September 27, 2016, 05:14:17 AM

Author Topic: Portraitlens for headshots.  (Read 9257 times)

Act444

  • Canon 7D MK II
  • *****
  • Posts: 596
Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2016, 10:12:35 PM »


This is one of the things that drives me absolutely nuts about this forum. Somebody writes and says they are trying to decide between "A" and "B." And people respond: "Oh no, I use "G," get that." And, usually "G" is four times more expensive.

Hehe. That happened to me. I remember a few years ago I was asking for advice on shooting an indoor event with my camera at the time (60D) and many didn't hesitate to recommend upgrading to a 5D and 24-70. $4K worth of camera gear when my budget at the time was barely 1/4th of that.  ;D 

On topic - I don't do much portraiture, but the few occasions I have, typically I gravitate towards an environmental shot (35-50mm) and a close-up head-and-shoulders shot (lens-dependent, but typically 70-105mm). I'm personally not huge on the ultra-compressed look of telephoto lens portraits (>135mm), nor am I a fan of the ultra-thin DOF f/1.2 "only one eye in focus" type shots...but that's just my style.  :-X
« Last Edit: February 11, 2016, 10:17:39 PM by Act444 »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #45 on: February 11, 2016, 10:12:35 PM »

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5585
  • Would you take advice from a catoon's stuffed toy?
Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #46 on: February 14, 2016, 09:46:59 AM »
If you can't connect to your subject get a lens with gimmicks, it will distract people long enough, if you can connect with your subjects, or want to learn, get a lens that does without them.

I've noticed that if you don't personally own the lens you're like a petulant child... you don't need it, gimmicks, you can use a cheaper lens. Sure you don't need them but if you have the means to buy the tools then do it and don't fear using them in any situation. As for the fish being being used as a gimmick and not being connected with your subject... that just shows your complete lack of familiarity with a lens you don't own. If you do own a fish then pull it out and try, you'll see it can be used quite effectively. You have to be quite connected with your subject to pull off these types of shots as you are right up in their face. I do agree the fish is a special lens but to never use it for portraits is as asinine as your statements regarding it.

I feel a bit nervous commenting here given all the experts.

I love the 85L, however my advice would be the reverse, use the 85L for Adults and 135L for kids.

Why?

AF speed.

The kids is not always gong to sit still while the 85L slowly AF's.

Having said that, they are both excellent lenses.

I think my point here is "rules" about the use of any lens for this application only or that one, or... is really doing no one any service. Any lens can be used in any situation; kids running, portraits, action, stills, etc. The only limit on their actual use in the real world are the limits you place on them yourself. I just choose not to limit myself...

Just to make a point about the fish and portraiture. I took this shot a few years ago while shooting strangers at the beach. Read my description of this shot. Part of the biggest aspects about taking portraits for the 100 Strangers project is connecting with people, pictures come second. I know this because I was the admin for this group for years. In order to take this photo I had to talk with this woman and explain why I needed to be right up in her personal space. She agreed, loved the results and actually hired me to do ads for her yoga studio later. She is still a client. That doesn't happen when you're not connected with your subject. Sure there is distortion and it's not safe. If that worries you so much that it hinders your creativity stick with Hurley, safe and follow.



Although I decided to treat you comment with the utter contempt it deserved, now some time has passed I felt I should point out I do own the Canon 15mm fisheye (and the 135 f2 and several other of the lenses in this thread), indeed a basic search here with 'privatebydesign' and 'fisheye' would have made you realize I am a strong advocate for the lens. It doesn't mean it isn't an entirely inappropriate recommendation in this particular thread, but when have you let facts or common sense get in the way of your pathetic digs at me?

You will have to try much harder than that...........
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3146
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #47 on: February 19, 2016, 11:00:22 AM »

The 100 macro ....

 it is just a superb little cheap lens.

No !

That would be this 100 surely ?!  ;)

martti

  • 5D Mark III
  • ******
  • Posts: 631
Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #48 on: February 19, 2016, 11:58:15 AM »
Do you want beautiful pictures or realistic ones?
The 85,, L lens is hard to beat as is the 135mm f/2.0.
Now people say that the 70-200mm at full opening is the thing to have.
I do not know.


For me the 85mm L (old version ) gives the feeling I want.
though the 100mm f/2.0 is much lighter and faster and cheaper but but but...


How could I answer for somebody else?
Eyes in my head see the world spinning round.

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3146
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #49 on: February 19, 2016, 12:39:47 PM »
The OP specifically asked about lenses suitable for photographing schoolchildren for a school.  He showed a sample of his animal portraiture.  And then after some standard recommendations were made, we get a stream of photographs from posters using all kinds of other lenses, in an attempt to demonstrate that such recommendations were narrow and that a portrait could be shot with whatever lens one feels like using, which of course completely misses the point.

Did you actually SEE the photo the OP posted?  Fantastic photo of a ram.  Beautiful detail, rich tones, and of impeccable aesthetic quality.  I can totally understand how a school could see that kind of work and say, "I want him to photograph our students."


Having looked at that picture of the ram, I'd now ask what makes that picture ? A pleasing portrait indeed but it is about the subject, the lighting and the post processing, not necessarily in that order. The subtle nuances between lenses is, in the case of this portrait, irrelevant.

The OP says he already has the 70-200/2.8 IS, and I'm not an expert on the subtleties of a ram's nose proportions, but that picture could easily have been taken on a 70-200 f4, never mind a 2.8. There is no indication of where the background is or how far away the photographer was able to be from the subject, so without looking at the exif there is no way of saying.

As others have pointed out, how the subject responds to the camera is much more important, and in the case of this ram portrait I don't see much interaction; it's the lighting and the post processing.

privatebydesign

  • Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS II
  • **********
  • Posts: 5585
  • Would you take advice from a catoon's stuffed toy?
Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #50 on: February 19, 2016, 01:16:58 PM »
The OP specifically asked about lenses suitable for photographing schoolchildren for a school.  He showed a sample of his animal portraiture.  And then after some standard recommendations were made, we get a stream of photographs from posters using all kinds of other lenses, in an attempt to demonstrate that such recommendations were narrow and that a portrait could be shot with whatever lens one feels like using, which of course completely misses the point.

Did you actually SEE the photo the OP posted?  Fantastic photo of a ram.  Beautiful detail, rich tones, and of impeccable aesthetic quality.  I can totally understand how a school could see that kind of work and say, "I want him to photograph our students."


Having looked at that picture of the ram, I'd now ask what makes that picture ? A pleasing portrait indeed but it is about the subject, the lighting and the post processing, not necessarily in that order. The subtle nuances between lenses is, in the case of this portrait, irrelevant.

The OP says he already has the 70-200/2.8 IS, and I'm not an expert on the subtleties of a ram's nose proportions, but that picture could easily have been taken on a 70-200 f4, never mind a 2.8. There is no indication of where the background is or how far away the photographer was able to be from the subject, so without looking at the exif there is no way of saying.

As others have pointed out, how the subject responds to the camera is much more important, and in the case of this ram portrait I don't see much interaction; it's the lighting and the post processing.

That is exactly what I was saying on the first page  :)

Agree on the alternate 100 too  ;)
Too often we lose sight of the fact that photography is about capturing light, if we have the ability to take control of that light then we grow exponentially as photographers. More often than not the image is not about lens speed, sensor size, MP's or AF, it is about the light.

Sporgon

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3146
  • 5% of gear used 95% of the time
    • www.buildingpanoramics.com
Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2016, 01:19:39 PM »
The OP specifically asked about lenses suitable for photographing schoolchildren for a school.  He showed a sample of his animal portraiture.  And then after some standard recommendations were made, we get a stream of photographs from posters using all kinds of other lenses, in an attempt to demonstrate that such recommendations were narrow and that a portrait could be shot with whatever lens one feels like using, which of course completely misses the point.

Did you actually SEE the photo the OP posted?  Fantastic photo of a ram.  Beautiful detail, rich tones, and of impeccable aesthetic quality.  I can totally understand how a school could see that kind of work and say, "I want him to photograph our students."


Having looked at that picture of the ram, I'd now ask what makes that picture ? A pleasing portrait indeed but it is about the subject, the lighting and the post processing, not necessarily in that order. The subtle nuances between lenses is, in the case of this portrait, irrelevant.

The OP says he already has the 70-200/2.8 IS, and I'm not an expert on the subtleties of a ram's nose proportions, but that picture could easily have been taken on a 70-200 f4, never mind a 2.8. There is no indication of where the background is or how far away the photographer was able to be from the subject, so without looking at the exif there is no way of saying.

As others have pointed out, how the subject responds to the camera is much more important, and in the case of this ram portrait I don't see much interaction; it's the lighting and the post processing.

That is exactly what I was saying on the first page  :)

Agree on the alternate 100 too  ;)

You know me ! - I'm always slow to catch up  ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #51 on: February 19, 2016, 01:19:39 PM »

Jack56

  • Rebel T6i
  • ****
  • Posts: 136
Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2016, 04:14:35 PM »
Hi all,
Been some time that I opened this thread. Unfortunately the portraits haven't been taken yet. Very busy with another project at school, but next month I will start with the first pictures. Thank you very much for all your replies. Really very kind of you. Great to read all of them.
Thank you again!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Portraitlens for headshots.
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2016, 04:14:35 PM »