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

 
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,750 posts
Likes: 526
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Oct 06, 2017 22:13 |  #16

I'm friends with a photographer who had a love affair with long lenses for portraiture. He even did 600mm full body shots outdoors with remote flash: all for the compression/DOF/etc. I think as far as usability, it's a personal preference. Some people like lighter, and you can keep holding the camera rig up for extended periods/ vs if you're putting the camera up from time to time. While I like my Sigma 150-600mm for being a light lens that I can easily hand hold, I think that if I did get a fast long tele I'd be using a monopod.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
ma11rats
Senior Member
Avatar
983 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 439
Joined Feb 2013
Location: Az
     
Oct 07, 2017 00:27 |  #17

Mike Pauza wrote in post #18467575 (external link)
The "little girl pic" and the "woman lying in the leaves" are from like 20 feet away right, or is 25 more accurate?


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


My daughter was probably 15-20' It was the first time taking it out, I hadn't calibrated it yet. Mind you she was just over 3 at the time, so obviously smaller than an adult. I'd say 25' for vertical full body shot for an adult maybe?

I had that 300 on my watch list.


www.matthewbeutelphoto​graphy.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 1 year ago by Wilt.
     
Oct 07, 2017 00:58 |  #18

ma11rats wrote in post #18467628 (external link)
My daughter was probably 15-20' It was the first time taking it out, I hadn't calibrated it yet. Mind you she was just over 3 at the time, so obviously smaller than an adult. I'd say 25' for vertical full body shot for an adult maybe?

I had that 300 on my watch list.

If you consider fitting a full length standing shot into an 10" x 8" image area, the width of the image area needs to see 5.4' wide in order to capture an area which is 6.75' tall (to allow a bit of breathing space on a subject who is 6'4" tall to not cut off head or feet). With a 300mm lens you have to stand 68' away from the subject, and shout at them in order to have them adjust their position from shot to shot!

With a headshot, to frame 18.75" x 15" area you need to be about 17' away, which is more manageable a distance to direct your subject from camera position.


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
Lenty007
Member
221 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 21
Joined May 2006
Location: Ghent, Belgium
     
Oct 07, 2017 00:59 |  #19

(Way) back in the school days I learned (and kept) a formula to calculate the exact distance needed.

So, in order to get a woman, lets say 1,7m (sorry metric system) tall with the 400mm from head to tow on a full frame (landscape) pic you need to be 29,5 meters away.
When you want the same ting with your 300mm you need to be 22,35 meters away.

I know on the Web you can find here and there places where you can place your coorinates and get the results on-the-fly but the formula is pretty straight forward (and rather simpel to use).

You take the height of yous subject and devide it with the tangens of the requiered angle (3°30' in case of the 400mm and 4°35' for the 300mm).

Have fun with it!

Greetings,

Alain




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lenty007
Member
221 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 21
Joined May 2006
Location: Ghent, Belgium
Post edited over 1 year ago by Lenty007.
     
Oct 07, 2017 01:14 |  #20

When I do the math for Wilt the result is 52,5' (+ a few feet for margin) on full frame

70' on a crop (1,6x)




  
  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 1 year ago by Wilt. (2 edits in all)
     
Oct 07, 2017 01:22 |  #21

Lenty007 wrote in post #18467651 (external link)
When I do the math for Wilt the result is 52,5' (+ a few feet for margin) on full frame

70' on a crop (1,6x)

I assumed an image that fits 8x10" print with 1.25:1 aspect ratio, not the overly long 135 format 1.5:1 aspect ratio frame size.

You can fit a subject 6.25' tall into the 135 frame from a distance of 53', but then that image area will not properly fit in an 8x10" print and fill both directions of the print.


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
Lenty007
Member
221 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 21
Joined May 2006
Location: Ghent, Belgium
     
Oct 07, 2017 06:06 |  #22

Sorry got lost in translation ;-)a

Only know 2/3 and 3/4 ratio pics.

But we all know that the math is a rough guidance. It gives us a number and from there it's give and take a bit to get the subject safely on screen.
For me it's a tool to prepare or to learn from afterwords.
When the math tells you that your voice won't carry less far then the lens would then you're considdered prepared.

Anyhow for what's worth always remenber to have fun while shooting.

Greetings,




  
  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 07, 2017 08:29 |  #23

Wilt and Lenty007

I hated film because I could never figure out all the ration stuff and math. If you knew how much I spent with test shots in the film days :-)

Love it when the viewfinder came to photography. If I can see it, i can figure it out

Wilt I am constantly amazed with your technical expertise.


Mike
www.umphotography.com (external link)
GEAR LIST
Facebook (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 1 year ago by Wilt. (3 edits in all)
     
Oct 07, 2017 11:15 |  #24

umphotography wrote in post #18467761 (external link)
Wilt and Lenty007

I hated film because I could never figure out all the ration stuff and math. If you knew how much I spent with test shots in the film days :-)

Love it when the viewfinder came to photography. If I can see it, i can figure it out

Wilt I am constantly amazed with your technical expertise.

There is little 'technical' about what I've posted in this thread! 8-)

  • 8x10" print... 10" / 8" = 1.25, so its aspect ratio is 1.25:1, the relative size of the long side-to-One
  • 135 frame is 36mm x 24mm, 36mm / 24mm = 1.5, so its relative aspect ratio of 1.5:1

So if I want to fit 6.75' tall area around subject into 10" print, then I would capture 5.4' horizontally in the 8" width (6.75' / 1.25 = 5.4')
Using a tool on the web (and not any fancy equations), if shooting with 300mm lens I need to have the camera 68' away to capture 5.4' in the 135 frame's width.
A little bit a arithmetic, a little use of a web program, but nothing technical.

When shooting for decades with film, I never bothered with these computations...the web did not exist for me to consult useful programs!  :p
I used to simply shoot with the need to cut off part of the tall 135 frame in mind, then go to the darkroom and fit the subject onto the easel set for 8x10" paper, and expose the paper.

But when someone needs to hear about the downsides of trying to shoot full length standing shots with 300mm, I can compute (easily, as above) the ridiculous shooting distances 'for portraiture' with an amateur model.

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
Lenty007
Member
221 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 21
Joined May 2006
Location: Ghent, Belgium
     
Oct 07, 2017 23:17 |  #25

Tx Wilt for the useful lesson, and for the time of explaning things. Was very enlightening!




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
nightcat
Goldmember
4,512 posts
Likes: 22
Joined Aug 2008
     
Oct 09, 2017 07:15 |  #26

You can take excellent head shots and full body shots with a long telephoto lens. I've used the 300mm f4, the 400mm 5.6 and the 400mm f4 DO II with no issues. I've also seen some excellent full body portraits with a 500mm lens. The sample posted on page one of this thread with a 400mm is a great example. The alleged communication problem with your subject is just nonsense. For your purposes, I think a 300mm 2.8 would be great.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ Pauza
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Champaign Illinois United States
     
Oct 13, 2017 23:23 |  #27

So, I got my "mint looking" 300 2.8 non IS today, but won't focus over 35 feet away.
Should I worry worry about buying another used one?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Moncho
Member
Avatar
162 posts
Gallery: 10 photos
Likes: 67
Joined Dec 2015
     
Oct 14, 2017 03:29 as a reply to  @ Mike Pauza's post |  #28

Are you going to return it? Or try to send it in for a repair? If you can return it, I would give it another try.


Carpe Diem
(Seize the carp!)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
joeseph
"smells like turd"
Avatar
10,006 posts
Gallery: 124 photos
Likes: 2065
Joined Jan 2004
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
     
Oct 14, 2017 04:18 |  #29

Mike Pauza wrote in post #18472277 (external link)
So, I got my "mint looking" 300 2.8 non IS today, but won't focus over 35 feet away.
Should I worry worry about buying another used one?

I'd ask what the focusing range selector switch is set to...


some fairly old canon camera stuff, canon lenses, Manfrotto "thingy", 1D MK II converted for IR, and now an M5
TF posting: here :-)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Mike ­ Pauza
THREAD ­ STARTER
Mostly Lurking
14 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Champaign Illinois United States
     
Oct 14, 2017 12:14 |  #30

joeseph wrote in post #18472347 (external link)
I'd ask what the focusing range selector switch is set to...


Tried that first, then turned the 5DIV off an on several times. :(




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

26,020 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
2373 guests, 346 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.