600mm lens for portraits - does it work?

I hold your opinion highly here. I hold it equal to Mirco32's, for example.

In honest, I'm not opinionated in one way or another; hence the reason I seek your own opinion. I ask out loud if for portraits, does this lens 'work.'

Conversely, though, I really do like the notion of compression which the 600mm lens seems to offer for portraits of objects (such as the 737 airplane); and I really do like the way it obscures backgrounds; and I really do like the fact I can stand further & more safely away from high-energy subjects (like the head-on airplanes).

However, if & when I'm finally able to acquire such a lens - I'm wondering out loud (to you) if the decision making (between a 600mm or that of a 400mm) should include the use for portraits. I'm not trying to get a conference-call consensus, but am simply seeking a basic reaction. Is everyone going crazy in liking the two portraits? or is the reaction mixed? .... and this is helping me, not just about the lens, but about photography, in general.

Does this make sense?
I really do cherish your words.
They're important to me.

m.

Hi Marc,

You've been having a good discussion with several others here, about whether or not the extremely flattened perspective from the 600mm focal length works well for these portraits -- so I won't intrude (too much) on that. However, nobody has yet delved much into the subject of depth-of-field, so I'll make a few comments on that topic.

The big limitation of using that 600mm lens for portraits is that its f/4 aperture doesn't allow you to control DOF very effectively. Keep in mind that, for a given subject magnification (or framing), DOF at a given f-number will be the same, regardless of focal length. Therefore, an image from a 600mm lens at f/4 aperture, shot from 240 feet, would have approximately the same DOF (as well as exactly the same subject magnification) as an image from a 200mm lens would have, when shot at f/4 from 80 feet. Only the perspective would be different -- not as compressed from 80 feet as it would be from 240 feet.

So in other words, even a 200mm f/2.8 lens (which is a small fraction of the size and weight of that 600mm f/4) would have allowed you to control DOF more effectively than you were able to accomplish with that 600. And a 200mm f/2 lens would have allowed you literally to cut the DOF in half for those shots.

To put this all in perspective (sorry, I had to say it ), a shot from a 600mm lens, at f/4 aperture and 240 ft subject distance, would have a DOF of approximately 6 feet to either side of the plane of focus (using a CoC size of 0.030mm). In the case of the portraits you posted, I believe that much DOF allowed the propellor to be too much in-focus, and probably was at least as much responsible as the flattened perspective was (if not moreso) for the excessive prominence of that propellor blade that you have been discussing with others.

On the other hand, a shot from a 200mm lens, at f/2.8 aperture and 80 ft subject distance, would have had a DOF of approximately 4 ft to either side of the plane of focus (using the same CoC); and the DOF for an f/2 aperture at the same distance and FL would have been about + 3 feet. That certainly would have blurred out that propellor blade more effectively, and made it less of a distraction.

Just my two cents -- I hope this is helpful.

Happy Holidays,
--
Greg

PhotoRecon said:

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.

Click to expand...

I'm too sure I would have tinkered with the image. In my opinion the propeller really wasn't a distraction. My feeling is Gary and the plane IS the subject here, of course Gary being the primary subject. And that has been fully emphasized by the background I feel the DoF is perfect on this and the background screams action, even for a posed still shot. As someone has commented about the focus and sharpness, I feel it is a non-issue here. Razor sharpness isn't everything. The atmosphere and distance between you and your subject will dictate sharpness. Putting everything together the way you did it seems like a winning combination.

I say print it big and put it on a wall you'll see what I mean!

And like I said, the backgrounds in this and the Ferrari shot screams action. Not like so many WA static shots that we see everyday.

PhotoRecon said:

Click to expand...

PhotoRecon said:

Click to expand...

One that likes the flatness afforded by this technique, and one that does not.

Count me among the former. I love it!

Yes, 200mm at f/4 and 80 feet gives the same DOF control. But it is about so much more than that. The pilot and the aerobatic machine are figuratively one. That, first and foremost, is what this photo speaks to me. Having never met the man, I can't address whether this image flatters him or not, but I like and will in the future try to emulate this effect.

Congrats,
Jeff
--
http://jeffjmr.smugmug.com/

Marc,

You had people mentioning the flatness and how it made the pilot look pudgy. You seemed to answer about his BODY and how he isn't pudgy in real life etc etc.

When I read their responses I was thinking that they were talking about his face.

You mention portrait in the title so I looked straight at the face and I can see the same flatness that I am experiencing with a ring flash I am playing with.

When I take pictures with that flash alone it make faces look flat and fat. I'm trying to use two flashes with the main flash coming from the side and rear to give the rim light and depth to something that can be very flat looking. So my ringflash is providing fill and not overpowering the subject. When I look at your "portrait" I get the same feeling. I feel like I need to adjust that rear rim light to give SOME kind of depth to his head.

And if it IS a portrait and the subject themselves could judge there own picture as a portrait, there is a danger that they will see their face and think that it isn't too appealing to look at. I think that calling them portraits leads to possible problem. It seems that the person is almost secondary and the plane is the subject. That's also cool. You are trying to find a way that can capture the power.

There must be a better word to use to describe them than portraits. I can't find the word for it, though.

It seems to me that you are considering buying this lens based on one type of shot. The 3 planes coming straight at you, the 737 and the racecar seem to all be the same shot. It's a straight on shot. I think it works, but if you put them all side by side, they might start looking like the same shot again and again, just with the subject changed. Imagine the walls of your room filled with these pictures. It might be too much of a good thing.

I suggest that you try to do as many of these shots as you can to see if you might get tired of them. You don't want to quickly get tired of that one type shot AFTER you opened your wallet to buy this lens.

Good luck. I think it's cool how you are opening yourself up to suggestions. I think you'll figure this out. Keep asking. My gut feeling is you'll wind up with a shorter lens with a TC to get to 600mm.

Guy Moscoso

I'm a fan of the compression that long lenses offer. I like longer lenses used for portraiture/fashion/glamour.

I remember a photo of yours with an airplane just barely above the runway- the neat part was that the threshold was basically squished up behind the rear of the airplane; had the airplane just taken off.. it looked like it took off in less than a few hundred feet! It made the photograph look different and non-mundane compared to the countless aviation photographs out there in the world.

Face it, using a long lens will set your photographs (for better or worse) apart from the all-too-typical. I remember reading and online article, and this guy was chastising another photographer for shooting a model with what looked to be a 600mm lens. Why not? Makes perfect sense to me- The model was on the beach with the city and tall buildings behind her... There is absolutely no way to get skyscrapers and other things related to "city life" nicely out of focus, all seemingly pushed up right behind the model by using a 85 or 135mm lens. Just can't happen.

I think I'd opt for the 400vr though. I think you get more for your money that way. Fast lens, coupled with a meaningful focal length (300mm is great for shooting fashion/glamour, but far too short for everything else I'd say.) and you have the option to don a teleconverter for increased compression, wowing factor, and safety.

The bottom line is what your target demographic thinks. Do they love it? If you can see yourself profitably shooting in the same manner for the next few years due to your target market really liking that particular look... then I'd say you're onto something!

Superteles for portraiture = you bet!

That's my verdict anyway

--
Teila K. Day

I would agree with Teila and a few of the other responses.

What some of us love about photography, is our ability to use different lenses as tools for different effects. If your question is, "do these shots work?" my opinion is yes. Is that lens the best choice to accomplish what you wanted, maybe not - but it works and if I were the pilot, I'd have purchased the print. The 600 is not a portrait lens but it certainly can be used for portraits successfully, and I agree with the statement that it's best used capturing candid action vs. posed. Your other shots with this lens are awesome, and I too, applaud you for experimenting with this application.
all the best,
glo

Teila Day said:

I'm a fan of the compression that long lenses offer. I like longer lenses used for portraiture/fashion/glamour.

I remember a photo of yours with an airplane just barely above the runway- the neat part was that the threshold was basically squished up behind the rear of the airplane; had the airplane just taken off.. it looked like it took off in less than a few hundred feet! It made the photograph look different and non-mundane compared to the countless aviation photographs out there in the world.

Face it, using a long lens will set your photographs (for better or worse) apart from the all-too-typical. I remember reading and online article, and this guy was chastising another photographer for shooting a model with what looked to be a 600mm lens. Why not? Makes perfect sense to me- The model was on the beach with the city and tall buildings behind her... There is absolutely no way to get skyscrapers and other things related to "city life" nicely out of focus, all seemingly pushed up right behind the model by using a 85 or 135mm lens. Just can't happen.

I think I'd opt for the 400vr though. I think you get more for your money that way. Fast lens, coupled with a meaningful focal length (300mm is great for shooting fashion/glamour, but far too short for everything else I'd say.) and you have the option to don a teleconverter for increased compression, wowing factor, and safety.

The bottom line is what your target demographic thinks. Do they love it? If you can see yourself profitably shooting in the same manner for the next few years due to your target market really liking that particular look... then I'd say you're onto something!

Superteles for portraiture = you bet!

That's my verdict anyway

--
Teila K. Day

Click to expand...

PhotoRecon said:

a 100-percent crop of the second image:

Click to expand...

For some reason I can't see the image.

PhotoRecon said:

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.

Click to expand...

Yep, this can be key. I shoot with a 800/5.6 and for long accurate shots it takes work. I use live view at it's highest magnification when possible to nail focus. Then like you say, big heavy tripod, MLU, and a cable release.

PhotoRecon said:

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

Click to expand...

--
Long live the HMS Beagle
Critiques always welcome!

Great post on this topic I think it's always important to bring this aspect of DOF and FL up whenever possible, because it's an important part of creative shooting that I often overlook. I have run the numbers before in a spreadsheet and still too often do not consider the fact that the same f-stop, combined with the same composition gives about the same DOF regardles of focal length.

Fostereast said:

Great post on this topic I think it's always important to bring this aspect of DOF and FL up whenever possible, because it's an important part of creative shooting that I often overlook. I have run the numbers before in a spreadsheet and still too often do not consider the fact that the same f-stop, combined with the same composition gives about the same DOF regardles of focal length.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I appreciate that.

Yeah, spreadsheets are great. The online calculators I've seen are too slow and cumbersome for my taste, and it seems the data input/output format is never conducive to putting together "what-if" scenarios, or easily performing direct comparisons between different setups, etc. Very frustratiing. I'll readily admit that most of the understanding I have about DOF was gained after I wrote my own spreadsheet-based program that allowed me to present the input and output data in a way that provides more insight into the phenomenon than the available online calculators provide. Now it's almost fun to play around with different DOF scenarios (I said "almost" )
--
Greg

I sometimes use walkie talkies.

Some photographers just put the walkie on the ground just out of camera site to talk to models.

Great shots by the way, big lens to carry around for portraits though.

Cheers
Randall

I think these shots are rather interesting, and you got some good comments already. What I wanted to add is the following: That compressed perspective gives you some opportunities that you need to make work for you. I think you can do some cool stuff with what you put in the background (and foreground, also). For example, I like the look of the plane's tail in the first shot. It's quite unusual to see it like this. I think some more experimenting may be required, but in the end, something interesting could come from that. Important thing is that you really exploit what this lens offerst to you - if you don't, you might as well use a more commonly used focal length.

GoldRingNikkor: why do my gold rings always fall off ????

In my mind: if one is creative, they often find themselves outside their box & heading in some certain direction, unknown to everyone else but themselves. They head this way until they either get stepped-on or get their head completely cut-off. I can say this in truth, because I've long been mauled by a heavy amunt of footprints & have long lost my head to many, many guillotines... LOL!

As you've suggested: in photography, as in most other aspects of life, once we begin something new, we must stay on track for a solid period of time, that is if we're to become good at what we've begun anew. A commitment shy of this is simple neglect to our own creative idea. This is in consideration that our head is not decapitated right off the bat.

The reason you like the plane's tail in the first shot: the same fore-looking reason I chose to use the camera still attached to the 600mm lens, and not either of the cameras attached other lenses. The sun was just about gone and I made a hasty decision. I chose to take a lesser known path - wanting to see something "funky" done with the airplane & the far away background.

And yes: it indeed is unusual to "see it like this," and without a head on my shoulders, I grabbed the lens & ran in the opposite direction of my waiting-for-me subject/client. Who instantly of course wondered out loud what in the heck I was doing & why I was wanting to use the "monster lens."

... in NO WAY could I tell him, "Oh, an experiment..." ... LOL !

So, this is why I've asked, "Does this perspective work?" : knowing there's more than one school of thought beyond those steming from my headless one. I simply became curious as to what others think (being those who think they know) before the client is shown the image (which was actually made at the beginning of November, but has not been a priority image of any sort - rather, one made as a "why-not?" image. So, it's simply sat within one of my hard drives until now).

I'm in true need: of either a 400mm or 600mm lens (for my aimless direction of almost incomeless work, which stems from my headless shoulders). And if I had such a lens at regular-ease-of-use, I'd likely use it for all kinds of things - including portraits in certain scenarios, as I've done here through my own, initial imagination. But who knows, a 400mm with and/or without a TC may likely be the better (and smarter) way for myself to go - although the 400mm is a more heavily traveled road; and I? I've more often than not traveled through the pathless shrubbs...


marc

Hi Marc.

I have been using a 600 f/4 for the past week while my 400 f/2.8 is being serviced.

Using the 600 in exactly the same venues as I have been using the 400 left me thinking maybe I should buy a 600?

The lens at f/4 is superb, maybe just a bit better than my 400 with a 1.4 tc fitted, but why wouldn't it be?

So I find myself asking if I did it all again with the knowledge I have now, would I buy the 400 or the 600 and I find my honest answer to myself is, I would buy the 400. For me it is just so much more versatile. If the 2 x's mark 3 is as good as Nikon claims, then I will be a very happy person.

Have a think about what is achievable with the 400, 1.4 and 2 x's tc's as well as a D300 and D3, all with full AF.

I could go on from here with, add a 200 f/2 or a 70-200, 24-70, 14-24, 10.5 fish and you would have a Nikon kit that has you totally covered.

Buy a macro if you need it and from there on you would only be purchasing new lenses for convenience. Maybe a 70-300 vr, and 16-85vr.

Whatever your decision, it will work for the majority of what you do, just don't be convinced that it will cover everything.
--
Warm regards, Dave.
Australian NPS member
D3, D300, glass 10.5 to 400mm, f/1.4-2.8.
http://www.dksphotography.com.au
http://www.sydneyuniversitycricket.com.au

glo,

Even a telescope can be used for portraits or candid portraits... we see this done with Brad Pitt & Angelina Jolie all the time... LOL!!!

There's simply something off-the-wall about using & hauling around a 600mm f/4 lens. People without even seeing the photog's work - begin to kneel & bow. "Oh, honey, why can't I have one of those cameras," can be heard behind the back almost constantly. And unlike never before, I feel as if an entire sea of people all around me are staring me down, as if I'm some drop-dead, gorgeous blonde or such. People come up to me and ask if I have a business card.

But it's the end-product I'm after. It's a look or appearence that when one quickly glances at any one of my made images - they become enthralled to look a second time. Images from the 600mm lens (over a 300mm for example), just as a 200mm f/2 lens typically does (over the previous 70-200 & 80-200mm zooms for example), command attention (provided they're made correctly).

And being that life is short & being that a freelance photog/artist, such as myself, scream to offer work to clients that is uniquely different - I mean, why not? Is the lens a hassle? Yes. Can it be a headache? Yes. Is it too easy to miss an otherwise easy shot? Again, yes. But in many ways, running through my mind, I think, "why not? Why not go all the way to an extreme... and be extremely different." But in reality, the 600mm is not an everyday portrait lens. And this is known because it's been tested over time to a world audience.

Hence, my using a rented 600mm to make an end-of-the-day posed portrait is really nothing new. But the perspective will be a new one to the client - and that, my friend - is kinda' cool (that's done once again something a little bit different).

m.

The big lenses are indeed one of the best advertisements you can have. My 400 earns me the least amount of money but brings me the most clients. The smaller lenses then go to work and earn the dollars. We are easily impressed with size. Always have and always will be.
--
Warm regards, Dave.
Australian NPS member
D3, D300, glass 10.5 to 400mm, f/1.4-2.8.
http://www.dksphotography.com.au
http://www.sydneyuniversitycricket.com.au

...yes, I have.

Dave, what you've just now written above are gaining to be my thoughts too.

The 400mm is the tool to use (for broad-basis work). Not for everyone, of course, but for entrepreneurs like you & me (and others here). I like your work a whole lot, Dave. And I've been realizing full & well that you've made a lot of use of your TC-1.4 on your af-s II 400mm. So I ask myself, why doesn't he simply use a 600mm instead?, which would be a tad bit sharper & would focus a tad bit more quickly.

But my quasi-answer to myself is increasingly that which you've written above.

Yes, I wouldn't at all mind hauling-around a 600mm, even in it's own heavy & cumbersome nature. But yes, common sense & a broader range of utility calls-out to the greater versatility of a 400mm. (Again, if I had a 600mm - I indeed would make it both "versatile" and work for me on a regular basis. But again, as your words above about if starting over. Ditto. And thanks for these very words.)

(A note to you & the others: I've been omitting the 500mm f/4 because I see it as merely a middle-of-the-road lens (being neither really fast nor really long); which, is good for hand-holding - but for me, I'd just as well use a monopod & gimbaled head & a lens of any weight - though to an extreme focal length or speed).

Dave, you're the awesomest!
I'm with you in what you write,
and I'm glad you wrote.

m.

yes. This is too true.

The 300mm f/2.8 has long been my biggest money-maker. But I know what you say.

Importantly (and similar to what you're saying), now that I have the 24-70mm lens, I'm finding myself using it almost equally to that of the 300mm. Where as before, I found myself using the 300mm perhaps four to five times that of the 28-70mm and the 80-200mm.

But yes. Haul around a big camera lens amongst other cameras, and the throng of people will know presence (as well as will the other photogs

m.

Teila Day said:

Face it, using a long lens will set your photographs (for better or worse) apart from the all-too-typical.

Click to expand...

yes - what some (but not all) of us strive for.

Teila Day said:

The model was on the beach with the city and tall buildings behind her... There is absolutely no way to get skyscrapers and other things related to "city life" nicely out of focus, all seemingly pushed up right behind the model by using a 85 or 135mm lens. Just can't happen.

Click to expand...

yes - what some (but not all) of us see in some situations.

Teila Day said:

I think I'd opt for the 400vr though. I think you get more for your money that way. Fast lens, coupled with a meaningful focal length (300mm is great for shooting fashion/glamour, but far too short for everything else I'd say.) and you have the option to don a teleconverter for increased compression, wowing factor, and safety.

Click to expand...

yes - a few others here have said the same & my long-time thought prior to actually making use of the 600mm. If one uses the 600mm, their thoughts CHANGE! Hence my newest delimma. But yes. For someone in my shoes, selling my heavily used & beloved af-s II 300mm f/2.8 (and almost everything else of mine) to obtain a VR-II 70-200mm & a VR 400mm f/2.8, plus perhaps a TC-1.4 - is the path I would be most wise to travel. I could then rent the 600mm for the few times I'd then truly need to use it.

But I truly DO need a longer-than the 300mm lens sooner than later, as renting the 400mm & 600mm on a regular basis does nothing but add-onto the cost of acquiring a new (or used) one of my own.

Teila Day said:

Superteles for portraiture = you bet!

Click to expand...

... only if the subject is an old, old, fat man. If a drop-dead gorgeous blond: the 7.5mm fisheye is the BEST way to go!!!

Teila Day said:

That's my verdict anyway

Click to expand...

... and I like your verdict.

Teila Day said:

--
Teila K. Day

Click to expand...

your friend indeed,
m.

Guy,

a different photog-friend of mine is actually harnessing this same effect with a beauty dish on his studio strobe lights for his young lady, pagentry type portraits.

He's very excited about his work - and then made the mistake of showing the various images to me.

I dogged him.

I said to him, "Their faces are sooooo flat & blown-out white looking."

He replied, "Oh man! that's the fad. They all LOVE it... and my photos are winning awards."

I'm not into making people look "flat," and now that I'm discovering it, I'm not into a lens such as the 600mm making people look flat. But on the same token, I'm absolutely CRAZY about how the 600mm compresses the background into the foreground. I don't want this for all of my images - but for a good number of them, I wouldn't mind at all. Not at all.

I'm not so sure what to say about your own experiences with your one or two flashes & not wanting to make faces appear as flat. For me, I really like natural lighting, but I often use a flash or more so, Elinchrom studio lights & softboxes. I tell you though in complete honesty, I'm in dire need to learn more about lighting & lighting technique. I really am.

I do want to show you the image below, which is not at all flat. But then again, I didn't make use of any lights other than that of a floor lamp behind her and the light turned on in the different room, behind me. We can safely note, she's not at all flat looking.



As for the word, "portrait," I don't care one way or another about this particular word. It doesn't bother me. The word, "portrait," can actually make the subject feel proud that they now have a new "portrait" of themselves. Making a "picture" of themselves seems to be "middle class" and taking a "pic" of them is of course too "trashy." You don't want to make an "image" of them, because that then makes you seem like a "gweeb."

The word that bothers me, though (not really, but sort-of), is "photograph." I don't produce "photographs," I produce "images." I say this because each & every one of my images have been manipulated in one way or another in Photoshop. Therefore, they're "images." But other people might equally manipulate / enhance / whatever their photographs and call them photographs. When I think of photograph (photos), I think of something right off the camera. I can look at the Nikon NX2 and see a whole series of RAW images I had taken earlier that day... and I'm looking at all my "photographs (photos)."

does this make sense, Guy?

thanks for your words,
marc