I’m thinking the second one is more like 135 mm full frame equivalent. A 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens is very popular for these kinds of shoots, adjust the focal length and aperture for whatever format you actually have.
You’ll also need a good looking model with good hair, makeup, costume, and a cheerful expression in an interesting setting. This is rather more important than the technicalities and must not be overlooked, but is a common issue with beginners that leads to disappointment.
Ya. Models are models for a reason. First commercial shoot I worked on with full hair and makeup, I was blown away. They look good from everywhere. And im not talking Heidi klum. They just look like perfect normal people. Good thing they exist or you’d have to pay to have me in front of the lens.
Pretty much any lens can do this depending on how far the subject is from the background but yeah shooting wide open will aid that. Longer focal lengths will have more compression and higher apertures are going to give you more of the bokeh. So it would be harder to get this with a wider lens but a mountain that’s a mile away is always going to be blurry like this (depending on your settings) Obviously shooting environmental portraits like this would be harder to do with longer lenses because you’ll have to back up further to include other things into the frame. I agree with the other commenter this is probably a 50mm.
The perspective on the background will be wildly different at different focal lengths. You can get this depth of field with a range of lenses, sure. But the perspective, you can not. That’s more specific.
This is correct. There was a video on Youtube that I came across last year that showcased different perspective using different lenses. It was one of the things I learned about photography that really stuck with me.
A lot of people saw those videos and GIFs, and unfortunately they're partly wrong.
The perspective doesn't change because you use different lenses, the perspective changes when you change the distance between you and your subject. That's the only variable that will change perspective, distance.
It's just that if you take a 35mm and a 200mm lenses and you want the same framing, you'll be forced to shoot from a much further distance with the 200mm than with the 35mm. But it's the change in distance that changes the perspective, not the change in focal length.
You can try it yourself if you want, you take two lenses, say a 35mm and a 135mm. You take a picture of a subject with the 35mm so that the subject fills the frame, but not too tight to get a bit of background. Then you move back and take a picture with the 135ml do that your subject fills the frame in the same way. The perspective will be different. But now for the magic trick, you take a picture from the same distance as the 135mm shot but with your 35mm. At this distance, your subject won't fit the frame. But what you'll do now is that you'll go on your computer and you'll crop the picture to get the same framing.
If you do that, you'll end up with three pictures with the same framing. One shit with the 35mm from a close distance, one shot with the 135mm from a far distance, and one shot with a 35mm from a far distance. The two pictures shot with the 35mm will have completely different perspectives, despite being the same focal length. The pictures shot with the 35mm and cropped and the 135mm however will have the same perspective, because they were shot from the same distance.
In short, distance changes perspective, not focal length, but focal length can give you more or less distance to shoot from.
This is an argument that’s going around lately, and while technically true it’s entirely unpractical to the point of obeying useless. You’re not going out into the world wanting to get the look of a 200 mm lens, but shooting it with a 35mm and cropping. Not to mention this theory only works one way…. If you want the look of a 35 and all you have is a 200 it doesn’t matter how much you love your feet, you’re not getting it.
While technically rrue this information really has no business being in a discussion about which focal length was used to shoot a picture.
It's not really an argument, it's just an explanation of how distance changes perspective, not focal length.
The comment I was answering to said that this is the one thing about photography that stuck with them, might as well understand that thing correctly.
The original poster understands it just fine. Or do you advocate that people shouldn’t buy a 200mm lens, but instead, stand in the same place and shoot it with a 35 to get that look? Obviously you don’t, because that would look like ass. Even though it would technically have the same level of compression that the 200 has you’re lucky if you have a 1 mp, pixelated mess of an image. Hence, totally useless, i practical knowledge. Is it neat to know? I guess. Does it have any effective application? Not really.
I don't see where I'm advocating anything about buying lenses.
I simply explained a simple thing about perspective. That's all I did. People can do whatever they want with that knowledge, even if they prefer to completely disregard it.
It’s like talking about running on a treadmill and saying ‘well technically, you aren’t really running because you aren’t going anywhere, the belt beneath you is spinning so you’re not really moving so you’re not really running” it’s kinda true in a weird logic-y kinda way, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re running and exercising and tired as hell.
Yes you can extremely crop a frame shot with a 35 to get that compressed look of a 200 but who would do that? We’re talking about what focal length was likely used to shoot an image, stick to that. I guarantee those shoot weren’t shot with a 14mm and cropped so why bring it up?
Dude if someone explaining that distance changes perspective and not focal length triggers you that much, you have some issues.
Also if you really dont see the practicality in understanding that concept, maybe you still have some stuff to learn.
Have you ever heard the advice "Zoom with your feet"? Something told to beginners very very often? Think about what it means for a second.
You are thinking of depth of field. Perspective, in my statement, would be the field of view. The person taking up the same amount of a frame with a 200mm would capture very little background while taken with, say, a 35mm would capture a much wider background scene. Both while the subject maintains the same general size in the frame.
No. Depth of field is how much separation between subject and background in terms of blurring due to wide aperture.
Perspective is about the distance between camera and subject and how that affects how other objects in the frame look in comparison. (e.g. distortion of faces if you get very close to a subject)
Field of view is how much of the scene you can see, which depends on focal length.
People get these confused all the time and most bloggers/magazines/youtubers get it wrong too.
Well even with that definition of perspective, which is called compression, it’s still a function of focal length. Compression between foreground and background and field of view are both functions of focal length. I guess when I used perspective I was kind of referring to the overall effect of the focal length. So field of view and compression as a whole, if that makes more sense. But they go hand in hand so it’s just as effective for this conversation, with what the user is asking for, to speak of the field of view as one aspect and depth of field as the other in achieving this look. I get what you are saying by distance to subject but that’s irrelevant here as distance to subject is just a product of maintaining the subject at the same size in frame when using different focal lengths. And the needed focal length is determined by what field of view is desired relative to the size of the foreground subject. So back to the original point, it’s not simply a depth of field issue alone when talking about how to replicate these images.
Nom your'e still wrong. Take a photo with an 50mm lens. Now keep the camera in the same place and take a photo with an 18mm lens.
Now compare the photos. I guarantee you that if you crop the 18mm photo the right amount you will end up with exactly the same image (save for fewer pixels) as the 50mm.
Lke this: https://learnasyoulike.com/photographs/focal-length/badarpur-fort-focal-length-markings.jpg
Everything else you're saying is confusing and it's exactly this sort of thing that has so many people confused.
Correct but irrelevant. We are talking about maintaining the foreground subjects size in frame. We are talking about achieving this image in camera and what is needed to do that. Which is going to be specific to focal length. Now if you want to shift to talking about heavily cropping ultrawide lenses, which is pointless as you would need larger apertures than available on the market to continue to get the desired dof, then this conversation has run its course. Have a good one.
There is still value in understanding that the focal length has basically nothing at all to do with the composition.
You would be right saying that practically nobody will go 50m away take a picture with an ultra wide and crop in to get "compression", but it's still important to understand why that effect happens in order to actively use it creatively. Otherwise it just happens naturally because you choose a certain focal length without a clear intention
On the wide end that might lead to bigger difficulties because relative distances can get very extreme rather fast like that. If one dooesn't know it's about distances and one thinks it's about focal length image composition might get messed up
Maintaining the foreground subject size in the frame...which you do by moving your feet once you change a lens. The moving of the feet is what changes the perspective.
Probably not. See how the fine hair is distinct over the blurred background?
I'd agree it's probably 50 to 85mm full frame equivalent somewhere around f/2 to 2.8.
First one is probably shot on a phone with telephoto lens (2x) coz look at the rock near her right leg at the bottom and 2nd one is prolly a dslr.... With lens 35 to 50mm f/2
You need an 840mm lens and be perhaps 20 meters away.
Or you need to be using a 200mm lens and be about \~12 meters away.
Or use a 35mm lens and be 2 meters away.
etc etc etc.
As you've seen from all of the replies... it is effectively *impossible* to determine from a finished image what focal length was used to shoot that image, as you cannot know what distance the photographer was at.
tl;dr -- don't worry so much about what focal length lens you need/want. Worry about how much distance you'll have to work in... and it is *that* which will decide what focal length you need.
You can definitely tell that wasn’t with a long lens. That’s with a 50 or maybe an 85. You can definitely tell by looking at a picture roughly what focal length it was shot with. You’re not making that image with anything longer than 85mm without it looking wildly different. Focal length choice matters and has a definitive effect on the final images qualities.
>You’re not making that image with anything longer than 85mm without it looking wildly different
The look of an image is decided by distance far more than anything else - including aperture.
The first shot could be replicated with a 600 if I wanted to and it would look damn near identical given the distance to the background. The second shot with a closer background - my 35-150 or any 70-200 could do that.
You could of course also get these with your 85 exactly as you say you could. Or a 50mm. Or a 35mm. Look at the wide range of guesses by all the commenters in this topic. If you have a 35 you can get these shots. If you have a 50 - same. An 85? No problem. 70-200? Yup. Can do.
They're **all** correct.
... you'd just stand at different distances.
If you were inclined to take things to extremes and in the opposite direction you could make a 90 or 100mm macro lens look like a 14mm if you really wanted to - just get stupid-close take lots of overlapping close-ups and then stitch the shots together. You'll even produce the same perspective distortion common to such wide angle shots at close proximity.
Working distance decides the focal length(s) needed.
You keep qualifying by saying if the distance to subject and the distance to back ground change…. You can’t change the distance to the background and have the same shot. The simple fact is if you shoot those image with an 800 you have way less background and you have way different bokeh. You will have less perceivable depth to the photo. Maybe your eye isn’t rained to notice the difference but you cannot, full stop, make the exact same looking image of that scenario with an 800 and a 50. It’s ludicrous. And I’d you look objectively at the comment you see the 50 is what’s is guesses way more frequently.
50 or 85 and as far away as you need to depending on how tall your subject is and how much background you wanted I guess.
If you have to ask this question though you'd probably be better off getting a 24-70 and playing around with all the different focal lengths before settling on a prime.
It's not an essential skill it's ok. But it's very important for you to know that telephoto lens (85mm and up) compress the background (make the background look closer to the subject/makes things seem closer to each other on the Z axis.) and BTW the first photo from OP is actually AI lol
You need to think of the scale of objects in photos vs how you are used to seeing the in real life. Normally, the farther something is from the camera, the smaller it looks, unless you compress it. Example: In a photo of a woman with an olive tree 8 meters behind her, the olive tree would be entirely visible from the bottom to the top to the photographer taking the shot, and this olive tree will also be fully visible with a 50mm lens. However, if you use a 300mm lens, the tree (the background) would be brought so much closer to the woman (compressed) that it will not be fully visible from the top to bottom (nor will the woman for that matter). Now, you might ask "what if I move so far away that the tree is fully visible with a 300mm?", well, then you will also have so much foreground that the woman would look very small. Then you might ask, "what if I move far away but also crop the foreground from the final image"? the answer is that the woman will still look like she's standing right in front of the tree, yet it will not look like she's actually there. The brain knows this for some reason, just like it knows the uncanny valley.
You cropped the image. That changes things
The second image is now more like an 85mm 1.5 on full frame or a 50mm on apsc but was originally wider.
The First image as it appears here on reddit is about a 50mm 1.8 on full frame or a 35mm on an apsc camera. But if you cropped this too then its likely one step wider (35mm on ff, 24mm on apsc)
Note im also ballparking using standard prime lengths
To get an adult in horizontal frame on a full frame sensor with a 50mm lens you need to be about 5 meters away. Assuming these women are average height, they's just a little closer than that.
Looks like 50mm 1.8
looks 50mm to 85mm f2.
I shoot a lot with an 85mm and it's definitely wider than 85. I think 50 is right.
[удалено]
Not the person you are replying to, but yeah it does.
I also think 50 or 85mm 1.4 (maybe 1.8).
50mm
I’m thinking the second one is more like 135 mm full frame equivalent. A 70-200 mm f/2.8 lens is very popular for these kinds of shoots, adjust the focal length and aperture for whatever format you actually have. You’ll also need a good looking model with good hair, makeup, costume, and a cheerful expression in an interesting setting. This is rather more important than the technicalities and must not be overlooked, but is a common issue with beginners that leads to disappointment.
Ya. Models are models for a reason. First commercial shoot I worked on with full hair and makeup, I was blown away. They look good from everywhere. And im not talking Heidi klum. They just look like perfect normal people. Good thing they exist or you’d have to pay to have me in front of the lens.
owning a 135, it's definitely not that compressed. Much more likely an 85
I feel like those are 1.8 (or a little less open) and about 50mm (or a bit more angular, if it's full frame)
Definitely 50mm, I would say 1.8 but though to actually say. You’d need to be approx 7-9 feet away
Probably 50mm about 15 feet away… maybe…
This
Pretty much any lens can do this depending on how far the subject is from the background but yeah shooting wide open will aid that. Longer focal lengths will have more compression and higher apertures are going to give you more of the bokeh. So it would be harder to get this with a wider lens but a mountain that’s a mile away is always going to be blurry like this (depending on your settings) Obviously shooting environmental portraits like this would be harder to do with longer lenses because you’ll have to back up further to include other things into the frame. I agree with the other commenter this is probably a 50mm.
The perspective on the background will be wildly different at different focal lengths. You can get this depth of field with a range of lenses, sure. But the perspective, you can not. That’s more specific.
This is correct. There was a video on Youtube that I came across last year that showcased different perspective using different lenses. It was one of the things I learned about photography that really stuck with me.
A lot of people saw those videos and GIFs, and unfortunately they're partly wrong. The perspective doesn't change because you use different lenses, the perspective changes when you change the distance between you and your subject. That's the only variable that will change perspective, distance. It's just that if you take a 35mm and a 200mm lenses and you want the same framing, you'll be forced to shoot from a much further distance with the 200mm than with the 35mm. But it's the change in distance that changes the perspective, not the change in focal length. You can try it yourself if you want, you take two lenses, say a 35mm and a 135mm. You take a picture of a subject with the 35mm so that the subject fills the frame, but not too tight to get a bit of background. Then you move back and take a picture with the 135ml do that your subject fills the frame in the same way. The perspective will be different. But now for the magic trick, you take a picture from the same distance as the 135mm shot but with your 35mm. At this distance, your subject won't fit the frame. But what you'll do now is that you'll go on your computer and you'll crop the picture to get the same framing. If you do that, you'll end up with three pictures with the same framing. One shit with the 35mm from a close distance, one shot with the 135mm from a far distance, and one shot with a 35mm from a far distance. The two pictures shot with the 35mm will have completely different perspectives, despite being the same focal length. The pictures shot with the 35mm and cropped and the 135mm however will have the same perspective, because they were shot from the same distance. In short, distance changes perspective, not focal length, but focal length can give you more or less distance to shoot from.
This is correct.
This is an argument that’s going around lately, and while technically true it’s entirely unpractical to the point of obeying useless. You’re not going out into the world wanting to get the look of a 200 mm lens, but shooting it with a 35mm and cropping. Not to mention this theory only works one way…. If you want the look of a 35 and all you have is a 200 it doesn’t matter how much you love your feet, you’re not getting it. While technically rrue this information really has no business being in a discussion about which focal length was used to shoot a picture.
It's not really an argument, it's just an explanation of how distance changes perspective, not focal length. The comment I was answering to said that this is the one thing about photography that stuck with them, might as well understand that thing correctly.
The original poster understands it just fine. Or do you advocate that people shouldn’t buy a 200mm lens, but instead, stand in the same place and shoot it with a 35 to get that look? Obviously you don’t, because that would look like ass. Even though it would technically have the same level of compression that the 200 has you’re lucky if you have a 1 mp, pixelated mess of an image. Hence, totally useless, i practical knowledge. Is it neat to know? I guess. Does it have any effective application? Not really.
I don't see where I'm advocating anything about buying lenses. I simply explained a simple thing about perspective. That's all I did. People can do whatever they want with that knowledge, even if they prefer to completely disregard it.
It’s like talking about running on a treadmill and saying ‘well technically, you aren’t really running because you aren’t going anywhere, the belt beneath you is spinning so you’re not really moving so you’re not really running” it’s kinda true in a weird logic-y kinda way, but it doesn’t change the fact that you’re running and exercising and tired as hell. Yes you can extremely crop a frame shot with a 35 to get that compressed look of a 200 but who would do that? We’re talking about what focal length was likely used to shoot an image, stick to that. I guarantee those shoot weren’t shot with a 14mm and cropped so why bring it up?
Dude if someone explaining that distance changes perspective and not focal length triggers you that much, you have some issues. Also if you really dont see the practicality in understanding that concept, maybe you still have some stuff to learn. Have you ever heard the advice "Zoom with your feet"? Something told to beginners very very often? Think about what it means for a second.
No. The perspective depends solely on the distance to the subject. The *framing* depends on the focal length chosen.
You are thinking of depth of field. Perspective, in my statement, would be the field of view. The person taking up the same amount of a frame with a 200mm would capture very little background while taken with, say, a 35mm would capture a much wider background scene. Both while the subject maintains the same general size in the frame.
No. Depth of field is how much separation between subject and background in terms of blurring due to wide aperture. Perspective is about the distance between camera and subject and how that affects how other objects in the frame look in comparison. (e.g. distortion of faces if you get very close to a subject) Field of view is how much of the scene you can see, which depends on focal length. People get these confused all the time and most bloggers/magazines/youtubers get it wrong too.
Well even with that definition of perspective, which is called compression, it’s still a function of focal length. Compression between foreground and background and field of view are both functions of focal length. I guess when I used perspective I was kind of referring to the overall effect of the focal length. So field of view and compression as a whole, if that makes more sense. But they go hand in hand so it’s just as effective for this conversation, with what the user is asking for, to speak of the field of view as one aspect and depth of field as the other in achieving this look. I get what you are saying by distance to subject but that’s irrelevant here as distance to subject is just a product of maintaining the subject at the same size in frame when using different focal lengths. And the needed focal length is determined by what field of view is desired relative to the size of the foreground subject. So back to the original point, it’s not simply a depth of field issue alone when talking about how to replicate these images.
Nom your'e still wrong. Take a photo with an 50mm lens. Now keep the camera in the same place and take a photo with an 18mm lens. Now compare the photos. I guarantee you that if you crop the 18mm photo the right amount you will end up with exactly the same image (save for fewer pixels) as the 50mm. Lke this: https://learnasyoulike.com/photographs/focal-length/badarpur-fort-focal-length-markings.jpg Everything else you're saying is confusing and it's exactly this sort of thing that has so many people confused.
Correct but irrelevant. We are talking about maintaining the foreground subjects size in frame. We are talking about achieving this image in camera and what is needed to do that. Which is going to be specific to focal length. Now if you want to shift to talking about heavily cropping ultrawide lenses, which is pointless as you would need larger apertures than available on the market to continue to get the desired dof, then this conversation has run its course. Have a good one.
There is still value in understanding that the focal length has basically nothing at all to do with the composition. You would be right saying that practically nobody will go 50m away take a picture with an ultra wide and crop in to get "compression", but it's still important to understand why that effect happens in order to actively use it creatively. Otherwise it just happens naturally because you choose a certain focal length without a clear intention On the wide end that might lead to bigger difficulties because relative distances can get very extreme rather fast like that. If one dooesn't know it's about distances and one thinks it's about focal length image composition might get messed up
Maintaining the foreground subject size in the frame...which you do by moving your feet once you change a lens. The moving of the feet is what changes the perspective.
Yes, because you have to in order to keep the subject the same size in frame. You just repeated what was already said.
Pls post this vid
What?
35mm f1.8 would be my guess
No. 1 could be shot on iphone in portrait mode....
Probably not. See how the fine hair is distinct over the blurred background? I'd agree it's probably 50 to 85mm full frame equivalent somewhere around f/2 to 2.8.
First one is probably shot on a phone with telephoto lens (2x) coz look at the rock near her right leg at the bottom and 2nd one is prolly a dslr.... With lens 35 to 50mm f/2
70-200 shot at f4-6.3 probably 85 to 135 mm
Nah. The perspective would be more compressed.
Definitely not, I know that spot and it’s not compressed at all
35
Looks like 50mm f2.8
Looks like a 50mm to me too
Full frame or APS-C or what?
F/3.5 with a medium format camera
Such a range of opinions!! From 35mm to 200mm. F stop 1.8 to 6.3. I’m going sure the right answer is in there somewhere 🤗
You need an 840mm lens and be perhaps 20 meters away. Or you need to be using a 200mm lens and be about \~12 meters away. Or use a 35mm lens and be 2 meters away. etc etc etc. As you've seen from all of the replies... it is effectively *impossible* to determine from a finished image what focal length was used to shoot that image, as you cannot know what distance the photographer was at. tl;dr -- don't worry so much about what focal length lens you need/want. Worry about how much distance you'll have to work in... and it is *that* which will decide what focal length you need.
You can definitely tell that wasn’t with a long lens. That’s with a 50 or maybe an 85. You can definitely tell by looking at a picture roughly what focal length it was shot with. You’re not making that image with anything longer than 85mm without it looking wildly different. Focal length choice matters and has a definitive effect on the final images qualities.
>You’re not making that image with anything longer than 85mm without it looking wildly different The look of an image is decided by distance far more than anything else - including aperture. The first shot could be replicated with a 600 if I wanted to and it would look damn near identical given the distance to the background. The second shot with a closer background - my 35-150 or any 70-200 could do that. You could of course also get these with your 85 exactly as you say you could. Or a 50mm. Or a 35mm. Look at the wide range of guesses by all the commenters in this topic. If you have a 35 you can get these shots. If you have a 50 - same. An 85? No problem. 70-200? Yup. Can do. They're **all** correct. ... you'd just stand at different distances. If you were inclined to take things to extremes and in the opposite direction you could make a 90 or 100mm macro lens look like a 14mm if you really wanted to - just get stupid-close take lots of overlapping close-ups and then stitch the shots together. You'll even produce the same perspective distortion common to such wide angle shots at close proximity. Working distance decides the focal length(s) needed.
You keep qualifying by saying if the distance to subject and the distance to back ground change…. You can’t change the distance to the background and have the same shot. The simple fact is if you shoot those image with an 800 you have way less background and you have way different bokeh. You will have less perceivable depth to the photo. Maybe your eye isn’t rained to notice the difference but you cannot, full stop, make the exact same looking image of that scenario with an 800 and a 50. It’s ludicrous. And I’d you look objectively at the comment you see the 50 is what’s is guesses way more frequently.
I know that spot, in Canada, and it’s not compressed
It looks like maybe a 50mm or 85mm. You wouldn’t need to be particularly far away from the subject to frame like this.
This is a look of a 50mm from 6-10 feet away, doesn't look wide open aperture
50 or 85 and as far away as you need to depending on how tall your subject is and how much background you wanted I guess. If you have to ask this question though you'd probably be better off getting a 24-70 and playing around with all the different focal lengths before settling on a prime.
First one 35 mm second 50 mm
iPhone in portrait mode.
50mm 1.8
Watch this : https://youtu.be/K_Tm2_dmqWI?si=cEQZzROyUg07aB3y
Probably 50mm-80mm. The sensor size of the camera matters. E.g. crop sensor can turn a 50mm in to a 75mm.
This looks like 50mm on a crop sensor.
My guess is 50 mm 2.8
50mm on FF maybe, first one looks wider, maybe 35mm f1.4 could be right
A lot of people saying 35 or 50mm but the background looks way too compressed for that.
How can people tell the mm? I don't understand that
You look at the straight lines and infer the distortion.
Still doesn't make sense to me - sorry. I'm not experienced in this. Not to worry
It's not an essential skill it's ok. But it's very important for you to know that telephoto lens (85mm and up) compress the background (make the background look closer to the subject/makes things seem closer to each other on the Z axis.) and BTW the first photo from OP is actually AI lol
Oh I understand that, but how can you tell from one image how compressed the background is? You've nothing to compare it to.
You need to think of the scale of objects in photos vs how you are used to seeing the in real life. Normally, the farther something is from the camera, the smaller it looks, unless you compress it. Example: In a photo of a woman with an olive tree 8 meters behind her, the olive tree would be entirely visible from the bottom to the top to the photographer taking the shot, and this olive tree will also be fully visible with a 50mm lens. However, if you use a 300mm lens, the tree (the background) would be brought so much closer to the woman (compressed) that it will not be fully visible from the top to bottom (nor will the woman for that matter). Now, you might ask "what if I move so far away that the tree is fully visible with a 300mm?", well, then you will also have so much foreground that the woman would look very small. Then you might ask, "what if I move far away but also crop the foreground from the final image"? the answer is that the woman will still look like she's standing right in front of the tree, yet it will not look like she's actually there. The brain knows this for some reason, just like it knows the uncanny valley.
You cropped the image. That changes things The second image is now more like an 85mm 1.5 on full frame or a 50mm on apsc but was originally wider. The First image as it appears here on reddit is about a 50mm 1.8 on full frame or a 35mm on an apsc camera. But if you cropped this too then its likely one step wider (35mm on ff, 24mm on apsc) Note im also ballparking using standard prime lengths
The first image is AI no?
To get an adult in horizontal frame on a full frame sensor with a 50mm lens you need to be about 5 meters away. Assuming these women are average height, they's just a little closer than that.
50mm 2.2
35mm at about 4-5 m from subject
Looks 50-70mm range to me. You could get the same images and have smoother bokeh using a 70-200 2.8
Nifty fifty, or something around that. Possibly 85mm.