Reading mode: Light Dark

Why huge long lenses for Glamour Photography?

Go to last post
B

Brent Burzycki

Senior Member
Messages
1,413
Reaction score
0
Location
Northern, CA, US
Well I have read 3 books this weekend and reviewed alot of behind the scenes photos and it seems that the use of reallly long lenses for relitively up close portrature / glamour photography is quite commonplace...

Does the use of longer glass give different skin tones? and or what else does this provide.

So the real question is if you had to buy a Long lens for this style of work - what would it be?

I assuem a 2.8 unit of some sort?

--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
 
The classic pro head shot lens has, for years, been a 180 2.8 Nikkor (it started with the Olympia Sonnar made by Ziess at Adolph Hitler's request to have a series of lenses for the German cameras at the 1932 Olympic games.)

With digitals a 135 might be a good compromise.

Altho I have done portraits with up to a 500mm lens and recently with the 80-400 VR zoom.
 
Did the VR400 work well for that application...I am seriousely thinking about that lens..

But I do like the speed of AF on the 2.8 300
Pete Biro said:
The classic pro head shot lens has, for years, been a 180 2.8
Nikkor (it started with the Olympia Sonnar made by Ziess at Adolph
Hitler's request to have a series of lenses for the German cameras
at the 1932 Olympic games.)

With digitals a 135 might be a good compromise.

Altho I have done portraits with up to a 500mm lens and recently
with the 80-400 VR zoom.
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
 
I was watching a Sports Illustrated show once and they said long lenses give a flatter, slimmer appearance to the models. Not sure how...
Brent Burzycki said:
But I do like the speed of AF on the 2.8 300
Pete Biro said:
The classic pro head shot lens has, for years, been a 180 2.8
Nikkor (it started with the Olympia Sonnar made by Ziess at Adolph
Hitler's request to have a series of lenses for the German cameras
at the 1932 Olympic games.)

With digitals a 135 might be a good compromise.

Altho I have done portraits with up to a 500mm lens and recently
with the 80-400 VR zoom.
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
 
Think of the other extreme. Go up close to a face with a wide angle lens and the nose protrudes towards the lens and the ears looked pinned back.

Using a telephoto from further back does the opposite. It compresses the perspective and is much more flattering.
Richard M. Jones said:
Brent Burzycki said:
But I do like the speed of AF on the 2.8 300
Pete Biro said:
The classic pro head shot lens has, for years, been a 180 2.8
Nikkor (it started with the Olympia Sonnar made by Ziess at Adolph
Hitler's request to have a series of lenses for the German cameras
at the 1932 Olympic games.)

With digitals a 135 might be a good compromise.

Altho I have done portraits with up to a 500mm lens and recently
with the 80-400 VR zoom.
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
It's the compressed perspective that is more flattering to glamour/swimsuit pictures. 300mm is typical but 600 has been used (really stupid though since you need a walkie-talkie to talk to the assistants)

I prefer a good model and an 85mm lens. It makes you feel "closer" to the model. Long lenses have a nice look but more impersonal to me.

here is an example at 85mm (on an F5):




AJP said:
Richard M. Jones said:
Brent Burzycki said:
But I do like the speed of AF on the 2.8 300
Pete Biro said:
The classic pro head shot lens has, for years, been a 180 2.8
Nikkor (it started with the Olympia Sonnar made by Ziess at Adolph
Hitler's request to have a series of lenses for the German cameras
at the 1932 Olympic games.)

With digitals a 135 might be a good compromise.

Altho I have done portraits with up to a 500mm lens and recently
with the 80-400 VR zoom.
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
............. to the subject.

Shoot on wide angle and the subject is thin, stick insect like and the background can take as much dominance, even if you use it to minimise DOF.

Add stronger and stronger lens and the central image become far more dominant and rushed forward, filling out the same area (roughly) with a stronger bold image (the image actually get thicker). The background also is pulled forward but is also very much out of focus by using wide apertures, in fact because of the subject to camera distance it is almost essential to use, say a 300mm at it 2.8 setting and it’s the reason why an F4 lens will simply not cur the mustard as they produce too much DOF and negate the exercise.

The object of glamour, fashion and strong portrait photography is to make the sitter the single most important and strong image in the frame ~ simple filling the frame with a shorter lens will not give the same strength.
 
Those are very nice - what lens is that?

A 2.8 or some other varity..
Clark Hampton said:
I prefer a good model and an 85mm lens. It makes you feel "closer"
to the model. Long lenses have a nice look but more impersonal to
me.

here is an example at 85mm (on an F5):




AJP said:
Richard M. Jones said:
Brent Burzycki said:
But I do like the speed of AF on the 2.8 300
Pete Biro said:
The classic pro head shot lens has, for years, been a 180 2.8
Nikkor (it started with the Olympia Sonnar made by Ziess at Adolph
Hitler's request to have a series of lenses for the German cameras
at the 1932 Olympic games.)

With digitals a 135 might be a good compromise.

Altho I have done portraits with up to a 500mm lens and recently
with the 80-400 VR zoom.
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
 
I love the 80-400 VR for head shots. If you search my threads you will see an example. If I get a chance I could post another here.
 
Brent Burzycki said:
A 2.8 or some other varity..
Clark Hampton said:
I prefer a good model and an 85mm lens. It makes you feel "closer"
to the model. Long lenses have a nice look but more impersonal to
me.

here is an example at 85mm (on an F5):




AJP said:
Richard M. Jones said:
Brent Burzycki said:
But I do like the speed of AF on the 2.8 300
Pete Biro said:
The classic pro head shot lens has, for years, been a 180 2.8
Nikkor (it started with the Olympia Sonnar made by Ziess at Adolph
Hitler's request to have a series of lenses for the German cameras
at the 1932 Olympic games.)

With digitals a 135 might be a good compromise.

Altho I have done portraits with up to a 500mm lens and recently
with the 80-400 VR zoom.
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
 
Nice shots Clark,

she looks like Anzhelika if its not her. Clark, do you shoot pictures are car show events?
Clark Hampton said:
I prefer a good model and an 85mm lens. It makes you feel "closer"
to the model. Long lenses have a nice look but more impersonal to
me.

here is an example at 85mm (on an F5):




AJP said:
Richard M. Jones said:
Brent Burzycki said:
But I do like the speed of AF on the 2.8 300
Pete Biro said:
The classic pro head shot lens has, for years, been a 180 2.8
Nikkor (it started with the Olympia Sonnar made by Ziess at Adolph
Hitler's request to have a series of lenses for the German cameras
at the 1932 Olympic games.)

With digitals a 135 might be a good compromise.

Altho I have done portraits with up to a 500mm lens and recently
with the 80-400 VR zoom.
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Before laying out huge bucks for a 300/2.8 lens, etc., try shooting glamour and portraits with what you own. Lots of photographers have done pretty well with normal lenses, guys like Avedon and Helmut Newton, both of whom made classic portraits with Rolleiflex TLRs.

The long-lens-fashion/glamour thing started in the 1960s in London, when photogs like Bailey and others started "mis-using" long, fast teles for street-shooting, both to isolate the subject from background, and to create a new look, something different from the crisp, deep-focus Irving Penn style that was standard in the 50s.

If you really want to go wild, check out Bill Brandt, Lucien Clergue, etc., for their wide-angle fashion/portraiture.

Bottom line: Use what you have, work with it and see what you get. Don't do what everyone else does because conventional wisdom says it's "right."

Mike Smith
--
http://www.pbase.com/mikesmith/galleries
 
I think I lost the plot of this topic once I'd seen the glam pictures. Thank you guys for brightening up a dark and dreary Sunday night in rain-sodden England.

Bud
 
I totally agree with that theory - but I tried the 80-400 at the shop today at it is pretty nice..
Michael A Smith said:
Before laying out huge bucks for a 300/2.8 lens, etc., try shooting
glamour and portraits with what you own. Lots of photographers have
done pretty well with normal lenses, guys like Avedon and Helmut
Newton, both of whom made classic portraits with Rolleiflex TLRs.

The long-lens-fashion/glamour thing started in the 1960s in London,
when photogs like Bailey and others started "mis-using" long, fast
teles for street-shooting, both to isolate the subject from
background, and to create a new look, something different from the
crisp, deep-focus Irving Penn style that was standard in the 50s.

If you really want to go wild, check out Bill Brandt, Lucien
Clergue, etc., for their wide-angle fashion/portraiture.

Bottom line: Use what you have, work with it and see what you get.
Don't do what everyone else does because conventional wisdom says
it's "right."

Mike Smith
--
http://www.pbase.com/mikesmith/galleries
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
 
Brent Burzycki said:
Well I have read 3 books this weekend and reviewed alot of behind
the scenes photos and it seems that the use of reallly long lenses
for relitively up close portrature / glamour photography is quite
commonplace...

Does the use of longer glass give different skin tones? and or what
else does this provide.

So the real question is if you had to buy a Long lens for this
style of work - what would it be?

I assuem a 2.8 unit of some sort?

--Sorry to break into this thread..... Does anyone know the diff between the one touch 80-200mm 2.8 and the two touch?
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
 
I don't shoot care shows. I guess, I have shot models who have gone to car shows.
Anthony Sae-Chua said:
Clark Hampton said:
I prefer a good model and an 85mm lens. It makes you feel "closer"
to the model. Long lenses have a nice look but more impersonal to
me.

here is an example at 85mm (on an F5):




AJP said:
Richard M. Jones said:
Brent Burzycki said:
But I do like the speed of AF on the 2.8 300
Pete Biro said:
The classic pro head shot lens has, for years, been a 180 2.8
Nikkor (it started with the Olympia Sonnar made by Ziess at Adolph
Hitler's request to have a series of lenses for the German cameras
at the 1932 Olympic games.)

With digitals a 135 might be a good compromise.

Altho I have done portraits with up to a 500mm lens and recently
with the 80-400 VR zoom.
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Personally I have never heard of either with the words Touch in them..

Do you have model numbers...specifically.?
Loyd Klein said:
Brent Burzycki said:
Well I have read 3 books this weekend and reviewed alot of behind
the scenes photos and it seems that the use of reallly long lenses
for relitively up close portrature / glamour photography is quite
commonplace...

Does the use of longer glass give different skin tones? and or what
else does this provide.

So the real question is if you had to buy a Long lens for this
style of work - what would it be?

I assuem a 2.8 unit of some sort?

--Sorry to break into this thread..... Does anyone know the diff between the one touch 80-200mm 2.8 and the two touch?
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
 
Clark,

another question if you don't mind. Was that done with a fill flash or reflector?
Clark Hampton said:
Anthony Sae-Chua said:
Clark Hampton said:
I prefer a good model and an 85mm lens. It makes you feel "closer"
to the model. Long lenses have a nice look but more impersonal to
me.

here is an example at 85mm (on an F5):




AJP said:
Richard M. Jones said:
Brent Burzycki said:
But I do like the speed of AF on the 2.8 300
Pete Biro said:
The classic pro head shot lens has, for years, been a 180 2.8
Nikkor (it started with the Olympia Sonnar made by Ziess at Adolph
Hitler's request to have a series of lenses for the German cameras
at the 1932 Olympic games.)

With digitals a 135 might be a good compromise.

Altho I have done portraits with up to a 500mm lens and recently
with the 80-400 VR zoom.
Click to expand...
--
Brent Burzycki
http://www.blackdiamondproductions.net
D100 - 24-120mm etc etc
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
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