Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
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 14 Oct 2015 (Wednesday) 21:24
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200mm IS II and 85mm f/1.2: what lens is better for full-body portrait?

 
vietnameseamateur
Member
96 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Nov 2014
Post edited over 3 years ago by vietnameseamateur.
     
Oct 14, 2015 21:24 |  #1

70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM and 85mm f/1.2 L II USM: what lens is better for full-body portrait?

I now already have a 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM and portrait is my biggest passion in photography, Should I purchase a 85mm f/1.2 L II USM?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
anscochrome
Senior Member
Avatar
443 posts
Likes: 37
Joined Jan 2010
Post edited over 3 years ago by anscochrome.
     
Oct 14, 2015 21:44 |  #2

With the zoom, you have the ability to make use of differing compression/perspectiv​e effects-i.e use it at 70mm and stand closer, or stand further back and frame with 200mm focal length to get a more flattened perspective effect. With the 85mm, you are limited to more or less one distance (depending on the height of the individual), and cannot vary the "look" of the compression/perspectiv​e effect. If you like that look with an 85mm length, then go with that, and you have the ability to use a very wide aperture (albeit with very shallow depth of field), that the zoom does not give you. (200mm @ F 2.8 is the same relative aperture as 1.2 on an 85mm, so you can get excellent background blur with it as well.)

Optically, they are both excellent, and if you are shooting @ f4.0 and smaller, it is not going to make a whit of difference anyway.


http://anscochrome.zen​folio.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,702 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2533
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by Wilt.
     
Oct 14, 2015 21:56 |  #3

vietnameseamateur wrote in post #17745875 (external link)
70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II USM and 85mm f/1.2 L II USM: what lens is better for full-body portrait?


First of all, use of 85mm for a full body portrait on a FF body will require you to be 20' from the subject in order to capture 8' on the length of the frame, which allows you to crop some of the extra frame length off and fill an 8x10" print size with 7.0' x 5.6' subject area. Frankly, I feel that that distance is less than optimal for good facial rendition due to the 'flattening' which results from perspective at that distance.

If you insist upon 85mm FL for full length portrait, then we consider the DOF with the respective lens at max aperture... 1.2' at f/1.8 vs. about 2.4' at f/2.8; the 85mm f/1.8 will blur a background just a bit more without necessarily resulting in the paper-thin DOF that amateur portraitists think is so desireable (but which many portrait sitters react with the response, "Why is everything out of focus?!"

The 85mm lens has more vignetting wide open than the 70-200mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has about 20% better detail resolution than the 85mm. But frankly, in portraiture sharp detail has traditionally often worked to disadvantage because portrait sitters often do not like their pores and pimples razor sharp.


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
jrscls
Goldmember
2,988 posts
Gallery: 80 photos
Likes: 788
Joined Mar 2008
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
     
Oct 14, 2015 22:13 |  #4

I have owned both of these lenses and would pick the 85 L every time for a full-body portrait, assuming a full frame camera.


Fujifilm X-T3, 16mm f/1.4, 23mm f/1.4, 35mm f/1.4, 56mm f/1.2, 80mm f/2.8 OIS Macro, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 OIS, 1.4x TC, Flashpoint R2 Strobes/Flashes

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,913 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5996
Joined Sep 2007
     
Oct 14, 2015 22:48 |  #5

Wilt wrote in post #17745908 (external link)
First of all, use of 85mm for a full body portrait on a FF body will require you to be 20' from the subject in order to capture 8' on the length of the frame, which allows you to crop some of the extra frame length off and fill an 8x10" print size with 7.0' x 5.6' subject area. Frankly, I feel that that distance is less than optimal for good facial rendition due to the 'flattening' which results from perspective at that distance.

If you insist upon 85mm FL for full length portrait, then we consider the DOF with the respective lens at max aperture...about 1.5' at f/1.8 vs. about 2.4' at f/2.8; the 85mm f/1.8 will blur a background just a bit more without necessarily resulting in the paper-thin DOF that amateur portraitists think is so desireable (but which many portrait sitters react with the response, "Why is everything out of focus?!"

The 85mm lens has more vignetting wide open than the 70-200mm f/2.8. The 70-200mm f/2.8 has about 20% better detail resolution than the 85mm. But frankly, in portraiture sharp detail has traditionally often worked to disadvantage because portrait sitters often do not like their pores and pimples razor sharp.

I disagree that flattening is detriment to portraits.

here's a previous post on the subject: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1442752

85 1.8 compared to 70-200f4, and 200 looks better every time IMO (save the inconsistent processing).


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,702 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2533
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by Wilt. (4 edits in all)
     
Oct 14, 2015 22:51 |  #6

Charlie wrote in post #17745957 (external link)
I disagree that flattening is detriment to portraits.

here's a previous post on the subject: https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1442752

85 1.8 compared to 70-200f4, and 200 looks better every time IMO (save the inconsistent processing).

What we as photographers think is fine is often objected to, by those who KNOW the portrait sitter!!! Classic portraiture uses a shooting distance of about 8-10', and changing distance to frame suitably with longer FL changes the appearance of the face. Look at 100mm vs. 200mm...the model is perfectly attractive, but the face is not rendered the same.

http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …/lensdistortion​/index.htm (external link)

I recall one mother on POTN who objected to the facial portrayal of her son from about 12' out!


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,228 posts
Gallery: 1648 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10413
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Oct 15, 2015 03:58 |  #7

Heya,

I look at it like this.

You get the 85mm to shoot at F1.2 for that reason. If you stop it down, you literally might as well have gotten the 85 F1.8 or the Sigma 85 F1.4 and called it a day. I'm sure some would disagree, but frankly, the 1.2 is the attraction to the lens. At full body, it's a lot easier to nail focus and get the whole body in focus if doing full body portraiture thanks to the distance it takes. So it's very usable at F1.2 for full body.

The 70-200 is a lot more flexible though. It lets you shoot up close, or far away, as environment allows.

I shoot full body portrait often with an 85mm F1.4 @ F1.4 and also a 200mm F2.8L @ 2.8. I prefer the look of 200mm for all portrait really. But, I much prefer the working distance and flexibility of the 85mm, so much so, that I often use my 85mm more than my 200 F2.8L.

The 70-200 gives you both options, just at F2.8 which is still fine.

I recently did a few tests with one of my 85mm's (I have several, it's just such a good focal length in general and I'm a prime weirdo), and shot my 85 F1.8 at F2 and F2.8 a lot to see if I would miss shooting it at F1.8 to determine if I needed to keep it or not. I was still happy with it at F2.8, so I figured out I didn't need it anymore since my other 85mm is an F1.4 and I only shoot it at F1.4 (I have zero reason to shoot it at any other aperture, it's a manual lens too, and I prefer it). So I let my 85 F1.8 go and replaced it with a 90mm F2.8 stabilized macro lens. I really like it now because it pulls double duty as a great portrait lens, with stabilization, and is still fast enough to give me good compression & isolation, while also being able to do macro. It's my go-to for portrait now. My 85 F1.4 is still my ultra-fast lens option, being 2 stops faster. But when I don't know what I'm going to need, I use my 90 F2.8 now.

So I basically convinced myself, if I had to choose, I'd be fine with a 70-200 F2.8 rather than having to choose between it and ultrafast 85mm. If I was doing a lot of outdoor stuff, I'd probably want the 70-200 F2.8 if I was always having to change up focal lengths (swapping to 85mm or 135mm or 200mm).

I instead shoot with an 85mm (Or 90mm) and a 200mm with no in-between. But I don't mind that. It would be easier to just have a single lens, and the 70-200 F2.8 II is good enough to do that job.

Plus it matters if you care about speed of AF. The 85L is slow at that.

You also have to consider the AF abilities of your camera body, if you shoot at F1.2 on an 85L and use outer points. Not all bodies can do that and hit focus on outer points reliably.

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,913 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5996
Joined Sep 2007
     
Oct 15, 2015 11:03 |  #8

Wilt wrote in post #17745960 (external link)
What we as photographers think is fine is often objected to, by those who KNOW the portrait sitter!!! Classic portraiture uses a shooting distance of about 8-10', and changing distance to frame suitably with longer FL changes the appearance of the face. Look at 100mm vs. 200mm...the model is perfectly attractive, but the face is not rendered the same.

http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …/lensdistortion​/index.htm (external link)

I recall one mother on POTN who objected to the facial portrayal of her son from about 12' out!

I'de say that 350mm looks the best.

Head is less distorted, hair has more volume, jaw more defined. Strictly my opinion of course.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,190 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 1313
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 15, 2015 11:12 |  #9

Wilt wrote in post #17745960 (external link)
What we as photographers think is fine is often objected to, by those who KNOW the portrait sitter!!! Classic portraiture uses a shooting distance of about 8-10', and changing distance to frame suitably with longer FL changes the appearance of the face. Look at 100mm vs. 200mm...the model is perfectly attractive, but the face is not rendered the same.

http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …/lensdistortion​/index.htm (external link)

I recall one mother on POTN who objected to the facial portrayal of her son from about 12' out!

Sorry, but that hasn't been my experience.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 528
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Oct 16, 2015 13:12 |  #10

MalVeauX wrote in post #17746145 (external link)
You get the 85mm to shoot at F1.2 for that reason. If you stop it down, you literally might as well have gotten the 85 F1.8 or the Sigma 85 F1.4 and called it a day. I'm sure some would disagree, but frankly, the 1.2 is the attraction to the lens.


The "you'd only buy this to shoot at f/1.2" is IMHO a lens reviewer sound byte that is just not true. I would be one of those people who would respectfully and emphatically disagree with this. The only time I shoot portraits wide open at f/1.2 is when the subject is looking at the camera dead on, such that their eyes are both at the focal distance. If they turn their head even slightly, one eye is going to be rendered very OOF in a way that I find particularly unappealing. Even a modest side glance can require stopping down to f/2.8 or f/3.5 to keep things in focus.

Also, opened wider than f/1.8, you get some color fringing and corner softness from the 85L and 50L lenses. Depending on how the subject is composed in the frame of a full-body portrait, edge or corner softness could amount to undesirable face softness. This is one reason I would not normally shoot a full body vertical portrait at f/1.2. Both the 85L and 50L have a special issue wide open when there are bright out of focus highlights too, you get clipped bokeh balls due to how the EF mount electrical contact strip actually infringes on the image circle. I've stopped down to f/1.8 a few times just to avoid this when it's really distracting.

MalVeauX wrote in post #17746145 (external link)
At full body, it's a lot easier to nail focus and get the whole body in focus if doing full body portraiture thanks to the distance it takes. So it's very usable at F1.2 for full body.

This is exactly the opposite of my real-world experience with the 85L. I find it much easier to nail shallow focus on the subjects eyes in a closer head and shoulder portrait where the eyes are much larger than the AF points and also large enough in the viewfinder to manual focus on as needed. At the distance needed for a full-body shot, I would not trust the outer AF points to nail something as small as an eye, you're as likely to get hair or forehead in focus. I would only trust live-view 10x manual focus in this use case. A focus miss at f/1.2 at full body shot distance is still a serious miss that can render a shot unusable except maybe at 4x6 print size.

People do buy the 85L over the Canon 85/1.8 partly for that large max aperture, but even at f/1.8 the 85L outperforms the 85/1.8. Aperture alone is not the selling point. It's just not true that if you're going to shoot f/1.8 or smaller that it doesn't matter which you use; there might be some aperture where this becomes true, but it's not f/1.8. Maybe I had a less than stellar copy of the 1.8, but this is one upgrade I made that I have absolutely no regrets about. Performance gap between the 85L and the current Sigma 85/1.4 on the other hand appears very small, from the examples I've seen. I have no doubt I'd be happy with that lens too.


5DSR, 6D, 16-35/4L IS, 85L II, 100L macro, Sigma 150-600C
SL1, 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
My (mostly) Fashion and Portraiture Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link) (NSFW)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tancanon58
Senior Member
Avatar
965 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 1
Joined Oct 2009
Location: southern california
     
Oct 16, 2015 13:49 |  #11

Shooting with the 85mm f/1.2 you would get a very nice blurry background IMO.


Bodies: 5D MkIII/ Oly ED-M5/ G10
Lenses: Tamron SP 24-70 2.8 Di VC /and some Panny and Oly lenses.
Flash: Canon600EX RT.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,228 posts
Gallery: 1648 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10413
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 3 years ago by MalVeauX. (9 edits in all)
     
Oct 17, 2015 01:47 |  #12

absplastic wrote in post #17748054 (external link)
People do buy the 85L over the Canon 85/1.8 partly for that large max aperture, but even at f/1.8 the 85L outperforms the 85/1.8. Aperture alone is not the selling point. It's just not true that if you're going to shoot f/1.8 or smaller that it doesn't matter which you use; there might be some aperture where this becomes true, but it's not f/1.8. Maybe I had a less than stellar copy of the 1.8, but this is one upgrade I made that I have absolutely no regrets about. Performance gap between the 85L and the current Sigma 85/1.4 on the other hand appears very small, from the examples I've seen. I have no doubt I'd be happy with that lens too.

Take an image from an 85L at F4 & F8 of a model. And the same with an 85 F1.8 at F4 & F8. Same comps and everything. And see if someone can really get it right, every time, out of 100 random people.

I agree you will be able to see small difference, and mostly pixel peep the 85L from the 85 F1.8 if both are shot at F1.8. At F2.8, you're going to have a much harder time telling the difference. And at F4 and smaller, it's not even worth trying to discern them, practically.

I understand there is minutia to talk about between these lenses stopped down.

This is from the standpoint of full-body portrait, per the title. A full body portrait with a little room to for composition & wee cropping to straighten things up, at F1.2 from the 85mm, isn't going to get both eyes out of focus so easily. A head shot? Sure of course. But not a full body unless you focus on something other than their face. Again, full body.

It's not a reviewer sound byte opinion either--and like you quoted me, there are those who would disagree, like you for example (remember the context of why use the 85L if you're stopping down, when there are plenty of 85mm's that are cheaper that perform very good stopped down too; so the only real non-minutia thing is that the 85L has F1.2 as an option where others do not). I'm a prime fan and use mostly all primes. You can claim all day that "real world use" of an 85L is at F2, F2.8, F8, etc, what have you. But most examples are very often at F1.2 and most people who are getting an 85L didn't get it because it's phenomenal at 85mm at F2.8 or F4, where a 70-200 F2.8 II could do the same thing and do it very, very well too with a lot more versatility, or again, another 85mm just stopped down to F2.8 or something (like the Sigma 85 F1.4 or Canon 85 F1.8, or heck, even a Jupiter 9!). Just because you use it stopped down doesn't mean everyone isn't constantly drooling over the two F1.2 lenses Canon makes and not getting them because they're really great stopped down to F1.4 or F1.8. A good metaphor is "I read that magazine for the articles." :-D Realistically, and practically, most people really do get the 85L for it's F1.2.

What it comes down to is that perhaps you use your 85L more often not at F1.2. But like you said, you'd likely be happy with the Sigma at half the price. The 85 F1.8 stopped down to F2.8 is not much different either really. So the real difference that isn't just a preference (and some ultra-minute differences in rendering output, other than comparing bokeh quality) is that it has F1.2.

So like before, my argument is that the 70-200 II is the better option (pains me to say as much as I love fast primes), and in the context of stopping down the 85L, absolutely the 70-200 II should be a hard lens to not consider over the 85L (which really is a specialty lens).

Very best,


My Flickr (external link) :: My Astrobin (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 528
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Post edited over 3 years ago by absplastic.
     
Oct 17, 2015 04:05 |  #13

MalVeauX wrote in post #17748749 (external link)
A good metaphor is "I read that magazine for the articles." :-D Realistically, and practically, most people really do get the 85L for it's F1.2.

The reviewer soundbyte is not that people get the lens for it's f/1.2 capability, which of course plenty do, the specific remark I've heard more than one reviewer make is that "you wouldn't get the 85L to shoot it anywhere other than f/1.2". That's the ludicrous yet oft heard claim I don't agree with. I didn't mean to imply that people don't ever use it at f/1.2, just that no one would use it only at f/1.2, because the opportunities for this to be the best choice are few. It's not a wide-open one-trick pony. It's on my to-do list to make a controlled comparison of these two lenses; my daughter has my old 60D and 85/1.8, and I can do a proper portrait comparison with them both on the 6D. The difference in image quality is difficult to describe with numbers, or shots of test charts. There are a lot of small performance differences between the lenses, but the sum of them all results in the 85L having a wow factor that the 85/1.8 just doesn't. Also, if you search 500px for "EF85mm f/1.2L II USM", you'll see that shooting it at f/1.2 is relatively uncommon, particular among those getting the best results from it. It's downright magical at f/1.8 where it becomes razor sharp.


5DSR, 6D, 16-35/4L IS, 85L II, 100L macro, Sigma 150-600C
SL1, 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
My (mostly) Fashion and Portraiture Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link) (NSFW)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lenty007
Member
221 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 21
Joined May 2006
Location: Ghent, Belgium
     
Oct 18, 2015 01:47 |  #14

When you put it like this, I'd go for the zoom because of the variety of using both ends of the lens for a full body portrait depending on the background.

For me the background plays a major role in the way we present a portrait.
Both a wide angle as a tele can do the trick when the environment offers the opportunity.

That said I only have the 85L (and the 200F/2) to compare.
The 85L is great but truth been told the use of F/1.2 is so darn demanding that's its a blessing to have in difficult situations.
I use it mostly in the studio (between F/5.6 and F/11) but "on the street" it saved my butt on several occasions indoors, dark forrests, nightshots in the street, ...
Having now to choose between 1.2 - 1.4 - 1.8 I'd go for 1.2 any time!

A word about the 350mm portrait presentation. I'm a big fan of portraits with tele's going from 135mm.
Some time ago I did a complete tour of the town where I live (and know) whith just a 400mm (and a model of course). Only with the full body portraits you could tell where you were. The creamy backgrounds let the model stand out very well.
Due to the distances with your model you have to plan places and poses in advance. Communication was a big issue so I will do that again some time but not so often. (The 200mm is better suited  :p).

So, again for this topic I'd go for the zoom for full body portraits

Greetings from Ghent




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
absplastic
Goldmember
Avatar
1,643 posts
Gallery: 40 photos
Likes: 528
Joined Jan 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Oct 18, 2015 12:01 |  #15

Lenty007 wrote in post #17749989 (external link)
A word about the 350mm portrait presentation. I'm a big fan of portraits with tele's going from 135mm.

The focal length range from 100-135 I think is pretty ideal for portraits of all subjects. What I noticed with both my 70-300L towards the long end, and subsequently my 300mm f/4, is that while shooting a portrait from this far away does result in wonderful background blurring and compression, the extreme flattening perspective is not flattering to all face and body shapes. If you have a heavier model facing you, or a subject with an already broad face or small facial features relative to their head size, it will exaggerate this. A shorter focal length can actually be more flattering for select subjects.


5DSR, 6D, 16-35/4L IS, 85L II, 100L macro, Sigma 150-600C
SL1, 10-18 STM, 18-55 STM, 40 STM, 50 STM
My (mostly) Fashion and Portraiture Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link) (NSFW)

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

2,704 views & 3 likes for this thread
70-200mm IS II and 85mm f/1.2: what lens is better for full-body portrait?
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?
Register to forums
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 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member was a spammer, and banned as such!
2028 guests, 219 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

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.