300mm for portaits?..

[fire34fighter]

So recently someone told me that they would be buying a 300mm lens to shoot portraits with..Almost everything I've seen has said to go with lenses in the 35-200 range...I've never heard of anyone shooting with a 300mm....Anybody have any info on this? Is it common? does it have benefits?

edit: just realized I should have posted this in the lens forum..please move.

[swagger]

greater background defocusing

[canonman4life]

300 is awesome for portrait...here is one of me shot with a 300

and one i shot with a 300

[Tony-S]

So recently someone told me that they would be buying a 300mm lens to shoot portraits with..Almost everything I've seen has said to go with lenses in the 35-200 range...I've never heard of anyone shooting with a 300mm....Anybody have any info on this? Is it common? does it have benefits?.

Yes, 300mm is the focal length of choice for 8x10 view cameras.

[Red Dot]

Yes, 300mm is the focal length of choice for 8x10 view cameras.
lol true

[Jarrad]

200-300mm is quite popular for high end beauty. Longer, when possible, for MF. The compression can be very forgiving and flattering for some faces.

[hsma]

canonman4life awesome pictures. didnt know people used the 300mm for portraits

[bildeb0rg]

In a word, isolation.

[FlyingPhotog]

Yes, 300mm is the focal length of choice for 8x10 view cameras.

Help me with the math...

What's that equate to in 35mm terms? 100mm? 85mm?

[mizouse]

i just want to know how far away you need to be to use this as a portrait lens

[ANGUS]

Try it with your 70-300, Depends on how much of the body you want.

[Rubberhead]

One of my favorite candids of my wife was taken with the 400mm f/5.6L.

[airfrogusmc]

Help me with the math...

What's that equate to in 35mm terms? 100mm? 85mm?

On an 8X10 view camera it would be about the same FoV as 50mm on a 35mm camera.

[airfrogusmc]

In my opinion it (300mm on a 35mm format) flattens features on most people to much for head & shoulders.

[PhotosGuy]

In my opinion it (300mm on a 35mm format) flattens features on most people to much for head & shoulders. I agree for a head & shoulders shot, but there are exceptions to every "rule", no?
Some people complain the the 70-300mm is soft, but people used to pay a lot of money for a "soft, forgiving" portrait lens.
The only things that count are results.

[airfrogusmc]

I said most people and should have added in most circumstances ;).

Theres ALWAYS exceptions to every rule.

[Mark_Cohran]

300 mm and longer is great for outdoor glamour shots. I've used that focal quite effectively to isolate the model from the background while still capturing the ambiance of the outdoor setting.

[scotteisenphotography]

Ive used my 300 2.8L IS many-a-time for portraits

[Mark1]

ANY lens can be used. It all depends on what you want the final image to look like. This is the fun part of being a photographer..... break the rules and see what happens. A lot of times you will get something good.

Wide angle used to be a big no-no for portraits. But look how much success came from that person who thought of the "the dog" series. They were on cards... posters... lunch boxes, even McDonalds made them a series of toys for the happy meals. None of whitch would have happened if they had not broken the rule.

300 is not suggested in a small studio. But in the examples shown, it can work with great success.

As far as, "how far" you have to be. again that depends on how much of the body you want in the shot (obviously). But again, it depends on what you want the final to look like. I end up saying that a lot. But it is true. Lenses are just tools, nobody is going to send in the Spanish Inquisition if you break the rules of photography. (sorry for the Monty Python reference) If you have a thought on something... just try it. A lot of stuff that are now "rules" came from people breaking other rules.

[airfrogusmc]

Allot of it comes down to personal preference and shooting style. For me, unless I have a real long nose I want to appear shorter I would tend to stay away from lenses that long in most circumstances. My reason is if you don't have the right lighting it makes faces look like clutch cargo, flat cartoon like. I've seen some interesting head & shoulder portraits made with longer lenses but they're usually accompanied with light with a little mood. Knowing how to use these tools to your advantage is the key. I think most photographers fail to develop a style/look to their images. Developing that look can be important with the type of lenses and cameras that are used.

[FeXL]

Had a buddy who used to shoot B&G's with a 300mm. Said it was sometimes difficult communicating with the clients, but, in his words "You could shoot against a slaughterhouse wall and it would look good."

[Tony-S]

Help me with the math...

What's that equate to in 35mm terms? 100mm? 85mm?

Hmm. Let me see if I can do the math correctly...

SqRt ((8^2)(10^2)) = 12.8 in

(12.8 )(25.4) = 325.3 mm (which is the 50mm FL equivalent on an 8x10 view camera)

300 * 50 / 325.3 = 46 mm

A 300 mm lens on an 8x10 view camera is roughly equivalent to a 46 mm lens on a 35 mm camera or full-frame sensor. At least, I think that's correct.

[Mark1]

I don't know which is worse.... That you know how to do the math.... or that I don't!

[cosworth]

greater background defocusing


Stand closer.

[airfrogusmc]

Hmm. Let me see if I can do the math correctly...

SqRt ((8^2)(10^2)) = 12.8 in

(12.8 )(25.4) = 325.3 mm (which is the 50mm FL equivalent on an 8x10 view camera)

300 * 50 / 325.3 = 46 mm

A 300 mm lens on an 8x10 view camera is roughly equivalent to a 46 mm lens on a 35 mm camera or full-frame sensor. At least, I think that's correct.

Looks like I was 4mm off :o :lol:

[Tony-S]

Looks like I was 4mm off :o :lol:

Close enough for government work. :)

[airfrogusmc]

Close enough for government work. :)

The left brain stuff (math) not my strong suit;):lol::lol::lol: And that would be almost 12 inches and weigh several pounds. Can you just imagine hiking mile with an 8X10 view camrea and a couple of lenses ? Or worse a 20 X 24 camera and wet plates (WH Jackson) but he did have mules:rolleyes:

[tzalman]

Hmm. Let me see if I can do the math correctly...

SqRt ((8^2)(10^2)) = 12.8 in

(12.8 )(25.4) = 325.3 mm (which is the 50mm FL equivalent on an 8x10 view camera)

300 * 50 / 325.3 = 46 mm

A 300 mm lens on an 8x10 view camera is roughly equivalent to a 46 mm lens on a 35 mm camera or full-frame sensor. At least, I think that's correct.

Well, not quite. By that formula the normal lens for 35 mm. is 43 mm.:
sqrt[(24^2)+(36^2)]=43.26

300*43/325=39.69

So its like a 40 mm.

Another way of looking at it - 35 mm. (1x1.5 in.) is like a 8x crop of a 8x10 (or 8x12 to keep the aspect ratio the same), so 300/8=37.5

[airfrogusmc]

TZ Isn't there a crop factor on a view camera to account for the swings and tilts so the circle has to be larger than the neg? So the actual usable area is closer to a normal FoV?

[fishfoto]

I have used my 400f2.8 , both with and without macro extension tubes, to create a certain look in my portrait images. I love the look of long fast glass and the properties of wide aperture. The lens can be intimidating to subjects at times, but the end result is fantastic.