Reading mode: Light Dark

I can only get one to use for portraits. Which one?

Go to last post
Mike Scott said:
Zooms can be good for portraits in a pinch if they are wide enough, but f/4 just won't cut it.
Click to expand...
It isn't that simple. Several things to consider:
  • It is not always best to shoot portraits wide open - you may want both eyes in focus!
  • You can control background quality by other methods than just opening up all the way: greater distance between subject and background, careful selection of what appears in the background, lighting, and so forth.
  • With longer focal lengths, the need for very large apertures is actually less.
While acknowledging that for certain types of portrait work a large aperture prime can be idea, for a wider range of work a zoom can be just as good or even better. In addition, f/4 is often used by portrait shooters even when they have larger apertures available, for the reasons I mentioned above.

Dan

BTW: There is an informal portrait at my blog this morning - shot at f/8 with a 24-105 zoom at 105mm: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/2011/06/14/jameson-mitchell-congratulations

--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
 
In myopinion, it's that you can change framing without changing perspective. If you want to get tighter with a prime, then you have to change the angle from which you are shooting to maintain the same perspective. With a zoom, since you didn't move, the perspective remains the same.

If you're doing outdoor portraiture, the 70-200 is an ok choice, but for indoors, you'll be limited to about the first third of its zoom range, from 70-100mm, basically. Not sure that it's worthwhile for that limited usage. I use a 24-70 for 90% of my portrait work, my wife uses her 24-105 for 90% of hers. Both of us use 5Ds, by the way.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
PhillipA said:
With respect - a blanket "you need an L prime for portraits" just isn't accurate anymore.
Click to expand...
I would think the anticipated background would be the deciding factor. If it's in-studio shooting with a solid color back drop, a zoom would be perfectly suited. if the portraits are outdoors with varied backgrounds, I would think that a prime with exceptional bokeh capability would be more appropriate.

Just a thought ...
 
crabb3 said:
I have a 5d mkii. I got the kit. I have a 100-400mm and the 100mm macro. I have read a lot about both lenses so I need some direction. Which lens should I add to what I have? It is either the 85mm 1.8 or the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS USM Telephoto Zoom Lens. Any suggestions would be great.

Sean
Click to expand...
I don't think either adds significantly in the portrait realm to the lenses you already have. 100mm f2.8 on FF is a perfect portrait length and provides plenty of the commonly desired BG blur and nice bokeh. The 70-200 F4 is really not so different from the 100-400 in the 100-200mm zoom range (okay the 70-200 is a little sharper, but not enough to be a big deal for portraits)
 
I agree with everything that you said, however you can always stop down a prime and not shoot it wide open, but you can't open up the zoom if desired.

Your portrait works well because you were close to the subject and the background was relatively far. If you wanted to get a full body shot or were closer to the bg, your options would be more limited.

Wider max aperature also helps with focus and brightens the viewfinder.

There are definitely many ways to get there, but I just feel less limited by a prime.

Mike
 
If you knew what a portait looked like, yhou could choose a lens.

A few dozen books, a few trips to art galleries, afew dozen hours prowling around the web, and you'll start to have an idea.

Get a book by Karsh, called Karsh, with Sophia Loren on the cover.

Look at Cassels, Hemingway, and Churchill in the book.

Decide if any of these are portraits, and then think about what lens a photographer today would use to capture that much of a person.

Lazy people would just Google Karsh Imgaes, but photogrphers will go find the book.

BAK
 
More books.

Birth of the Cool, by David Bailey. It's an old book (40 years, I guess) but full of portraits.

Graydon Carter's recent giant Vanity Fair Portraits.

Shows and books by and about Annie Leibovitz.

The last hundred issues of Vanity Fair.

Books by and about Lord Snowdon / Anthony Armstrong Jones.

David Douglas Duncan's work.

Harry Benson's work

Lots of Eddie Adam's work.

BAK
 
Nobody's gonna beat that one!

Misunderstands photography in general and portraits in particular on a thousand different levels.

BAK
 
BAK said:
More books.

Birth of the Cool, by David Bailey. It's an old book (40 years, I guess) but full of portraits.

Graydon Carter's recent giant Vanity Fair Portraits.

Shows and books by and about Annie Leibovitz.

The last hundred issues of Vanity Fair.

Books by and about Lord Snowdon / Anthony Armstrong Jones.

David Douglas Duncan's work.

Harry Benson's work

Lots of Eddie Adam's work.

BAK
Click to expand...
George Hurrell... You may not want to do black and white '30s glamour, but he sure knew lighting and composition.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
http://www.pbase.com/skipm
http://skipm.smugmug.com/
http://skipmiddletonglamourshooter.blogspot.com/
'Living in the heart of a dream, in the Promised Land!'
John Stewart
 
mg_k said:
TomJ said:
As other's have already pointed out, in many portrait situations, it is commom to shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 so don't let the slower maximum aperture be a deterrent.

TomJ
Click to expand...
huh?? f5.6 or f8 for portrait? You sure?
Click to expand...
It's common in a studio under lights and strobes where you control the background, and in some location shoots where you want to place the subject in front of things in the background (artists in front of their paintings, for example). But that's about it.
 
Scott Larson said:
mg_k said:
TomJ said:
As other's have already pointed out, in many portrait situations, it is commom to shoot at f/5.6 or f/8 so don't let the slower maximum aperture be a deterrent.

TomJ
Click to expand...
huh?? f5.6 or f8 for portrait? You sure?
Click to expand...
It's common in a studio under lights and strobes where you control the background, and in some location shoots where you want to place the subject in front of things in the background (artists in front of their paintings, for example). But that's about it.
Click to expand...
That's just not true, the big reason to shoot stopped down, there's more than one person in the portrait.

Families, weddings, couples, kids, you know the bread and butter of most portrait photographers all require stopping down. Hardly any clients want individual shots.
 
We have no clue what you are referring to. Including a specific reference to or quote from the target post will help those who use the flat view.
BAK said:
Nobody's gonna beat that one!

Misunderstands photography in general and portraits in particular on a thousand different levels.

BAK
Click to expand...
--
---
G Dan Mitchell - SF Bay Area, California, USA
Blog & Gallery: http://www.gdanmitchell.com/
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/gdanmitchellphotography
Flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/gdanmitchell/
Twitter: http://twitter.com/gdanmitchell
IM: gdanmitchell

Gear List: Cup, spoon, chewing gum, old shoe laces, spare change, eyeballs, bag of nuts.
 
The Satorialist

http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com

uses 5D II + 85L. His fashion portraits are great. IF you like the look, ( I do, because the backgrounds are so nice.) you know what to get.

The photos on his site were almost all shot at f/2.5, which surprised me. I would have guessed f/1.4. This is good news. It means you can get away with a 85mm 1.8 (on FF) or a 50mm 1.4 (on crop)

Cheers

Richard
 
The maximum blur disc diameter calculation is quite simple - it is the apparent size of the actual aperture. This doesn't account for the quality of the bokeh and assumes that your background is well out of focus, but it does give a good idea of the first order effect.
  • 200mm f/4 = 100mm f/2 = 50mm f/1 = 50mm
  • 50mm f/1.4 = 100mm f/2.8 = 200mm f/5.6 = 36mm
  • 70mm f/4 = 50mm f/2.8 = 17.5mm
Also think about these values with regard to the sensor size of your camera.
 
I know - I wondered whether keithinmelbourne knew...

Hence the smiley.
Shorthand said:
The maximum blur disc diameter calculation is quite simple - it is the apparent size of the actual aperture. This doesn't account for the quality of the bokeh and assumes that your background is well out of focus, but it does give a good idea of the first order effect.
  • 200mm f/4 = 100mm f/2 = 50mm f/1 = 50mm
  • 50mm f/1.4 = 100mm f/2.8 = 200mm f/5.6 = 36mm
  • 70mm f/4 = 50mm f/2.8 = 17.5mm
Also think about these values with regard to the sensor size of your camera.
Click to expand...
 
mg_k said:
opps sorry Kevin.

well i have both 85f1.8 and 70-200F4 IS as well....its a tough decision but for strictly portrait work, i prefer 85f1.8 for the low light capability and being faster. In fact it's really comparing apples to oranges as they are not priced similarly...
Click to expand...
On this note.. I'd agree.. note that both an 85mm f/1.8 + 135mm f2L combined are not much more $ than the 70-200 f/4IS. If you already have a 1.4mm TC as well, the 135mm with this attached makes for a pretty decent 200mm f/2.8 prime.
mg_k said:
Personally i would save up for a L prime if i m OP. I mean if you have enough money for a 5Dmkii y skim on lenses.....

I only have 60D and i m saving for a 85L to replace my 85f1.8...
Kevin Jorgensen said:
If you read the question again the guy gives 3 lenses to choose from. I have all 3 and chose the 70-200f4L IS. It is very much 'up there' for me.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
'Everything in photography boils down to what's sharp and what's fuzzy.'
-Gaylord Herron
 
The Mad Kiwi said:
That's just not true, the big reason to shoot stopped down, there's more than one person in the portrait.
Click to expand...
Yes, there's another application.
The Mad Kiwi said:
Families, weddings, couples, kids, you know the bread and butter of most portrait photographers all require stopping down. Hardly any clients want individual shots.
Click to expand...
Yeah, you need at least f16 to get two people in a photo.
 
I strongly second the 70-200 F4l. Razor sharp at all apertures/ focal lengths and beautiful bokeh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top