Serene Life

by garik

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Every time I see a photoshoot video on youtube, the photographers have the biggest lenses I have ever seen in my life to shoot portraits or full-body shots.

For example, the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 ...or the like, that cost so much money.

Why do they need such big zoom lenses? Isn't a 50mm or a 85mm more than enough with apertures surrounding 1.8-2.8?

Or is it to just look "pro"?

A picture explanation, if necessary, is preferred.

share|improve this question
4  
If you have a 70-200 f/2.8 anyway (for sports or whatever) then why buy an extra lens to shoot portraits when the one you have is just as good? –  Matt Grum Sep 17 '11 at 13:31

6 Answers 6

up vote 68 down vote accepted

Long lenses are typically used for portraits as the greater working distance they allow flatters the subject. This is due to the effect of foreshortening, the perspective is compressed when shooting further from the subject using a long focal length, making features like noses stick out less.

You can shoot portraits with a wide lens, but you're going to get funky looking shots that aren't always what you want:

You lose the sticky out nose effect by about 80mm or so (when framing tight). So why go longer? There's another plus when shooting with long lenses and that is subject separation. Longer lenses make it easier to get a nice blurry background.

My favourite portrait lens is the Canon 135mm f/2.0L, it's relatively small and light, and wide open it gives very nice backgrounds (better than the 85mm f/1.2 in my opinion):

Regarding aperture, blurring backgrounds is not just about having a really fast aperture like f/1.8 or f/1.4, in fact with some lenses like the Canon 24mm f/1.4L make it pretty hard to get a blurred background even wide open, without focusing very close. In the following shot I completely obliterated the background - at f/5.6!

How? By using an 800mm lens!

Finally, it's definitely not about looking pro - unless there were some advantage to a big lens pro's wouldn't use them and therefore it wouldn't look pro! Something like the 70-200 is a very versatile lens, long enough for flattering perspective, wide enough to use indoors and fast for low light. You don't need all those things at once for portraiture, but why buy an extra lens when the one you have will do great?

I don't worry too much about a large lens intimidating people - it's how you act as a photographer that will make them feel most at ease, not the size of the lens.

share|improve this answer
    
Awesome answer, thanks for that. I didn't know the higher the focus the more separation with the background. Makes more sense now. –  denislexic Sep 18 '11 at 6:47
    
+1 "I completely obliterated the background " Is giving the model and photographer some working space between each other a contributing factor at all? –  Vian Esterhuizen Mar 31 '12 at 0:32
    
Also IIRC lenses tend to have a sweet-spot a stop or two from their widest aperture, so a f/4.5 lens wouldn't be as sharp at f/5.6 than an f/2.8 due to better construction. –  James Snell Jul 10 '13 at 15:00

The specific lens you mentioned, as well as the Canon counterpart, are particularly high quality lenses. The sharpness, contrast, and control of optical aberrations & flare are extremely good in a high end lens like that...and when it comes to professional work, your customers expect the best quality you can offer.

Regarding why use a zoom lens rather than a prime, I would guess that has to do with personal style and taste, as well as the needs of the moment. A professional grade zoom lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 allows you to achieve 85, 135, and 200mm in a single lens...all common portrait focal lengths. The aperture is nice and wide (a lot of 70-200 lenses that are not pro grade only have an aperture of f/4), so capturing nice, soft background bokeh is within the realm of possibility (especially at the longer focal lengths). Most of the pro-grade 70-200mm lenses also have some form of image stabilization, which is extremely handy and almost essential for sharp hand-held shots at telephoto lengths like 200mm.

Regarding a 50mm or 85mm...most pros would probably not use an f/1.8 or f/2.8 prime lens in those lengths. More common would be the f/1.4 variants, however as a professional, quality for your customer still reigns supreme, and its not uncommon to see professionals using the likes of the Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L or EF 85mm f/1.2 L lenses. With such wide apertures, capturing portraits, candid or otherwise, in almost any kind of light is pretty easy. The wide apertures also produce rich, creamy bokeh. Both offer the best optics available for those focal lengths, and produce nice soft-focus ideal for portraits.

So, I wouldn't say its just to "look pro"...its to meet the demands of their customers: quality. When your making money off of photography, such items usually become a business expense, and therefor a tax write-off (ultimately depends on locale). So the high cost is really not that much when amortized over a number of years.

share|improve this answer
1  
Interesting read... visualsciencelab.blogspot.com/2011/09/… I now, officially, wonder if the "what the pros use" is more of a marketing thing than a reality... –  John Cavan Sep 17 '11 at 4:04
1  
Wouldn't perspective also be a factor? I would think a 70-200 also allows the photographer to get in close to the subject without needing a large background. –  Perishable Dave Sep 17 '11 at 4:15
    
@JohnCavan: Thanks for the link! Adding to the RSS reader. I'm far, far from a pro myself, but I like the "what matters is you, not the camera" basic attitude to the article. It makes sense to me, given how (in many respects) the quality of consumer devices in 2011 outstrips the world-class stuff from 20 years ago. (Insert "my phone is more powerful than the original computers on the Space Shuttle" monologue here.) –  khedron Sep 21 '11 at 19:52
    
@PerishableDave: Aye, it would. I guess I tried to imply that, but did not specifically state it. Matt Grum's answer is far superior to mine and explains it better than I could. ;) –  jrista Sep 22 '11 at 23:47

You say a "photoshoot video," of portrait shots [I infer this from the title of the post]. There is a vast difference between portraits, fashion, glamour, etc. With portraits, you see far fewer whacky perspectives. That rules out lenses 50mm or shorter on a full-size sensor. So as @jrista said, the 70-200mm really hits the sweet spot of portrait focal lengths for head shot, head and shoulders, and full length.

The reason the lens is so bit is not to look "pro" but to be able to gather enough light at all those focal lengths. f/4 really is too slow.

I'll mildly disagree that pros don't use f/1.8 lenses. The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is one sweet lens and it is relatively light. I love it -- shot for a solid week with just that lens. But when I really want the best results, I use the f/1.2. It's just better glass and gives me a few more options.

I have the 70-200mm Canon L-Series lens and have taken it out for some fashion stuff, but never for portraits. I prefer a more compact camera for portraits, which I believe is a more intimate, slower-moving session. Fashion, and glamour tend to be more active -- different/changing poses, etc. -- and a zoom can be really useful.

One thing to be clear on: No pro I've ever met spends money just to look more "professional." Photography just doesn't pay well enough to throw thousands of dollars at questionable investments designed to make you look like more of a star than you are. Pros tend to buy what they absolutely need, rent what they are missing on a given shoot, and live without the rest. In my experience.

share|improve this answer

You may notice that you might see the photographer moving laterally or up and down in those videos, but rarely moving toward or away from the subject by more than a few inches. I've said it before here: there's no "right focal length" for portraiture (or fashion/glamour), there's a "right distance" for a flattering perspective. The zoom is for getting the correct framing when shooting from the right distance. And you need to keep in mind that photography in this genre is usually framed very tightly and shot from further away than an intimate portrait, since it's really a variation on a product shot -- even when one wants a taste of the environment, it's only a taste.

As for the speed, well, there are a few reasons for picking the fast glass. One is for visual focus confirmation (faster lenses have a shallower depth of field, and obvious focus errors really are obvious before you press the shutter release). Another is for control of the DoF in the final picture, though (admittedly) the aperture used is often smaller than wide open -- but the photographer has the choice, and is unlikely to purchase more than one lens of the same (or similar) focal length range. The third is just the viewfinder brightness. When you do this stuff for a living, the fatigue from looking down a long, dark tunnel really is trying.

A 70-200/2.8 would be an intimidating bit of ordnance to bring to a portrait session; the size alone gives the subject the feeling that she's under the microscope, so to speak. For portraits, I much prefer dinky little lenses. The 85/1.8, for instance, is no more intimidating than the 18-55mm kit lens. In the film days, I really liked the 250mm/5.6 Rokkor/Minolta reflex lens -- it was about the size of a typical 85mm, and was great for intimacy at a distance, since the sitter was unable to see it as a long, invasive lens. On a crop-sensor body, the Tokina 50-135mm gives about the same field of view as a 70-200mm lens on a full-frame body, but the lens is a very reasonable size (comparable to the larger-range kit lenses) and, importantly, doesn't change its physical size when zoomed. But these lenses are best for "stealing your soul" portraits -- there's something of the inner superstar you want to capture in a fashion or glamour shot, and longer/larger lenses actually help the model perform.

So yeah, I guess you could say that there is something of a psychological aspect in choosing something like the 70-200mm/2.8 for a fashion/beauty shoot, but it's not about the photographer.

share|improve this answer

The 70-200mm f/2.8 is a fantastic lens for portraits because it gives so many options, this is why it is a must have for many pro photographers. It is also a basic for photo journalism where the 200mm reach at f/2.8 is very often a god send. One thing you have to bear in mind with lenses like this is that they are extremely heavy so no pro would use one unless there was a good reason. Believe me I've done a couple of hours with a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and my arms felt like they were about to fall off so it follows that a pro using such a lens all day isn't going to do so just for show.

It's an amazing lens for portraits because it allows you to stand a lot further away from the model meaning they are a lot less affected by the camera even with such an imposing piece of kit attached. At weddings and similar events its fantastic for candid long range shots in low light too and in a studio having faster glass gives much greater flexibility in lighting. In short there are many reasons to own a lens like this, looking flash tends not to be one of them.

share|improve this answer

I do believe it IS about the photographer. Photography is more about personal style. Shooting portraits like all else is about "what" the photographer expects to see and the capabilities of his or her equipment choice that brings them there. As far as equipment the quality of the glass being used is without doubt most important in capable hands. I prefer portraits at 135 up to and including 300mm believe it or not. As previously stated it is about what I want to see and the customers expectations of my ability.

If it is about having just one lens..the 80--200 2.8 can do it. Can it do it "all" for portraiture. No because lighting reigns supreme.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.