stanley kubrick talking about a lens of 105mm being the perfect portrait lens

D

deleuze3

Well-known member
"Next time I see Stanley, he gives me a long talk about why 105mm is the right focal length for portrait photography."

I was wondering if stanley was talking of a 105mm on a full frame of crop sensor of 1.6 camera?
Will a 105mm portrait lens would be the best on any kind of cameras (full frame or crop) for kubrick ? the angle of view would be different but i guess he was talking about the distortion also...

thanks in advance,
Deleuze3
 
Since he worked as at Look magazine (and perhaps elsewhere?) before he moved into motion pictures, I'll guess he's talking about full-frame 35mm film. 105mm was a standard/classic for portraits back in the day. At least, that's how I recall it.


Jim "used to work for a great photographer...long long ago...and did a bit of stringing for local newspapers, but no expert" Feeley
 
I've always known 135mm (FF) to be considered the perfect focal length for portraits with regards to perspective compression of facial features. There is a slight difference between 100mm and 135mm but any field of view narrower than that doesn't seem to have much of an impact.
 
Deleuze3, you were holding out on us. :) I googled your quote and found it in this totally fun article:

A Movie Odyssey: Three decades of conversation with Stanley Kubrick, part 2
Ioan Allen, senior VP at Dolby Laboratories, continues his reminiscences of his 28-year association with the renowned film director Stanley Kubrick; the first installment, covering the 1970s, appeared in our December edition.
http://www.filmjournal.com/content/movie-odyssey-three-decades-conversation-stanley-kubrick-part-2

Indirect thanks!
 
Remember it like Jim. Leica always use to say on FF 90-105mm was where the facial features weren't too compressed or too stretch distorted. Like you get when close with a wide angle. If anyone is curious, I started in stills so always curious, Leica is resurrecting their famous 1935 soft-focus Thambar 90mm. Not cheap but I would love to check one out on the moving image. I still shoot around about 50mm for most closeup interviews is S35

https://www.dpreview.com/news/16840...cus-thambar-90mm-f2-2-portrait-lens-from-1935

Chris Young
 
Yow. That Thambar lens makes cool images but this line:

"Originally made only in a run of 3,000 in 1935, this new version will be much more widely available starting mid-November, and will cost you £5095/$6495."
 
105mm on FF is great for a headshot...but many portraits include a bit more in the frame, hence the 85mm portrait lens. So, as always, the tool depends upon the situation. Kubrick has opinions like the rest of us.
 
deleuze3 said:
"Next time I see Stanley, he gives me a long talk about why 105mm is the right focal length for portrait photography."

I was wondering if stanley was talking of a 105mm on a full frame of crop sensor of 1.6 camera?
Click to expand...

He's talking about 135 format film, or "full frame" as the common vernacular has it. To be really clear, image size is 36x24mm.

I worked as a newspaper photographer when I was in HS way back in the 1970s. They taught us then that the best portrait lens for us to carry around with us was a 105mm. We had like six or so in the department equipment locker. I used them often; a really effective portrait lens. I liked them so much that I bought my own. Still have it.

Over time, people have shifted some. More people seem to like the 85mm lenses for portrait work these days. I find them very similar. But I find 135mm to be sufficiently long to cause me difficulties with portrait work.
 
OK, so it's 105mm for 36x24mm film.

Let's add a twist so I can be happy with my current lens set XD
If my image is going to be 16:9 instead of 3:2, but I don't want to cut the chin or forhead of mytalent, I just want more stuff on the sides, and I don't want to go farther because that would affect compression... then I need a wider lens. For every unit of vertical FoV, I'm going to have 1.78 units of horizontal FoV, instead of 1.5 units. So, for the same compression Kubrick wants on his 105mm on 36x24mm film, I need an 88.5mm lens for my 36x20mm sensor. I have a 90mm and it's my preferred portrait lens, so, close enough :)

If you're shooting 1.85:1, it's an 85mm. And if you're shooting 2.4:1, it's a 65mm.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top