600mm lens for portraits - does it work?

I mean, really. You tell me.

This f/4 lens is an expensive one and now that I've used it more than once, is a headache to use in many ways. For one, motor sports subjects are often either too close, or too far away that the lens doesn't matter anyway. And to obtain the correct perspective in limited space, creative juices must begin to flow.

And equally, the opposit is true. I now honestly love this lens more than any other (I've been renting it when needed). Professionally speaking, people simply see me with this lens & instantly desire my work. This is more true than I can place into words.

But for portraits? I don't know. Does what you see below work? Keep in mind, I was quite far away from him. Perhaps 200 to 250 feet. Shouting was almost not possible (let alone desired by him - he wondered out loud why I decided against using a more more reasonable lens): hand signals were primarily used. Had I had an assistant, perhaps a cell phone would have been used.





So, what are your thoughts of these two images? I'm really wanting to know. Do they look exotic to you (as made with a D3)? Can you tell any difference from these and that what would be made with perhaps a 28mm f/1.4 ?

anyway, thanks in kind for looking & for any words you might have,

marc
http://marcstpierrephotography.com

PhotoRecon said:

I mean, really. You tell me.

This f/4 lens is an expensive one and now that I've used it more than once, is a headache to use in many ways. For one, motor sports subjects are often either too close, or too far away that the lens doesn't matter anyway. And to obtain the correct perspective in limited space, creative juices must begin to flow.

Click to expand...

I really like the flatter perspective of both images than you would get with a wider lens. Where this would really shine is candid portraiture where the pilot was acting naturally around his plane doing preflight tasks. There's a lot of artistic possibilities as well such as heat distortions from the runway surface on hot days. Atmospheric distortion can work to your advantage as well. I guess what I'm trying to say is your work is so good that you'll make this lens work to its fullest potential. Long lenses open up a whole new world. That's why I love em' so much.

The flattened perspective makes the plane look to be like a toy...to me at least...

...and not all that flattering to the guy....makes him look pudgie....again, to my eye....

Kitacanon said:

The flattened perspective makes the plane look to be like a toy...to me at least...

...and not all that flattering to the guy....makes him look pudgie....again, to my eye....

Click to expand...

I have to disagree with that! The only minor negative, and it's not really a negative since it is just an opinion, is it is more or less a staged pose. I prefer catching the subject doing what he would naturally be doing without the knowledge of being photographed. Kind of a waste for a long lens of this caliber doing standard posed portraiture if you can't harness some of the nuance of the environment at greater distances. It's all personal taste at this point and I think it works really well here.

yes.

and hence one of the reasons I've posted the image here prior to showing them to him. He is extremely consciences of how he appears & through my ongoing work of him & what he does. If he looks "pudgie" he'll no doubt quickly diss the image.

I saw what you see as I worked on the image (I work on all my images), but to me, he looks reasonably good here; although, he's not at all fat. And for his age, he's very much in good shape, physically. Mentally, he's as sharp as a tack !!! You bring out a valid point though - the increased focal length just might indeed increase the undesired shapes of a person, if not magnify them.

In terms of the toy effect - I don't mind this. I think this has to do with a combination of what's in focus & that of immediate bokeh; and that of extreme compression.

thanks Kitacanon for your 2-cents here.
m.

Your thoughts are exactly mine. But also, I really like the enhanced effect of compression which this lens upholds over that of others. There's just 'something' about a hill in a road which seems to dip at a severe angle, or of an aircraft flying with a tree backdrop, seeming to be immediately off the wing.

Now that I've used the lens a few times this year, I can finally understand the 'flatness' it subjects. But in my mind, and as a professional, it's simply one more concept that can't be easily obtained by a common amateur or enthusiast - helping to make the images I produce just that much different (or outside the norm).

I like your words here. But in reality, such a lens would be a massive investment for me. And most would instead go the route of 400mm + TC-1.4 perhaps, which, there's something positive to be said about. But based upon my limited experience of the 600mm lens, when it's on... it seems to be REALLY ON !

thanks,
m.

Okay,

what the two of you may or may not know is that I needed a portrait of Gary - for use on future marketing material, or whatever. He had just finished flying for me & was in the process of putting his plane in his hangar when I stopped him short to say, "Gary, we need to do a portrait before the sun is completely gone." The portrait is indeed posed, as several of my portraits of him have been in the past. We then make use of them for a Hero Card or such.

I'm in full agreement with Mirco32 though about the candid work and the uniqueness of a large lens to knock-out such images. I'm well versed with this and although pointing around a 600mm lens within a crowd of people is more noticeable than a guy wearing a power-puff pink baseball cap, it would still work quite well on my monopod as a candid type lens.

After a period of time, people (in a crowd) generally become accustomed to one having such a monster of a lens & begin to carry on with their normal behavior. It's at that point when the true images begin to flow through the camera; and it's here that I'd rather have & use a monster lens than let's say, the new VR 70-200mm. I'd rather haul around 30 lbs of equipment & a monopod if I can regularly & reliably capture a more exotic type image. I'll suffer the pain of weight, no problems. But I'm wanting/needing to produce images which others yearn for (that they can't easily produce themselves - such as with a more common 70-200mm). And it's with this philosophy that I wish to grow myself & begin to earn money (so I hope & hope & pray).

I'm really glad I began this thread. It's informative to me.
m.

I dont know of too many people that use this as a portrait lens. The flattening effect is too pronounced, although this set up just gets by. I also agree that the prop is a bit too close to the face to the background. But it works because the BG is darker, and as stated, there are times when you just cant get close enough. But 600mm is too limited, at doing the old foot zoom is way to much trouble for this heavy lens. You would be better served with the new 70-200vr2 and the TC 1.7 or new 2.0. Unless your subjest in on a one dimentional plane with a vague background. Great lens though as I had one for a stint. Kept the 400 2.8 as its just a better lens IMO. with a 1,7 Im over 600 at 4.8 and Sharp!

Peace, Dave

http://www.davenphoto.com

Doesn't work for me, the compression seems way over the top. He almost looks like a cardboard cutout in the second shot.

--
JL Smith
http://jl-smith.smugmug.com
Gear listed in profile!

I applaud you for taking a risk — they're certainly out there. If you want to travel lighter, compress distance, and take a greater risk — try your luck with a CAT lens. Either the 500mm or 1000mm if you can find one.

Whether it works for your client is an entirely different matter, but contrast gets you noticed.

BTW, I agree with the other poster who claims this perspective makes the plane look like a model toy.

Best of luck.

--
the born 2 take risks
design guy

jl_smith said:

Doesn't work for me, the compression seems way over the top. He almost looks like a cardboard cutout in the second shot.

Click to expand...

That goes the same for me, I like the first photo though

--
http://haf.cc

Let me be the first to say I like much of your work and I've said so in the past, so please do not take this as mean trolling critizism.

Yet, I concur with the others claiming the extreme compression of a whooping 600mm makes the images look, well flat. There's nothing technically wrong with the images, color and tonality, contrast and all that is fine. The problem I think, is that people are used to a more "real" perspective of the main subject, especially if it's a human. The common strategy today of portraiture is making the main subject "pop" by means of DOF, lightning and framing/composition. When I see that guy by the plane, I'd like to see the spark in in his eye and his (presumably) wicked smile, beautifully lighted by the golden evening sun, shot from a perspective that gives a sense of proportion and shape both of man and aircraft.

I'm at all not sure if the average viewer will like the flattened look and the distanced, toy-like feel. It's too different from the way they are used to seeing portraits, and indeed the way portraiture, both in static studio-settings and "out there" have been done for the past 170 years. However, it IS original and that's obviously something a professional photographer can benefit from - providing a style and look others don't. In the end you're the best judge to the potential of this strategy, you know your customers and should have an idea of what they expect. I guess you have to ask yourself if the time, effort and last but not least cost is worth it over the safe and tried.

Good luck.

Mac

--
Visit my blog at http://www.mindovermadness.org

“I cannot and will not cut my conscience to fit this year’s fashions.”
— Lillian Hellman

The worst one can do is probably shoot such a scene with a 50mm lens. Will look like a p&s shot.

So your choices are either (ultra) wide angle or tele. You decided for the latter one and got it right. Yeah looks a bit flat and like a toy but so what. At least it has a distinct look that is unique and makes people think about it.

I say for an experiment print both of them big and see the difference. I looked at both of these several more times at the small size they are now and I like them more the more I look at them. These are meant to be bigger and you will see it better than I can explain it. Thinking "out of the box" is what a lot of photogs lack and they become stagnant. Push the envelope and it will pay off, I know it will in this case.

Kitacanon said:

The flattened perspective makes the plane look to be like a toy...to me at least...

...and not all that flattering to the guy....makes him look pudgie....again, to my eye....

Click to expand...

Yes, I think the 3/4 shot (the second one) is better for that reason. When the airplane is photographed just off-front (as in the 1st picture) the compression from the 600mm is too strong, that's why I think more sideways angles might work better with such a powerful lens.

or is the gentleman oof in the second shot? Looks like it to me. Other than that I also find it a bit flat but not that bad. I do like the way it renders the background and makes the subject stand out.
--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!

I really appreciate the so far responses. They've been more than constructive for me & my out-of-the-box-brain, which has never really been "in-its-box." LOL !

Some here have commented about the second image - being too much like that of a cut-out or that of cardboard. You can't compare it here, as I've swapped-out the image, but I've made the upper prop blade on the plane a tad bit darker. I've done this for two reasons: 1. that it no longer competes so directly with Gary, the subject, and 2. that the devalued blade reduces the overall - flatness effect upon the image - helping the eye go more directly toward Gary, exclusively.

Below is this revised image:



This should have been done up-front; however, because of the call-outs of the image being overly "flat-looking," I began to realize the prop was the primary problem.

I uphold my question as being valid: I really do seek your opinion on such portraits being made (though not always) through such a lens (one used primarily for other reasons - Earth-bound images of Martians walking upon the red surface of Mars, for example).

However, as Mirco32 & one or two others have pointed out, the two images scream, "I'm not a P&S snapshot." And to many (not everyone, but many), if the image doesn't look like a P&S snapshot, it's therefore good. A case in point, I can no longer ask the closest of my friends for their opinions of any particular image of mine. Even before they look upon such an image I find to be questionable, their immediate response is, "Oh, your work is ALWAYS fabulous." It simply won't matter to them if the subject looks like a cardboard cut-out. They like it before they see it.

The reason I ask about the 600mm is that I really do like the way it compresses the background into the foreground. The image below is such an example:



It really does dramatize an otherwise less dramatic background.

And a reason I ask about the lens is that for the limited number of times I've been able to use it this year, it has produced some of my absolute favorite images. The image below of the 737 has become my one of my airline client's all-time favorite airliner airplane images. He's an executive at the airline & really, really likes the image, as made from a 600mm.



And for me, this Ferrari 430 image, made through the lens is absolutely everything I sought for the few days I spent up at the Road Atlanta track - being only about the second or third time I've ever photoed race cars (the first & second time were only for an hour or so each). I strongly believe this Ferrari image is one of my all-time favorites indeed. It's simple, it's powerful, it captures the eye.



And the lens helps to place me in a safer spot. Well, maybe not completely safe, but safer than I had been while photoing with the 300mm. I'm able to be back a little bit further from the often powerful energy exerted by the subject. Where as before, almost each of my made images were a hair-raising event (not for me, but for those photographing me photographing the subject... LOL )



Where as, the one below was made with an af-s 400mm f/2.8:



And the one below here with an af-s II 300mm f/2.8:



I don't know. I'm sure I'd find a greater amount of utility from a 400mm f/2.8 and perhaps to couple it with a TC1.4 (or maybe even a 1.7). And I also know my keeper rate from the rented af-s 600mm lens when shooting at the super-slow shutter speeds I had been using (1/125 sec) has been quite less than that form my own af-s II 300mm lens. But who knows where life will take me while I float upside down while outside my box. At least, I don't... I don't have a clue!

Below is one more image, as made through the af-s 600mm lens at 1/60th sec, and is perhaps the most difficult scenario I can imagine for the lens: a flying Huey helicopter quite far away from me. It's not the image that is so cool, it's the super cute pilot-chick who was flying the bird whom I could not help but to fall completely in love with:



cheers to y'all,
marc

I don't know why it didn't post above.



m.

a 100-percent crop of the second image:



Neither of the two portraits are my favorite (I openly admit this); I'm simply experimenting, or, did at the time. If I were to be able to do it all over again, I would want to use a tripod, the mirror up & a cable release, as opposed to a monopod. But at the time, I lacked the time to change them up; not to mention, I was not near a tripod.

The image seems to be somewhat in focus, though is likely a bit back-focused. But again, keep in mind I was some 200 to 250-ft away, if that - which is quite a distance.

thanks for the observation,
marc

Seems to me that your photos confirm the "perspective" of those that don't care for the flat look...and the photos do nothing to change that viewpoint...

...and to those that don't care either way, or like you, like the flat look, your photos reaffirm your preference...