[jawats]

I have found that there are people who are intimidated by a big 70-200 lens. I prefer an 85 or 100mm lens. The 100mm macro works well for me.

When you say that people are intimidated, do you mean the people carrying it, or people whom you photograph?

[gatorguy]

When you say that people are intimidated, do you mean the people carrying it, or people whom you photograph?

I've never had anyone who intended to be photographed be intimidated by a large lens or large camera. But it's certainly a lot harder to go unnoticed by those who didn't expect it. For out-on-the-street photos you're better off carrying a short lens and a small camera.


Oh, it's on it's way.

[jawats]

I've never had anyone who intended to be photographed be intimidated by a large lens or large camera. But it's certainly a lot harder to go unnoticed by those who didn't expect it. For out-on-the-street photos you're better off carrying a short lens and a small camera.


Oh, it's on it's way.

I'm definitely not "on the street" with my K-1 in any subtle fashion. I heard a neighbor remark, as I was out birding one day, "There's my neighbor with the gigantic camera looking for birds" to a friend on the phone. Of course, I also had my Tamron 60-300 on, which is anything but unobtrusive.

If I were going "walkabout" in the city, I'd take my k-mount Vivitar 35mm film camera or my Chinon CP-2 and a 28mm or 50mm lens. :P

[UncleVanya]

I have NO experience with the following combination but I bet it would be excellent for portraits on the K-1; DA 60-250 f4. Fast enough, constant aperture, who cares about the vignetting. Good image quality, great zoom range.

There are two issues I see with this:

1) the lens grows as you zoom it, this can increase subject anxiety. This is mostly an issue with non professional subjects.

2) the longer focal lengths of this lens suffer from focus breathing. At portrait distances the lens performs more like a 135 on the long end.

[m42man]

Here's a good guide to portraiture focal length (on a full-frame camera):

Untitled Document

I think this demonstrates why 70mm provides the best perspective for head-and-shoulders portraits (if the subject doesn't mind the lack of social distancing!).

[TwoUptons]

There are two issues I see with this:

1) the lens grows as you zoom it, this can increase subject anxiety. This is mostly an issue with non professional subjects.

2) the longer focal lengths of this lens suffer from focus breathing. At portrait distances the lens performs more like a 135 on the long end.

At that point, it’s like a 60-135... so it is the perfect portrait lens

-Eric

[zapp]

The 80-200 class of zooms is typically well suited for portraits wrt to focal length. Some do better, some worse wrt bokeh. All of them put a big lens directly in your face as Model. Dedicated single focal length lenses are less obstrusive and often dedicated for portraits. There is a bunch of macro glass with 90-100 mm focal length. The winners are limited 77 and several 85 mm lenses. Depending on how deep your pockets are, the zoom will be fine, the macros will do very well and the portrait class will be great. Most of us started with the idea of the universal lens for many purposes. 80-200 zoom class is great - also great to get started on portraits. You will find out whether you need a more dedicated lens and what focal length you really like. 77 or 85 already make a difference...

[UncleVanya]

All,

I'm going to do some family (my family) portraits and family group shots. ...Do I have the range about right? Any other thoughts?

Thanks!

What was the final decision and how did it turn out?

[jawats]

What was the final decision and how did it turn out?

Hello Uncle!

I ended up buying a Tamron A001, which performs well as an astro lens. I haven't had the chance to do a portrait session yet (things like COVID keep getting in the way), but given how well it does in off-the-cuff family shots, I suspect that it, combined with my 50mm A 1.7, will end up serving the purpose nicely.

Thank you for asking!

[cometguy]

The original post of this thread talked about family group shots, and just "group shots". I have a lot of experience both being in large group photographs and taking photos of large groups (family reunions; professional conference group shots of all participants) that can number dozens of people -- usually outdoors but occasionally indoors in a hotel lobby or conference room or church hall. The biggest problem with such photographs is lighting (something you have little control over, whether outdoors or in a big hall, so flash is out) and resolution of faces. I have seen many many group photos be of limited value because resolution is so poor and photos often can't be blown up much in size as a result. For indoor shots, you want a high-resolution fast lens, generally, such as the FA 50-mm f/1.4 or FA 35-mm f/2 AL, depending on the size of the group. The wider you go in a lens (i.e., smaller focal length), the poorer your resolution will be, generally, so you have to balance distance of camera with the size of the group. Generally such groups will only be together for a couple of minutes, as people get restless, so you have to be quick to decide which lens to use, often spur-of-the-moment because you may not know how many people will be in the photo in advance nor how spread out they will be (yes, you can try to do some orchestrating to get "stragglers" closer in). For this reason, a sharp zoom lens might be good, such as the DA 20-40mm lens, though I'd suggest more of a FF camera for better-resolution photos, and perhaps others can recommend a decent zoom lens for this sort of thing (maybe 24-70mm f/2.8 DFA?)...