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 04 Oct 2017 (Wednesday) 15:20
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

300 2.8 for Portraits??? --- Thinking Full Body No / Head shots Yes

 
Mike ­ Pauza
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Champaign Illinois United States
     
Oct 04, 2017 15:20 |  #1

Weird question, but do most think the 300 2.8 is really a bit too long for impromptu/convenient full body portraits??? Thinking just head shots would be fine.

Have fallen in love with the look/bokeh of the 200 1.8/2.0, but an old 300 2.8 non IS is more in my price range, and the look is very similar. Also going to be shooting NCAA basketball soon, and think I'd rather have the 300 over the 200 for the far end. For portraits I already own and like the 50L & 135L (and Sigma 20 1.4 Art). For full body shots (on full frame) I already kind of don't love dealing with a focal length of 135 (50 is so much easier), and discovered this last weekend that full body portraits at 600mm is a pain.

So do people agree that to get the look I'm after (the 200 F2 look) the 300 should be fantastic for headshots, but fairly unweildy for full body?


Thanks in advance. -Mike :)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ed ­ rader
"I am not the final word"
Avatar
23,105 posts
Gallery: 4 photos
Likes: 435
Joined May 2005
Location: silicon valley
     
Oct 04, 2017 15:29 |  #2

I guess it really depends on where you stand :rolleyes:


http://instagram.com/e​draderphotography/ (external link)
5D4, 80d, 16-35L III, 24-70L II, 70-200L F4 IS II, 100-400L II, sigma 15mm FE, tc 1.4 III, 430exII, gitzo 3542L + markins Q20, gitzo GT 1545T + markins Q3T, gitzo GM4562

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,802 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2571
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Oct 04, 2017 16:04 |  #3

I find the 300 F/2.8 to be a PITA for full body portraits. You have to stand to far back. Communication with clients difficult if you want to make small changes. Images look good. Just I PITA. Your better off with a fast 85 in my opinion or the 135L both which will get you very similar bokeh and results


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ma11rats
Senior Member
Avatar
983 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 439
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Az
Post edited over 1 year ago by ma11rats.
     
Oct 04, 2017 16:48 |  #4

When I owned the non-IS 300 f2.8. It's pretty darn heavy, the IS models lighten up the weight a bit.

I love the look, but I'd never use it on a paid shoot. Ended up selling it to help pay for my wedding. I will repurchase it, but definitely the first IS version.

Side note, my 135L has never produced something this smooth at head shot distance.


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


www.matthewbeutelphoto​graphy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
CheshireCat
Goldmember
Avatar
2,303 posts
Likes: 405
Joined Oct 2008
Location: *** vanished ***
     
Oct 04, 2017 17:15 |  #5

I shot a few portraits with a 500... not a problem if you can be standing a few blocks away :D


1Dx, 5D2 and some lenses

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bpalermini
Goldmember
Avatar
1,381 posts
Gallery: 91 photos
Likes: 698
Joined Mar 2011
Location: Ashland, Oregon
     
Oct 04, 2017 17:50 |  #6

You are right that the 300/2.8 is great for a second body at a basketball game for the far end with a second body with a 70-200 for the near.


Bob Palermini
1DX, 5DIV, 14 Rokinon, 16-35L II, 24-70L II, 100L, 70-200 IS 2.8L, 100-400L II, 400mm 2.8 IS II, 1.4xIII, 2xIII, 580EXII, YN560IV, RRS TVC23 + BH55, LRCC, Fuji X-E2, Fuji X30
My Web Site (external link) | My Sports Portfolio (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MalVeauX
"Looks rough and well used"
Avatar
13,228 posts
Gallery: 1648 photos
Best ofs: 4
Likes: 10404
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Florida
     
Oct 04, 2017 21:04 |  #7

You can make it work.

But it will be very specific and not easy to use for full body at all.

Also, buy a walki-talki setup with it if you go that route.

Everyone's different. I find 200mm to be too long for working distance, I prefer to be up closer, to connect and talk with the subject while shooting and issuing instruction, etc. I even find 135mm long for this purpose too. While I like the look of the extreme background creaming, I find that's not worth the loss of the connection to the subject, hollaring and waving arms over a gentle breeze at 20~40 feet for a full body shot like that. I actually am most comfortable and happy around 85mm (on full frame) for full body. I don't care what the background is really looking like if the subject is just standing there trying to understand what I'm yellowing or pointing at. Again, depends how you do things.

Very best,


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

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lenty007
Member
221 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 21
Joined May 2006
Location: Ghent, Belgium
     
Oct 05, 2017 01:38 |  #8

Seems like you're looking for an excuse to buy the (beautiful) lens  :p

The 300 will do just fine on several occasions, don't you worry about that.

Once I teamed up with an (important detail) experienced model in terms of "no guidance needed" and "worked before together" on an outdoor shoot with a 400mm F2.8
The full body shots came out very well despite the distance.
Indeed no chance of making verbal corrections, you just have to rely on the experience of the model and "take what is offered".

So the longer the lens the better you have to point out in advance of what you want. Once the model is in sync the distance is no problem.

Good luck.

Greetings, Alain




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ma11rats
Senior Member
Avatar
983 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 439
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Az
Post edited over 1 year ago by ma11rats.
     
Oct 05, 2017 01:58 as a reply to  @ Lenty007's post |  #9

That'd be sweet, a model who naturally has the moves/pose/expressions your looking for in a designated setting with a super tele...


www.matthewbeutelphoto​graphy.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,905 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5983
Joined Sep 2007
     
Oct 05, 2017 02:22 |  #10

ma11rats wrote in post #18466328 (external link)
That'd be sweet, a model who naturally has the moves/pose/expressions your looking for in a designated setting with a super tele...

They're called "super models"

I've seen the 300's used full body shots on models, tough working distance, amazing results.


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
ZoneV
Goldmember
1,644 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 234
Joined Dec 2010
Location: Germany
     
Oct 05, 2017 02:51 |  #11

I can not speak about Canon EF lenses, I use the older manual Canon FD 300mm and 400mm f/2.8 L lenses for portraits.
Most times I use an modified speedbooster to get a 210mm/2 (external link) and 280mm/2 monster-lens (external link) on my fullframe Sony A7II.
While I love this lenses for far background blur, I have bought walkie talkies for communications in some louder surroundings.

Here the Canon FD 400mm f/2.8 on a non Canon fullframe camera:

IMAGE: https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1487/24625379446_7ab76df632_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Dw4v​nG  (external link) On the bridge (external link) by Markus (external link), auf Flickr

And here the Canon FD 300mm f/2.8L on said camera:
IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5670/30125569764_2c77070079_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/MU6q​kf  (external link) Autumn Portrait (external link) by Markus (external link), auf Flickr

IMAGE: https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5717/30456971190_b6e73b7e60_b.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/NpnW​qW  (external link) Under the tree (external link) by Markus (external link), auf Flickr

DIY-Homepage (external link) - Image Gallery (external link) - Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ Pauza
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Champaign Illinois United States
     
Oct 05, 2017 12:18 |  #12

Thanks to all!


Thought I had answered my own question, but there is some golden information in this thread for sure. :)

Going to buy a used Canon 300 2.8...for shooting basketball, to replace my Sigma 150-600 f6.3 C, and as a poor man's headshot bokeh monster.
The expert advice regarding lens usability, and communicating (with professional models versus the average subject) is most appreciated a well.


Regards to all who so graciously responded. -Mike




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
DreDaze
happy with myself for not saying anything stupid
Avatar
18,063 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 2314
Joined Mar 2006
Location: S.F. Bay Area
     
Oct 05, 2017 23:44 |  #13

i'm not sure about impromptu portrait sessions...it'll take a bit of planning to make sure you've got the room...i use my 120-300f2.8 all the time for portraits though


Andre or Dre
gear list
Instagram (external link)
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
umphotography
grabbing their Johnson
Avatar
10,802 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 2571
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Gig Harbor, Washington
     
Oct 06, 2017 19:58 |  #14

DreDaze wrote in post #18466957 (external link)
i'm not sure about impromptu portrait sessions...it'll take a bit of planning to make sure you've got the room...i use my 120-300f2.8 all the time for portraits though


Thats because you have 120mm

the images posted above are 1/2 body shots. Full body shots is another 25 ft back :p


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ Pauza
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Champaign Illinois United States
Post edited over 1 year ago by Mike Pauza. (2 edits in all)
     
Oct 06, 2017 22:07 |  #15

umphotography wrote in post #18467526 (external link)
Thats because you have 120mm

the images posted above are 1/2 body shots. Full body shots is another 25 ft back :p


The "little girl pic" and the "woman lying in the leaves" are from like 20 feet away right, or is 25 more accurate?
Thinking I can make myself get that far back and find some good goto spots with distant backgrounds.

Ordered me a nice old 300L on eBay last night for $1600 btw. :-P




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

26,024 views & 10 likes for this thread
300 2.8 for Portraits??? --- Thinking Full Body No / Head shots Yes
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 sam729
2308 guests, 304 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.