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 07 Aug 2016 (Sunday) 21:04
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

85mm vs 135mm f2

 
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,852 posts
Gallery: 1267 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 8633
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 2 years ago by MalVeauX. (2 edits in all)
     
Aug 10, 2016 20:25 |  #46

Heya,

Again it really comes down to working distance. A lens can have really great properties, but the working distance is a game changer. You can get the "dream lens" and then go out to use it and realize you're restricted due to working room.

If one really just wants blurry backgrounds and creamy bokeh, etc, you don't have to get a $4,000 lens to do it. An 85mm really is one of the easiest lenses to get into. Short working distance, so a lot more versatile. Light weight and small, so you're not lugging around a canon or brick just to get some blur. And inexpensive enough that you're really not going to have to sell a kidney to feel ok about getting something, just to get a lot of out of focus blur area.

Here's a cheap $200 85mm F1.4 manual lens at F1.4 (Samyang):

IMAGE: https://c2.staticflickr.com/4/3897/14767338097_c35366e2ea_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/ouWt​8x  (external link) IMG_9367 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Another with a cheap 85mm F1.4 @ F1.4:

IMAGE: https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7754/26603286040_07c511dbbf_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GwQN​6w  (external link) IMG_6900 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Here's the cheap 85 F1.8, generally $250, with autofocus. One of the best cheap lenses you could get for a Canon, and it blasts out backgrounds and is sharp just fine:

IMAGE: https://c4.staticflickr.com/1/454/19451344635_45991215f7_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/vCRe​5X  (external link) IMG_4388 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Of course, if working distance is not an issue, another inexpensive killer outdoor portrait lens is the cheap 200 F2.8L, usually $400~500, and it's a total steal for what it is. It creams out backgrounds at distance and is inexpensive, sharp and fast:

IMAGE: https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8733/16886780081_1b787ca401_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/rJea​oH  (external link) IMG_2935 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

+++

Sometimes you actually want weird bokeh, one of my favorites is the cheap Helios 44-2. It's a short 58mm F2 lens, but it has weird bad swirly bokeh, which is fun. But it only shows up with very specific ranges of distance of subject to background, too far, and you get no swirl, just cream, but just a touch behind the subject and you get swirly swirl which is fun:

IMAGE: https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7508/15799490047_b6b6c02d82_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/q59v​WP  (external link) IMG_0888 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

+++

The other thing to consider is how a telephoto lens effects the background. Longer focal length draws the background forward and can completely change the look of something, regardless of aperture. The longer it is, the more it will draw that background forward. This can of course be very pleasing. You need a lot of distance for it not to show up between subject and background. A shorter focal length is a lot less likely to do this, and the background objects are not drawn forward nearly as much, and it looks totally different.

I did an experiment just to see the look & perspective of both background changes and location changes of objects in the background with similar composition of subject with two very different lenses. 85mm F2 and 200mm F2.8.

Here's examples of how focal length draws the background forward for example:

85mm:

IMAGE: https://c2.staticflickr.com/9/8841/18750362361_4548a418b2_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uyUv​tF  (external link) IMG_4218 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

200mm:

IMAGE: https://c3.staticflickr.com/1/448/18743004082_05893d6906_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uyfN​7N  (external link) IMG_4223 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

To me, the background blur isn't enough to fuss over.

You can get supreme blur from slower lenses just by having the right environmental condition (large distance behind subject to background, even F8 will blur to a cream).

The most important factor is honestly going to end up being working distance. Especially if we're talking family and family photojournalism. You're not there if you're 50 feet away. But an 85mm lets you be right up in it, part of it, while still documenting it with photos.

++++++

My favorite thing to do portrait with, regardless of a lens or any of that blur stuff, etc, is actually just light.

Here's a general 90mm at F2.8, nothing fancy or fast, but lighting is where the game changes:

IMAGE: https://c5.staticflickr.com/2/1545/26576164572_3989c0a6b0_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GurM​Q1  (external link) IMG_3266 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Very best,

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Six6Sicks
Senior Member
Avatar
471 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Apr 2012
Location: IL
     
Aug 10, 2016 21:25 |  #47

MalVeauX wrote in post #18092215 (external link)
......Here's a cheap $200 85mm F1.4 manual lens at F1.4 (Samyang).......

Sorry for my inexperience, but will a manual lens still trigger the focus "beep" when in focus? I don't know if I trust my vision enough to use a manual lens.

Thanks.


Gear: Yes.
Insert stupid photography quote here to make me more of a photographer.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
10,998 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 2624
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 10, 2016 21:45 |  #48

Six6Sicks wrote in post #18092266 (external link)
Sorry for my inexperience, but will a manual lens still trigger the focus "beep" when in focus? I don't know if I trust my vision enough to use a manual lens.

Thanks.

Only if it has a focus confirmation chip installed. You can buy the chip and glue in place or you can have someone who has done it install it or if the manual lens has the chip already installed like some of the newer Rokinons.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
10,998 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 2624
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 10, 2016 21:51 |  #49

MalVeauX speaks the truth. Even a 50mm 1.4 works fine for portraits.... again it ALL depends on what you want. I've used the 24-105 @ 105mm... could be a fisheye for portraits.

ALL lenses are just lenses... it's up to you to work the magic.

My main concern is you thought the 85 1.8 was heavy... this is about the lightest lens I know of outside the 40 and 50 1.8s. The 135 weighs almost TWICE what the 85 1.8 weighs.

You may want to reconsider this unless I'm reading your first post wrong.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,852 posts
Gallery: 1267 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 8633
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 2 years ago by MalVeauX.
     
Aug 10, 2016 21:55 |  #50

Six6Sicks wrote in post #18092266 (external link)
Sorry for my inexperience, but will a manual lens still trigger the focus "beep" when in focus? I don't know if I trust my vision enough to use a manual lens.

Thanks.

As mentioned, some chips can be added or a lens can be had with chips, but I don't use them. They're usually to me no better than simply using an appropriate view finder. My vision isn't super either, but when you focus with a fast lens like that, and you use a view finder screen that basically focuses with depth of field and not contrast/phase, it's easier, so I was able to easily focus at F1.4 on an ancient 5D classic, because of a simple super precision matte focus screen that basically when I look through, I see the depth of field and that's how I focus it.

Thing is, $200 for an 85mm F1.4 or $250 for a EF 85mm F1.8, you pretty much get close enough results with the 85 F1.8 that you might as well stick to that for inexpensive fast glass for this kind of stuff. If you want F1.4 and autofocus, the Sigma can do it for a good price.

Ultimately the problem with really fast telephotos is that eventually you can get into the problem where there's not enough depth of field for your aperture & distance to subject, and so only some of them is in focus. Like all the portraits you see where someone is shooting their 85L wide open and the eyes are in focus, but their nose is not and it's a weird blurry bulb in the center of a face due to shallow depth of field and looks pretty ridiculous to me. Even at F1.4 with an 85mm, if you're just too close, and wide open, one eye can be in focus and the other not, and it's just not good. Thin depth of field can be a nice tool, but too thin and you get really silly looking portraits. Some call them dreamy, but I guess I don't subscribe to that, just my opinion. I prefer the subject to be virtually entirely in focus and if I wanted a soft background, then that should be soft, not a big portion of the portrait subject. I'm happy to shoot at F2.8 because of this.

That said, this is why I like the 135L better than the 85L for portrait. The 135L will have a little more depth of field at F2 than the 85L will at F1.2, and so you're going to have face/eyes/ears/nose in focus with good isolation. The 85L, it's too easy to get the same composition, but less depth of field, so the ears are then out of focus or one of the eyes, etc. So for me, 135L would be my preference.

Very best,


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
10,998 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 2624
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 10, 2016 22:08 |  #51

The real magic is getting the entire person in focus but the background completely blown.

Here is a 200/2 example but VERY simliar results with the 135/2 or 200/2.8... it's all about framing and how you position your background... in this case lots of distance behind subject.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
artyH
Goldmember
2,092 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2009
     
Aug 11, 2016 09:10 |  #52

Much of the effect that you can get will depend on the distance to the background, but also the distance to the subject, as was already pointed out. A longer lens will increase working distance, and require higher shutter speeds. Whether the increased distance is good or bad depends on where you are and the view you need.

Sometimes, if you are too far away, features appear distorted. People usually point this out in terms of being too close will enlarge noses. However, if you are too far away, noses are apparently shortened and this can look good or bad, depending on your personal thinking. For example, I once took a photo of my wife that I liked very much...with a 135 F3.5 on film. She said that it didn't look like her, because her nose looked too short in the photo.

I always preferred the working distances you get from 85 on film, and used the 85 more than the 135. However, there is no doubt that a 135 will work great for portraits, especially outside where spaces are larger, or indoors in a larger space. If you have the room and can deal with somewhat higher shutter speeds - and the narrower view, it is certainly useful to have both lenses.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
FarmerTed1971
fondling the 5D4
Avatar
5,882 posts
Gallery: 66 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 2999
Joined Sep 2013
Location: Portland, OR
     
Aug 11, 2016 09:18 |  #53

artyH wrote in post #18092578 (external link)
...it is certainly useful to have both lenses.

This!


Getting better at this - Fuji Xt-2 - Fuji X-Pro2 - 18-55 - 23/35/50 f2 WR - 50-140 - flickr (external link) - www.scottaticephoto.co​m

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2719
Joined Oct 2015
     
Aug 11, 2016 09:27 |  #54

For what it's worth, I prefer having both 85mm and 135mm primes. Also just added the 200 2.8L II. This is the second time I've owned all three: 85 1.8, 135L & 200 2.8L II. I first sold the 200 because I am a moron. Then I sold the 85 and 135 for a 100 f/2. OOPS! Sold the 100, and repurchased the other three. Happy once again, but poorer.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 405
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
Post edited over 2 years ago by CheshireCat. (3 edits in all)
     
Aug 11, 2016 11:31 |  #55

Six6Sicks wrote in post #18092266 (external link)
Sorry for my inexperience, but will a manual lens still trigger the focus "beep" when in focus? I don't know if I trust my vision enough to use a manual lens.

You shall not trust "fucus beep" either, as its range is too high, hence the precision too low to avoid bad surprises at wide apertures.

I also have the high precision focusing screen on the 5D2, which is much better than the standard one but still not accurate as I want.

The solution I found is "simple", and this is why I keep my good old 5D2: I installed the Magic Lantern firmware for efficient Live View focusing, and a Zakuto Z-finder. With proper firmware setup, it is an excellent solution for MF lenses.
Ironically, MF is for good cheap lenses or bleeding edge best of the best lenses :). In fact, the best 85 and 135 lenses currently on the market are all MF lenses (Zeiss APO glass).


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Thorsten
Member
Avatar
181 posts
Gallery: 15 photos
Likes: 41
Joined Feb 2014
Location: Santa Cruz, California
     
Aug 11, 2016 11:42 |  #56

Bassat wrote in post #18092595 (external link)
For what it's worth, I prefer having both 85mm and 135mm primes. Also just added the 200 2.8L II. This is the second time I've owned all three: 85 1.8, 135L & 200 2.8L II. I first sold the 200 because I am a moron. Then I sold the 85 and 135 for a 100 f/2. OOPS! Sold the 100, and repurchased the other three. Happy once again, but poorer.

Very similar here: I had sold my 135L and 200/2.8 for same reason (being a moron). At least I kept the 85/1.8. Now I got the 135L again. I use both 85 and 135 quite a bit: The 135L mainly for outdoor portraits, while the 85/1.8 comes along as light travel/walk-around lens (i.e. when shooting wildlife while having my kids along, I may take the 85/1.8 in my pocket to take some pictures of them as well). I'm still not sure if I'll get the 200/2.8 again. I really like that lens but truth is I rarely used it.


Thorsten (external link)
Canon 5D3, 80D, 24 IS, 35L, 50/1.8 STM, 85/1.4L, 100L, 135L, 400/5.6L, 16-35/4L, 70-200/4L IS, Rokinon 12/2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
12,852 posts
Gallery: 1267 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 8633
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
Post edited over 2 years ago by MalVeauX. (2 edits in all)
     
Aug 11, 2016 12:06 |  #57

Heya,

The 100 F2 has already been mentioned and it's a really happy medium between the two. A wee bit longer than the 85, but not quite as long as the 135. Definitely not as long as 200.

I went through several 85's actually. 85 F1.4, 85 F1.8 and 90 F2.8, since they're all three so close, I had all three at the same time and really just put them through the rounds. I really enjoyed each one for it's own uses. The 85 F1.4 was my favorite at F1.4, but, I also found that F1.4 was too shallow in terms of depth of field, if I got too close. Full body it worked, but the moment I went closer than that, only some of the subject was in focus due to shallow depth of field. For that reason, I was restricted and felt that I didn't need F1.4 for portrait. I got my taste of shallow depth of field, and it taught me two important things: 1) I didn't need shallower depth of field, there was a limit where it was just too thin; 2) Thus I do not need the 85L for portrait, because I just don't need F1.2 since F1.4 is too shallow already, and I saved myself $1500 to learn that lesson (for me). I ultimately also sold the 85 F1.8, but only because I also realized that the difference in depth of field from F2 to F2.8 was not profound enough to make me feel like I had too much depth of field. I was still getting very soft backgrounds, plenty of isolation, and portraits still had a nice pop with that isolation. So I found myself using my 90 F2.8 more and more. It also happened to be a macro lens and had image stabilization, so that really sealed the deal. Canon's equivalent would be the 100L and so if I were going to shoot a dedicated "do all" portrait lens, it would be the Canon 100L in that sense. But, I enjoy the Tamron 90 F2.8 VC enough that I sold all my 85's and this is the only shorter telephoto that I kept because it just does so many duties, portrait being one of them.

Here's an example of 85mm at F1.4, where the depth of field was too shallow for the number of subjects, so they are virtually borderline in the entering out of focus areas of the depth of field and softened up. I should have shot at F2.8 for this group. But I was so fixated on having a blasted out creamy background, that I neglected the concept of the subject being out of focus. Granted, they're not so out of focus that the image was totally ruined, they still enjoyed it. But when I look back, I learned a lesson from it--I learned that there are limits to shallow depth of field, and getting a super creamy background isn't as important as the subjects themselves.

My error:

Ex:

IMAGE: https://c5.staticflickr.com/6/5570/14953550652_534307ea8d_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/oMoR​CQ  (external link) IMG_9314 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

+++++++++++++++

I also shoot my 200 F2.8L as my long portrait lens. For outdoor head shots, busts, and full body. The working distance is incredibly long even for children, let alone adults. Because the working distance is so huge, I actually don't use it nearly as often for portrait, and I almost always revert back to the 85 range, using my 90mm. While I like the creamy bokeh of the 200 F2.8L, the working distance is a big put off a lot of the time. I have a 5 acre field so I have the room, but in general, I like being closer to my subject so that I can communicate other than waving and shouting.

I use my 200 more for birding than portrait these days, and now that I've picked up a 300mm for birding, I will likely sell my 200 F2.8L and move into a shorter telephoto prime. I think the 135L is as long as I would ever want for portrait as I already enjoy 90~100mm for full body, not too far, not too close.

Here's an old demo photo I did of a portrait shoot, to show an example of what kind of working distance I had to use for a 200mm on full frame to get full body portraits of 2 adults basically in my 5 acre field. It was really far. I had to point and wave, I couldn't just talk with explicit instruction, it was kind of silly. And for this reason, I slowed down on the 200mm. It really gave me more insight to feeling more comfortable with shorter distances to increase communication.

IMAGE: https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7289/26835245031_e5ec795db4_c.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GTkD​qt  (external link) MDsetup123 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://c6.staticflickr.com/8/7458/26902481605_bdb49d968d_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GZhf​vK  (external link) IMG_3355 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

+++++++++++

I just find myself more and more comfortable with shorter lenses for portrait and I really enjoy being close enough to communicate well. It also lets you change perspective with small moves, where as with a long lens, you have to really hoof it to change perspectives.

I also found, I just don't need the backgrounds to be so creamy and blown out, sometimes you want to keep the background for context, environmental portrait, and not just have buttery smooth bokeh where you can't tell where you are or what the environment was (sometimes you want that, when the environment is gross or messy, and that's where super shallow DOF is a good tool). Sometimes you just want the environment soft enough to isolate your subject, but not too soft so that you can keep environmental context.

I really enjoy 35mm too, keeping the environmental context. Ex:

IMAGE: https://c8.staticflickr.com/6/5807/22577249567_63a0374545_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Ap5i​Hz  (external link) 225H7534 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://c6.staticflickr.com/2/1551/26584070645_c7e6314091_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Gv9j​2B  (external link) IMG_2903 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1445/25981403553_28c66f77bd_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/FzTu​6F  (external link) IMG_2592 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

IMAGE: https://c5.staticflickr.com/2/1644/26557947116_16c65e9115_z.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/GsQq​pW  (external link) IMG_2907 (external link) by Martin Wise (external link), on Flickr

Very best,

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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2719
Joined Oct 2015
     
Aug 11, 2016 12:26 |  #58

Thorsten wrote in post #18092698 (external link)
Very similar here: I had sold my 135L and 200/2.8 for same reason (being a moron). At least I kept the 85/1.8. Now I got the 135L again. I use both 85 and 135 quite a bit: The 135L mainly for outdoor portraits, while the 85/1.8 comes along as light travel/walk-around lens (i.e. when shooting wildlife while having my kids along, I may take the 85/1.8 in my pocket to take some pictures of them as well). I'm still not sure if I'll get the 200/2.8 again. I really like that lens but truth is I rarely used it.

The first time I owned the 200 I was shooting apsc only. Just for laughs, that was quite a while ago. I got $700 for it when I sold it. I just picked up a Canon refurb for $519, I think it was.

Anyway, my shooting has evolved. I now have grandchildren playing outdoor sports in grade school. I considered the 70-200 2.8, but don't care for the size/weight. I don't need IS at 1/640 and faster. The 200 seemed like the perfect choice. The 200 II/1.4x II gives me all the reach I need to shoot kids' athletics with the 1DIV. First game of the upcoming school year is this Saturday.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
10,998 posts
Gallery: 44 photos
Likes: 2624
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Aug 11, 2016 13:38 |  #59

Bassat wrote in post #18092733 (external link)
The first time I owned the 200 I was shooting apsc only. Just for laughs, that was quite a while ago. I got $700 for it when I sold it. I just picked up a Canon refurb for $519, I think it was.

Anyway, my shooting has evolved. I now have grandchildren playing outdoor sports in grade school. I considered the 70-200 2.8, but don't care for the size/weight. I don't need IS at 1/640 and faster. The 200 seemed like the perfect choice. The 200 II/1.4x II gives me all the reach I need to shoot kids' athletics with the 1DIV. First game of the upcoming school year is this Saturday.

Good lucks, let us know how it works out. I've always wanted the 200 2.8 prime.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 50mm 1.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Bassat
"I am still in my underwear."
8,075 posts
Likes: 2719
Joined Oct 2015
     
Aug 11, 2016 14:26 |  #60

Talley wrote in post #18092795 (external link)
Good lucks, let us know how it works out. I've always wanted the 200 2.8 prime.

I'll trade you my 200 2.8L II for your 200 f/2. Straight up. I'll even cover all the postage. :)




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

23,805 views & 42 likes for this thread
85mm vs 135mm f2
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 is youssefrf
749 guests, 360 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.