Portrait Lens - Is there a prefered model?

[Jamesy]

The f/1.8 aperture makes it much better as a portrait lens, especially outdoors.

i know, i meant the length; hence why i quoted the part of your post regrading the length. but nevermind, i was only messin .

as for the 70-200, just watch jerry ghionis in 'masters of wedding photography II'. He uses it a lot and produces AMAZING work. obviously thats more to do with the guy behind the camera but it would still be good for what you want:thumbup:

 

[Jamesy]

Pro portrait photographers on Youtube? I won't even respond to that!

chuck arlund, david jay, jerry ghionis... and many more.

 

[dylj]

Pro portrait photographers on Youtube? I won't even respond to that!

I don't understand why not. Have you checked out any of the stuff? Some of them do good work, and are generous enough to share their techniques. Joe McNally is one of the youtube photographers I'm talking about. He specifically points out the 70-200 f/2.8 as an indispensable lens.

 

[John_Olexa]

I use the 70-200 2.8 for portrait work all the time, as well as most other stuff.Shoot, I bet I use this lens for about 85% of my photography.

 

[brileyphotog]

If you have enough room to back up, longer lenses have an added advantage of putting your subject at ease. Does anyone really enjoy having a camera 3-4 feet from their face? I know I don't.

A lot of people use the 70mm range for portraits and it does just fine. I know a few who even like to shoot as long as 110-120 for outdoor senior portraits, etc.

 

[Socrates]

If you have enough room to back up, longer lenses have an added advantage of putting your subject at ease. Does anyone really enjoy having a camera 3-4 feet from their face? I know I don't.

A lot of people use the 70mm range for portraits and it does just fine. I know a few who even like to shoot as long as 110-120 for outdoor senior portraits, etc.

3-4 feet? That's not a portrait lens, that's a wide-angle.

50mm on anything less than a D3 puts the subject about ten-twelve feet away for a head-and-shoulders shot. With a D3 or a film SLR, you get roughly the same distance with an 85mm lens. 70-90 is OK if you've got the space but you need an f/2 or larger aperture. 110-120mm and your subject gets too flat. Just the opposite of using a wide-angle at the 3-4 foot distance.

 

[dylj]

70-90 is OK if you've got the space but you need an f/2 or larger aperture. 110-120mm and your subject gets too flat. Just the opposite of using a wide-angle at the 3-4 foot distance.

You're probably more experienced than me, so I won't argue. Most of what I know about portraiture is second-hand. It just seems like a lot of professionals prefer their 70-200 2.8's for portraits.

 

[Socrates]

You're probably more experienced than me, so I won't argue. Most of what I know about portraiture is second-hand. It just seems like a lot of professionals prefer their 70-200 2.8's for portraits.

I would wager that they're using it wide open and zoomed close to the short end. In my opinion, they'd be better off with a prime, such as the 85 f/1.8. That's what Mav used with his shot (above).

 

[DWS]

I would wager that they're using it wide open and zoomed close to the short end. In my opinion, they'd be better off with a prime, such as the 85 f/1.8. That's what Mav used with his shot (above).

:thumbup:, or 85 f/1.4