What would you buy if you had 4k

Tommy1957 wrote in post #16165942
For $4,000? I'd take a trip to Utah, Yosemite and the Grand Canyon. I'd shoot the gear I already own.

I think Tommy1957 has the best idea. I would spend the $4k on travel and use the equipment I already own. There is nothing wrong with the equipment in my sig. I will admit, though, that I have the hots for the 70D.

The few photographers who suggested your friend gets lights are offering not just good, but great advice. The people recommending lenses are gear junkies.

Mr_Smith4852 wrote in post #16167795
We have 3 old school nikon flashes with wireless triggers, so I was guessing we can use that until we both learn lighting more. I was just under the impression that we should get the best glass we can afford and work from there. P.s we also have a 85. 1.8 that we share

In any great photograph 75% is the subject, 25% is the light. 0% is the lens. A good photographer can make a phenomenal photo with an 18-55 kit lens.

Go to youtube and watch some behind the scenes videos from pro fashion/portrait shoots. Note that the photog will often explain to you exactly how it was lit - and won't bother to even tell you what camera or lens he used. Bottom line is, that he simply used the lens that gave him the perspective and working-distance that he wanted - that was all. The important aspect is light and the more money you spend on good lighting equipment, the happier you will be.

RodneyCyr wrote in post #16168363
I think Tommy1957 has the best idea. I would spend the $4k on travel and use the equipment I already own. There is nothing wrong with the equipment in my sig. I will admit, though, that I have the hots for the 70D.

that'd be great for many of us...but the friend apparently likes to shoot fashion, and portraits...are utah, yosemite, and the grand canyon really the best spots to travel for that...

even though the op is titled with "what would YOU buy if you had 4K" i think he was asking about a more specific question...if i had $4K, i certainly wouldn't be buying any 24-70f2.8, or 70-200f2.8 lens...

Bill Ng wrote in post #16168396
In any great photograph 75% is the subject, 25% is the light. 0% is the lens. A good photographer can make a phenomenal photo with an 18-55 kit lens.

True but I don't agree with your percentages, the lens helps the presentation,in terms of bokeh quality, sharpness, colour, contrast etc. The lens is probably around 10%.

Bill Ng wrote in post #16168373
The few photographers who suggested your friend gets lights are offering not just good, but great advice. The people recommending lenses are gear junkies.

Right because lighting gurus are never gear junkies...

Mornnb wrote in post #16170703
True but I don't agree with your percentages, the lens helps the presentation,in terms of bokeh quality, sharpness, colour, contrast etc. The lens is probably around 10%.

I'd agree. You can't force depth of field on a f/3.5 like you can with a f/1.8 or f/1.4. That said, you don't need 10% of 4K to get to those apertures.

35L/85 L II ..... and some pcbuff stuff.

another vote for lighting first
and light modifiers
and triggers
possibly backgrounds
props (if needed)
studio space?
post processing skills/software
a good working relationship with make up artist(s), model(s), and a business plan(!!)

assuming your friend really wants to break into portraits as a profession (or serious amateur)

since you put this in the lens section though....
and since your stated use is portraits

my vote is for primes until proven otherwise

since you control everything.

if you don't control everything, a zoom can be just fine.... and many examples were already given

but he has to decide a bit more on his style and his likes/dislikes s a portrait photographer:

24-28 vs 30-35 range on FF (big ol' debate there! )
50ish
85ish
and then the longer 135

Mornnb wrote in post #16170703
True but I don't agree with your percentages, the lens helps the presentation,in terms of bokeh quality, sharpness, colour, contrast etc. The lens is probably around 10%.

Sharpness is a factor of technique (including diet, trigger control, breathing, bracing, etc) a lot more than it is glass. Color and contrast are a factor of light, not the lens. Flat light = flat contrast. Strong light = strong contrast. Might you require a shallow depth of field for a certain shot? Sure. But in the grand scheme of things, the most important two aspects of ANY photograph are who/what the subject is, and how that subject is lit.

Follow some really good photographers work and listen to what they tell you about the photo ... they tell you how it was lit and how the model was posed/instructed. They rarely, if ever, talk about the body or lens that was used as that factor is often completely irrelevant.

FEChariot wrote in post #16171124
Right because lighting gurus are never gear junkies...

Whoops, pushed a button there I see. Looking at your sig ... I understand why

Bill Ng wrote in post #16173184
Whoops, pushed a button there I see. Looking at your sig ... I understand why

No button, I wear it, but there are definitely lighting guru's here that make me envious.

Rashkh wrote in post #16164904
Perhaps the 135L and the 24-70 f4? Do people really shoot portraits and fashion at 2.8?

If you have 4 grand, you can't shoot portraits and fashion above f/2. Didn't you get the memo?

Glass doesn't matter. He should put the money towards lighting equipment. When you shoot with a strobe you won't be shooting wide open anyways. A deep octa and a striplight will make a huge difference.

L prime or non-L prime are not going to change the quality of light.