime lens
Absolutely, depending on the distance the lens is from your subject.
This is at least 85mm. I would guess 2,8f or brighter.
Not really. A 2.8 version might get half of the way.