Portrait Lens for Digital Rebel....

[pn.md]

I saw this in an article from:

http://www.photo.net/portraits/intro

Following text goes with the photo:
"At right: South Beach. Miami. Fashion photography capital of the world. Here a yuppie photographer (note Reef Runners) sneers from the back of his 600/4. He's unhappy with me for walking by with my Rollei 6008 and 50mm lens. The model is way down the beachfront and he's using a radio to communicate with an assistant holding a reflector by the model (in yellow)."

http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0161/photo-sneer-8.jpg


So does anyone on this forum use a 600mm lens for portraits? Isn't this a little extreme? Does it make the model look that much more flattering?

I planned on getting the Canon EF 28-135/3.5-5.6 IS USM for about $400. I'll be shooting indoors in my condo in a spare bedroom.

But after seeing this photo and this Miami professional's choice of lens (600mm), I may purchase the neighboring condo and knock down a wall so I can use a 600mm telephoto "portrait lens." ;)

Good article for Rebel newbies like myself on 300D and lens options:

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/300D/EOS_300D_lenses.html

[pn.md]

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/300D/EOS_300D_lenses.html

This is an EXCERPT from the article. It's not just about portrait lens. But general lens picks for EOS 300D :D :) :

"My Lens Recommendations for the EOS 300D and EOS 10D
There are dozens of possible lens combinations and the one that's best for you depends on your particular needs and how much you want to spend. Here are three suggestions, but they are by no means the only good combinations.

I'd say that the best low cost solution would be the 18-55 coupled with a 50/1.8 and a 75-300. This gives you one wide-angle zoom, one telephoto zoom and one fast lens ideal for portrait work. I wouldn't worry too much about the gap between 55mm and 75mm.

The best single lens solution is probably the 28-135 IS. It doesn't go very wide (45mm equivalent), but it does go quite long (216mm equivalent) and it has image stabilization so you can hand hold the system in conditions where you'd need a tripod to get sharp shots with a non-IS lens. It's a very sharp lens too! Of course I'd throw in a 50/1.8 for really low light work and portrait work where you want blurred backgrounds. Add the 18-55 if you need wide-angle. I know this is 3 lenses, but what's two more cheap lenses between friends!

The best higher end solution might be the 24-85/3.5-4.5 coupled with the 70-200/4L. Both are high quality lenses, both take 67mm filters and they don't overlap in range too much. Again, add the 50/1.8 for the reasons described above. You don't get a really wide-angle lens, but for $100 you can add the 18-55 for use in the 18-24 range (29-38mm equivalent)."...end of excerpt

http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/300D/lenses.jpg

[RichardtheSane]

600mm F4 for portraits. :?
Hmmmm, looks more like a showoff to me....

[pn.md]

Regarding the above article, the author states regarding a renowned portrait artist:

"Elsa Dorfman uses a 20x24" Polaroid camera. Film costs about $50/exposure, so she limits herself to two exposures per subject. Yet her photo of me and Alex (at right) is one of the only pictures of myself that I like. I'm sometimes able to capture the essence of a friend's expression, but I give myself 36 tries with a 35mm camera or at least 12 tries with a medium format camera."

Elsa's fees: "My fee for a framed portrait of a family is $2500 in my Cambridge studio; $3000 plus sales tax and shipping inNYC. Portraits of pets, which I take with trainer Kathy deNatale, are $2850.Â* I make two exposures and the client chooses one of them. The second print, is $2300. "

Wow, around $2500 and she only takes 2 exposures! No one in the family better blink more than once or dad is out $2500. I'm not criticising. Actually somewhat impressed. It's just interesting to me see how some people work. She really must have her job down to exact science ie- Everything must be going right because she only takes 2 exposures. Impressive?

[Tom W]

I believe that at that price, one could build their own inexpensive studio and take family portraits annually with their own camera. :)

[Bruce Hamilton]

600mm F4 for portraits. :?
Hmmmm, looks more like a showoff to me....
How did the OP know it was a 600 f4? Maybe he stopped to ask? If you look at the photographer's face, looks to me like he took a moment from his job to acknowledge a fellow photographer with a smile...

[Tom W]

600mm F4 for portraits. :?
Hmmmm, looks more like a showoff to me....
How did the OP know it was a 600 f4? Maybe he stopped to ask? If you look at the photographer's face, looks to me like he took a moment from his job to acknowledge a fellow photographer with a smile...

Yeah, and it isn't even white!! What kind of 600 mm lens isn't white? :)

[drisley]

This is funny.
The other nite, I was flipping tv channels and I came across an infomercial for some weight loss device/supplement/program (can't remember which), and they were talking to swimsuit models about how they often have to lose weight before a shoot, blah, blah, blah.

At one point they mentioned this "world-famous" photographer and showed him taking pictures of the models at/around a pool.
What struck me as funny was that he had a huge, white, canon L zoom on the camera, and was standing about 5 feet away, supposedly taking full body shots (I would assume since they are swimsuit models). *l*

In addition, the camera he was using was a pro camera (couldnt tell if it was digital) with a built in vertical grip/shutter release, but he was using the old "turn the camera vertically and use the regular shutter button while you awkwardly bend your rist at 90 degrees and hold your arm up over/beside your head" technique. *lol*

I'm pretty sure the big white L lens was just for show, but holding the camera in that matter really made me wonder if this guy was just an actor or not.
:lol:

[burkdog]

That photographer guy looks like a putz and I hate him. If that guy looked at me like that I would have given him the finger and then spit on him.

Anybody wearing cut-off sleeves, hot-pants, and those shoes is definitely a jackass.

[Belmondo]

Maybe the model has really bad breath.



-or-


maybe she has a really big nose and he's trying to flatten it optically.

[drisley]

Hehe, now you know the answer to the song "who wears short-shorts?"

[CoolToolGuy]

600mm F4 for portraits. :?
Hmmmm, looks more like a showoff to me....

I'll bet he has a Hummer, too, with rubber band tires, and he only brings it out on sunny days to keep the finish shiny... :roll:

Have Fun
Rick 8)

[Jim_T]

So does anyone on this forum use a 600mm lens for portraits? Isn't this a little extreme? Does it make the model look that much more flattering?

I have to defend the guy here :)

It all depends on what effect the photographer wanted.. Long lenses give you 'space compression'.. In other words, it gets hard to tell distances because of the small field of view.

If the photographer wanted the background to be dominated by the buildings in the distance, then he was doing it right. The model would be normal size and the buildings in the background would look very large and very close..

To demonstrate.. Here's a shot I took of a little sports car with some buildings in the background. I was using a focal length of 380mm and was about 60 feet away from the car. (I took it with my old Pro90)..

The buildings are prominent in the background. This effect couldn't have been done with a traditional 50 or 80mm portrait lens because the buildings you see are almost 4 miles away.. The buildings would have appeared MUCH smaller.. If I would have had a 600mm lens and stepped back even further, the buildings would have appeared larger still...

http://members.shaw.ca/jamestownsend/longshot.jpg

To illustrate what a long lens does.. Below is a shot of the same skyline, taken from the same location using a focal length equivalent of 32mm .. I don't have the car in the shot, but if I had.. That's how big the buildings would have appeared in the background.

http://members.shaw.ca/jamestownsend/skyline.jpg

.

[Belmondo]

My 'big nose' comment stands.

Tom

[Tom W]

Good point, Jim.

But its still hard to take a guy seriously when he's wearing hot pants and Peter Pan shoes. Plus, his long lens isn't white. :twisted:

[Bruce Hamilton]

...when he's wearing hot pants and Peter Pan shoes.
ROFLMAO! Hadn't noticed the shoes, those are pretty hilarious... :lol: :lol: :lol:

[TonyKInTexas]

Would you get the same quality? I don't think so. There is more to portrait work than have a studio and camera. There is posing, lighting and exposure as well as recognizing THAT instant when everything is right.

Try doing that while you are sitting in front of the camera with a remote.

I believe that at that price, one could build their own inexpensive studio and take family portraits annually with their own camera. :)

[TonyKInTexas]

I've seen bikers and runners wear shoes like that. They do not look comfortable to me but who knows.

I would not judge the man by how he looks. What does his images look like and how much does he get paid to produce the shots?


Good point, Jim.

But its still hard to take a guy seriously when he's wearing hot pants and Peter Pan shoes. Plus, his long lens isn't white. :twisted:

[Tom W]

Would you get the same quality? I don't think so. There is more to portrait work than have a studio and camera. There is posing, lighting and exposure as well as recognizing THAT instant when everything is right.

Try doing that while you are sitting in front of the camera with a remote.

I believe that at that price, one could build their own inexpensive studio and take family portraits annually with their own camera. :)

The lady charges $2500 to take two pictures; my reply was part sarcasm. The point is that there is no way I'd pay someone that much money to take two photographs from which I could choose one to have framed. There are way too many good photographers that will do the same for much less money.

[PhotosGuy]

So does anyone on this forum use a 600mm lens for portraits? Isn't this a little extreme?
For portraits, it's a lot extreme!

Does it make the model look that much more flattering?
No, it will flatten out the face & look terrible. Just the opposite of using a wide angle close-up so the nose looks bigger. Of course, maybe he needs that effect for something.
Try filling the frame with someones head using your widest, normal, & longest lenses. Then you be the judge. Learn the rules. Learn when to break them!

For flattering portraits, the accepted range is 80-105mm (film). Apply your own sensor conversion.

[drisley]

Jim_T, was that shot out by the stadium?
I didnt recognize it at first

[TonyKInTexas]

Reminds me of a story [Note: I now know I'm an old man, I have stories to illustrate points]

A company had a problem with a older piece of equipment. The I/T staff tried for a week to get it working and could not. Finally someone suggested calling the guy out of retirement who helped install it.

So the old guy shows up, looks at the unit and steps to one side. He asks the I/T manager a question and on hearing the answer takes a marker and makes an X on the low right side of the unit. "Hit it there and it will be okay." The I/T manager doesn't believe him but nothing else has worked and does it. The unit comes back to life and works just fine.

A few weeks later the company gets the bill for $3000. They bulk. Why should we pay $3000 for 2 minutes of time and a single hit on the side of the machine. They mail a letter with this statement to the old I/T guy who calls them up. He says, okay I'll give you an itemized statement. $1.00 for marking where to hit the unit. $2999 for KNOWING where to hit the unit.

The point? She takes 2 photos. How much prep work does she do? How much does she observe her client? She obviously has a lot of skill, experience and customer demand to be able to charge these types of rates. Would I use her? Probably not. I cannot afford the price. But where money is not a factor, why not. They say time is money and she obviously gets the job done quickly.

Take care,

The lady charges $2500 to take two pictures; my reply was part sarcasm. The point is that there is no way I'd pay someone that much money to take two photographs from which I could choose one to have framed. There are way too many good photographers that will do the same for much less money.

[Tom W]

Reminds me of a story [Note: I now know I'm an old man, I have stories to illustrate points]

A company had a problem with a older piece of equipment. The I/T staff tried for a week to get it working and could not. Finally someone suggested calling the guy out of retirement who helped install it.

So the old guy shows up, looks at the unit and steps to one side. He asks the I/T manager a question and on hearing the answer takes a marker and makes an X on the low right side of the unit. "Hit it there and it will be okay." The I/T manager doesn't believe him but nothing else has worked and does it. The unit comes back to life and works just fine.

A few weeks later the company gets the bill for $3000. They bulk. Why should we pay $3000 for 2 minutes of time and a single hit on the side of the machine. They mail a letter with this statement to the old I/T guy who calls them up. He says, okay I'll give you an itemized statement. $1.00 for marking where to hit the unit. $2999 for KNOWING where to hit the unit.

The point? She takes 2 photos. How much prep work does she do? How much does she observe her client? She obviously has a lot of skill, experience and customer demand to be able to charge these types of rates. Would I use her? Probably not. I cannot afford the price. But where money is not a factor, why not. They say time is money and she obviously gets the job done quickly.

Its a good story and a good point - however, like yourself, I cannot or will not afford the rates that the photographer charges. On the other side of the coin, there's also the point that PT Barnum once made. ;)

Now I am pretty sure that she does a great job and probably has an excellent portfolio. But I think that there are members on this board that also do excellent work but don't expect to pay for their camera through one or two customers.

Take care,

You do the same!

[Andy_T]

Hi,

take a look at Elsa Dorfman's web page and judge by yourself!

http://www.elsa.photo.net/

I have taken the liberty of crosslinking one of her portraits, of Allen Ginsberg.

http://www.elsa.photo.net/photos/disk02-0099.3.jpg

So - maybe he was really pissed off when he looked at the portrait and noticed his left leg was showing under the trousers.

On the other hand, maybe he was not.

Best regards,
Andy