Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 26 Dec 2012 (Wednesday) 12:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Who uses 70-200 soley for portraits on FF?

 
ocabj
Goldmember
Avatar
1,120 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Riverside, CA (USA)
     
Jan 01, 2013 12:03 |  #31

I use the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II almost all the time. I used to use the 24-70 (just recently sold it) for those rare occasions where I needed to shoot in a small space, but try to avoid shooting in those situations as much as possible because I really hate the barrel distortion under 50mm on the zoom.


Jonathan Ocab - https://www.ocabj.net (external link) - http://jocabphoto.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
nonick
Goldmember
1,587 posts
Joined Jun 2009
Location: NYC
     
Jan 01, 2013 13:45 |  #32

I use it the Mark II IS for Portrait most of time. Its the best outdoor portrait lens to me.


Gear|Searching for 7DII, Buying 5DIII 35L II, 24-70 2.8L IS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ROGERWILCO357
Goldmember
Avatar
1,551 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Sep 2009
Location: michigan
     
Jan 01, 2013 20:49 |  #33

the 70-200 L lives on my FF for its versatility and bokeh on portraits almost as much as the 85L.


EOS 5DMKII gripped;EOS 7D;30D:Rebel Xti Digital;24-105L,70-200 f/2.8L.II,85mm f1.2L.II,16-35Lmk2, SP AF90mmF/2.8DI,28-135mm x 2,580EX II-430ExII with Pocket Wizards II,(Adobe CS5)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skahanphotography
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Columbus, Georgia
     
Jan 02, 2013 09:15 |  #34

RDKirk wrote in post #15428421 (external link)
If you take a look at the lady's hand, however, you're already getting substantially exaggerated perspective. The span of her knuckles should be no greater than the distance between her nose and the tip of her chin. There is also a detectable difference in size between her forward and rear shoulders.

This is what I've spoken of recently in other threads about considering the total "subject depth" when deciding on distance and focal length. Her at that distance face is fine, but her hand extended toward the camera increases the "subject depth" by the full distance from rear shoulder toward the camera to the ends of her fingers.

My question would simply be "....why?" Why shoot a "canned" portrait like most others in my area are when I can give them something with a different perspective? IMHO, portrait photography is about Light, Composition and Perspective. And I believe shooting with a 35mm gives portraits just that...a different perspective. But I digress. This thread is about the 70-200, not a 35mm prime ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RDKirk
Adorama says I'm "packed."
Avatar
12,683 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 370
Joined May 2004
Location: USA
     
Jan 02, 2013 10:32 |  #35

skahanphotography wrote in post #15434574 (external link)
My question would simply be "....why?" Why shoot a "canned" portrait like most others in my area are when I can give them something with a different perspective? IMHO, portrait photography is about Light, Composition and Perspective. And I believe shooting with a 35mm gives portraits just that...a different perspective. But I digress. This thread is about the 70-200, not a 35mm prime ;)

If the point is to exaggerate perspective--if that's the image the photographer is going for--then for sure...go for it and go for it big. Some of Joel Grimes work shows how he photographs his subject with a moderate wide angle lens for a fairly subtle exaggertion that blends suitably with the extreme wide angle background he's going to composite. The composite would look "off" otherwise.

But was that the case in this case, or was the exaggeration simply not noticed?

Not taking "subject depth" into account can matter even more with more than one subject. Frequently they are at differences of no more than a foot distance from the camera, but shot with a wide angle lens at close distance, that's enough to draw a measurable difference in head sizes that will be subtly objectionable to most viewers (even if they can't articulate what seems "wrong" about the image).




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ben805
Goldmember
1,197 posts
Likes: 95
Joined Mar 2007
     
Jan 02, 2013 11:03 |  #36

drzenitram wrote in post #15409620 (external link)
I really enjoy the 70-200 for portraits, but it can't do 85mm @ 1.4 and it can't do 35mm @ 1.4.

I don't think I would be happy with just the 70-200.


+1

For portraiture, I love having both primes you mentioned, along with the 70-200 when I need more reach. :)


5D Mark III, Samyang 14mm, 35LII, 85L II, 100L IS Macro, 24-105L, 70-200L 2.8 IS II. 580EX, AB400, AB800.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
skahanphotography
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Joined Dec 2012
Location: Columbus, Georgia
     
Jan 02, 2013 11:37 |  #37

RDKirk wrote in post #15434843 (external link)
If the point is to exaggerate perspective--if that's the image the photographer is going for--then for sure...go for it and go for it big. Some of Joel Grimes work shows how he photographs his subject with a moderate wide angle lens for a fairly subtle exaggertion that blends suitably with the extreme wide angle background he's going to composite. The composite would look "off" otherwise.

But was that the case in this case, or was the exaggeration simply not noticed?

Not taking "subject depth" into account can matter even more with more than one subject. Frequently they are at differences of no more than a foot distance from the camera, but shot with a wide angle lens at close distance, that's enough to draw a measurable difference in head sizes that will be subtly objectionable to most viewers (even if they can't articulate what seems "wrong" about the image).

You are correct sir. "Subject Depth" in a composition is important. And as you said, if the photographer is trying to achieve a different perspective to the image by shooting close up with a wide angle prime, with a wide aperture so as to narrow the depth of field around the subject to achieve a uniquely dimensional image, he or she should "...go for it big". Although, I've tried portraits with wider lenses in the past (10-20mm), I find the 35mm to be just wide enough to change the perspective and subject depth of field to be "interesting" and "different" and to make the portrait unique. Maybe even "curious" would be a good word to use here. I don't believe there will come a time when I would shoot all portraits wide angle. Don't get me wrong. I love the 70-200. It is a quite useful lens. I also love shooting portraits with the 50mm f/1.2. I do some outdoor portraits with my 24-105 at times as well (more studio work with that lens though). But right now, I'm loving the feel of portraits shot with the 35mm. Who knows, maybe next month, the 70-200 will tickle me fancy once again ;)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
pickle1
Member
Avatar
209 posts
Joined Jul 2007
     
Jan 02, 2013 20:02 |  #38

I use the 70-200 2.8 USM IS II for the majority of portraits - full length and close ups.

I use the 24-105 when I need to go wider if needed.


Owner of Deevers Photography
Stop by and visit deeversphoto.com

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,802 views & 0 likes for this thread
Who uses 70-200 soley for portraits on FF?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.0forum software
version 2.0 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is dan.potter86
770 guests, 389 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6430, that happened on Dec 03, 2017

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.