What lens does this photographer use

[tecboy]

I would like to know what lens this photographer used in the fashion show runway. The photographs seem to have shallow dof. Was the aperture set around f/2.8?

[video=vimeo;67611028]http://vimeo.com/67611028[/video]

 

[hombredelmar]

The best lens for a runway is 70-200, 2.8f

 

[Derrel]

I would guess the wider stuff was shot with a 24-70/2.8 and the majority with a 70-200/2.8. I also see a few that have a much more defocused ( aka 'blown-out') backdrop that looks more like a 300mm lens, maybe a f/4.

 

[tecboy]

Thanks. It is good to know.

 

[tecboy]

I also see a few that have a much more defocused ( aka 'blown-out') backdrop......

So the defocused or blown-out. Is that good or bad? Is it too shallow on DOF?

 

[Derrel]

I also see a few that have a much more defocused ( aka 'blown-out') backdrop......

So the defocused or blown-out. Is that good or bad? Is it too shallow on DOF?

Many people like "blown out" backgrounds when the term "blown out" means very,very shallow depth of field. It is an old term, easily 30 years old; it's confusing because blown out can also man wayyyy over-exposed. (But then phat and fat, and sick and sick mean different things too...). A 300mm f/2.8 lens is very useful to create "blown-out backgrounds".

 

[KmH]

300 mm f/2.8 lens are rather costly - Nikon 300mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Super Telephoto Prime Lens

Sigma 137306 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Lens for Nikon (Black)

 

[tecboy]

300 mm f/2.8 lens are rather costly - Nikon 300mm f/2.8G AF-S ED VR II Nikkor Super Telephoto Prime Lens

Sigma 137306 120-300mm F2.8 DG OS HSM Lens for Nikon (Black)

Why? My Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM is not good enough? It has pretty good shallow dof , but not closes to f/2.8. :greenpbl::mrgreen:

 

[LCLimages]

300mm at f/5.6 should produce a nice blurry background. Honestly my 24-105 f/4 does pretty well at 105mm for a blurred background if I'm shooting fairly close to my subject. But remember, the longer the focal length, the farther away the background, and also the closer you are to the subject will affect DOF. I've been stalking ebay for Canon's old 135mm f/2.8 SF lens. That will beat my 105mm because it's both longer and wider aperture wide open. Next time I have a few grand to toss around (ha, HA) I want the 200mm f/2L. Loooonnnnngggg time coming.

 

[tecboy]

Does this photographer use wide angle lens? It looks distorted?

https://www.facebook.com/SanJoseRAW/photos/a.1516726805212228.1073741838.1395571303994446/1516727195212189/?type=3&theater

 

[vintagesnaps]

It does but I don't know if that's intentional. The composition/background is cluttered and that's what I noticed first more than the model or the distortion (and what I've seen of RAW is pretty much amateur hour).

Do you ever look at top fashion sites or photographers? Or PDN? They cover some fashion/commercial work.

If you're looking for something that causes a similar effect maybe Lensbabies are the type you're thinking of or would be interested in looking up.

 

[Braineack]

A few of the long shots remind me of this one I took at f/4 with my 70-200:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/80607199@N08/14373781334/in/set-72157645072475824

 

[TCampbell]

The background blur looked a bit weak for f/2.8 and frankly f/2.8 can create problems for being too shallow (but that depends on subject distance). I tend to mostly shoot at f/4 and above (you have to be careful at f/2.8).

As I'm scanning my photos for things taken with my 70-200 lens (I can tell my software to do a search for images by EXIF data...e.g. I can tell it what lens and exposure settings, etc.) I notice that my shots that would have similar framing have background blur which appears to be a touch stronger in mine and those are mostly f/4 shots. So I'm going to guess that many of these are shot with at f/4 or f/5.6 using a 70-200 (or similar).

 

[Pejacre]

The background blur looked a bit weak for f/2.8 and frankly f/2.8 can create problems for being too shallow (but that depends on subject distance). I tend to mostly shoot at f/4 and above (you have to be careful at f/2.8).

As I'm scanning my photos for things taken with my 70-200 lens (I can tell my software to do a search for images by EXIF data...e.g. I can tell it what lens and exposure settings, etc.) I notice that my shots that would have similar framing have background blur which appears to be a touch stronger in mine and those are mostly f/4 shots. So I'm going to guess that many of these are shot with at f/4 or f/5.6 using a 70-200 (or similar).

Agreed - my old nik 80-200 2.8 always seemed to give the best blown out backgrounds paired with subject sharpness at around F/4.