70-300mm for portraits??

[texxter]

If I were to choose between a 70-30mm f/4.5-5.6 and a prime, I would pick the prime because ultimately speed and image quality are more important to me than flexibility.

Speed might be important for candids, but if you are going to adjust/modify/add light, then the speed of the lens isn't as important. I think portraiture can be done with a 300mm f/4 just as well as with a 2.8 zoom. Then it boils down to image quality as (my) ultimate objective.

Every photographer is different and I can totally see why someone would add light to every portrait so that they can have full control of exposure. I was speaking for myself only, and I value speed for two reasons. One, I have done portraits, not candids, where I wasn't able to adjust/modify/add light... all I could do was use the light I found, and having a faster lens was helpful. Second, I like to have a shallower depth of field even when I have plenty of light to work with. But I agree that you don't need a fast lens to do great work!

 

[mrca]

Texxter, you are absolutely right, you don't need a fast lens or even a light to do great work. However, if you want a particular background or direction or light quality, having speedlights, strobes or reflectors can perfect the image to your vision. Folks do need to know how to find existing reflectors, directional light, good contrast ratio. I do feel that when someone actually MAKES the light, they tend to recognize it existing from ambient more readily.

 

[texxter]

Texxter, you are absolutely right, you don't need a fast lens or even a light to do great work. However, if you want a particular background or direction or light quality, having speedlights, strobes or reflectors can perfect the image to your vision. Folks do need to know how to find existing reflectors, directional light, good contrast ratio. I do feel that when someone actually MAKES the light, they tend to recognize it existing from ambient more readily.

Very true! Understanding light is critical to become a proficient photographer... as light is our raw material.

 

[mcap1972]

Sure you can but primes are the best for this job.

 

[keen.observer]

You can shoot portraits with almost anything, but they tend to look better when shot using the 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm focal lengths...all of which are contained in a 70-300mm Zoom lens range. Even so, images from Prime (single focal length) lenses tend to be a bit sharper than those from a Zoom lens. Images from Zooms can be sharp enough to suit most people...even pro photographers, and their customers. More than a few pros use nothing but Zooms...specifically 'The Holy Trinity'. Still, the same skilled photographer can get a little more sharpness from Primes. Do you suffer the hassles of carrying more Prime lenses around with you, or opt for the convenience of carrying fewer Zoom lenses covering the same focal lengths? That is up to you. Many pros do it one way, and many do it the other. Most carry some Primes, and some Zooms. It is up to you.

 

[keen.observer]

Prime lenses have one focal length. A Zoom lens has several focal lengths. A 70-300 Zoom lens can offer a 70mm focal length, a 300mm focal length...as well as all points in between....such as a 73.5mm focal length, and 86.7mm focal length, and such. If you take a position, frame, and shoot at one point, and want to re-frame at another focal length without moving, or changing lenses, you can do so with a Zoom lens...by simply pressing a button, or twisting a ring. It is a convenience. To re-frame when using a Prime you either have to change lenses, or move closer to / further away from you subject. Doing so gives you a sharper image, but is less convenient. Primes usually offer wider apertures than do most Zooms, which can be a convenience in another way when shooting in dim light. When you have plenty of light-outside on a sunny day, or in a studio with adequate lights, aperture is less important...except for producing Bokeh (artistic blur). Outdoors, or in a huge studio, you can get better Bokeh even from a smaller apertured lens, by placing your camera closer to your subject, and your subject further away from the background. The Prime vs Zoom lens thing comes down to personal preferences. If you are stronger, and more energetic, and don't mind moving around a lot, you may think the added sharpness Primes offer is worthwhile. If you are lazier, more handicapped,or otherwise inclined to move around less, and less able to / less inclined to want to carry more gear, you may consider Zoom lenses to be more worthwhile.

 

[mrca]

When it comes to hauling a 3 lb 70-200 on camera over my shoulder, now, with 46 mp camera I can use a 135, stand in one place and not zoom, it's faster, just crop in post. Can even crop in camera to a 1.5 crop and store fewer mp. You can use an 85, take a step 0r 2 back to get the 135 perspective then crop. Having mp to spare does more than just give sharp detail. For those of us that haul a number of pro FF lenses for hours on a shoot, it can be a nice relief. Will I forgo the 24-70 workhorse for events and weddings, no, but that beast of a 70-200 is being left home more and more. The bokeh on the 135 2.0 dc blows it away.