[beholder3]

I've always wondered about this, doesn't such a distance make it difficult to communicate with your subject? If you are a paparazzi photographer, less communication is better, but for a willing model, doesn't the photographer want to be able to make suggestions without yelling? Not to mention difficulties with a lack of space in a studio or lack of control over external elements outdoors. A few years ago, someone posted on this site a full length nude portrait taken outdoors in front of some trees, using a DA 200 on a K-3, which made me wonder how comfortable the model felt standing naked outdoors with 40 meters between her and the photographer.

It all depends. Here is a full body shot sim: DOF simulator - Camera depth of field calculator with visual background blur and bokeh simulation. at 9,x meters.
Outddors in nature communication over 9 meters usually isnt any issue. And portraiture does include lots of other types than "full body".

Not mentioning that there are people who prefer 35 mm lenses and I wonder if your nude model would actually prefer the proximity of the photographer using a 35mm lens...

That is why we buy so many lenses: They all have a reason.

[Dan Rentea]

I've always wondered about this, doesn't such a distance make it difficult to communicate with your subject? If you are a paparazzi photographer, less communication is better, but for a willing model, doesn't the photographer want to be able to make suggestions without yelling? Not to mention difficulties with a lack of space in a studio or lack of control over external elements outdoors. A few years ago, someone posted on this site a full length nude portrait taken outdoors in front of some trees, using a DA 200 on a K-3, which made me wonder how comfortable the model felt standing naked outdoors with 40 meters between her and the photographer.

300mm and above are not focal lenghts for portraits, unless you shoot sport. We had a shooting that day with a model and I had with me the Sigma lens because the location is a natural park with a small natural delta, which has a lot of birds to photograph. Having the Sigma lens with me, I wanted to see how sharp it is wide open (f6.3) at 400mm, nothing else. There are about 10-11m between me and the model and even if it's not ideal, you don't have to scream either at the model for giving her posing indications.

The reason I posted the images is to have an idea about the working distance with a 70-200mm lens based on the distance I had in the above image between me and the model. On a crop camera it would have been even more difficult to talk to the model if I would have shot at 400mm.

But as I said above, the 135mm focal lenght, on a full frame, to me gives the best distance, especially if you work with unexperienced models. Even at 200mm, outdoor, it's resonably close so that you don't have to raise the voice.

[normhead]

It all depends. Here is a full body shot sim: DOF simulator - Camera depth of field calculator with visual background blur and bokeh simulation. at 9,x meters.
Outddors in nature communication over 9 meters usually isnt any issue. And portraiture does include lots of other types than "full body".

Not mentioning that there are people who prefer 35 mm lenses and I wonder if your nude model would actually prefer the proximity of the photographer using a 35mm lens...

That is why we buy so many lenses: They all have a reason.

I'm telling Tess about this. She needs to know. Right now she just thinks I'm lens crazy.

Very nice image by the way Dan, you're really getting into this.

[luftfluss]

In the past, many photographers shot portraits with a 300/2.8.

[RGlasel]

There are about 10-11m between me and the model

Putting the focal length of 400mm and a frame height of 1.5 meters in portrait orientation into this calculator, I get a distance to subject of 30 meters. It's a legitimate question (not a criticism), I think. The question at hand seems to be the usefulness of a 70-200 zoom on a 35mm camera for portraits and I can see its usefulness at events where getting close to your subject can be a problem, but in situations where the distance between subject and photographer is controllable, I'm having a hard time understanding why an f4 70-200 would be just as good as a prime that is not any more expensive.

[Dan Rentea]

Putting the focal length of 400mm and a frame height of 1.5 meters in portrait orientation into this calculator, I get a distance to subject of 30 meters. It's a legitimate question (not a criticism), I think. The question at hand seems to be the usefulness of a 70-200 zoom on a 35mm camera for portraits and I can see its usefulness at events where getting close to your subject can be a problem, but in situations where the distance between subject and photographer is controllable, I'm having a hard time understanding why an f4 70-200 would be just as good as a prime that is not any more expensive.

I didn't take it as a criticism. I tried to provide a detailed comment in the idea that would be useful to others interested in this subject.

I haven't look at the calculator you mentioned, but there's no way that the distance between me and the model is 30m. 30m means a 7 storey building... More than 12m I don't think there are there. I can check this during the weekend because I'm going there to shoot the kingfisher.

Again, for outdoor portraits where you don't need high ISO and you have available space to move, the 70-200mm lens has some advantages over the 85mm f1.8, like:

1. DOF - shooting with 85mm at f1.8 the DOF will be tiny and if you shoot also some dynamic portraits where the model moves, rotate, etc. you will risk having either only one eye in focus or you can miss focus on the eyes; at f4 you will have less DOF and focus problems, but you will have the subject isolation of the 85mm lens if you shoot at 200mm and f4
2. Flexibility of the 70-200mm f4 will allow you to get some shots that you won't be able to shoot with the 85mm lens. When I will get back to computer I will post another 2 images where an 85mm would have been useless, even if it had f1.2

---------- Post added 02-12-20 at 06:15 PM ----------

Very nice image by the way Dan, you're really getting into this.

Thank you. I try to have fun with any camera and lens I can put my hands on. I think that shooting with different cameras and lenses from any manufacturer it's the best excuse I found to go out and have fun and meet new people. Not a single test chart or internet review can beat a day of shooting.

[mattt]

I plan to shoot some head shots / busts next week with 70-200. The working distance will be about 10-12 feet. It’s a very useable range on FF.

[Dan Rentea]

Here are a few examples where the 85mm would have been useless.

1. Candid portraits
This old lady was sitting in front of her small house and I took the shot with a K-5 II and Tamron 70-200mm lens with me sitting behind the fence of her house so that she wouldn't be distracted by my presence. It's an old image but I still like it each time I see it. An 85mm lens would have gave me a completely different image and I would have had to be closer to the lady and so a possible distraction to her.



2. Portraits of models

Here we had fishing boats and it was a nude shooting; sorry but the forum rules don't let me post the final images. The place we found with waterlilies required longer focal lengths than 85mm and most of us used 70-200mm lenses or longer.



3. Portraits at different outdoor events, when you can't get close to the subject

Here is a straight from the camera image of a horse trainer that had a tender moment with the horse at the end of the show. The image was taken at 200mm. With the 85mm you needed to crop a lot to get the image and the background above the wall wasn't helpful either.



For indoor I would choose anytime an 85mm lens due to fast aperture mostly that will keep a decent ISO. With experience you can avoid the famous only one eye in focus, but an f1.2 or f1.4 lens will give you an advantage in terms of ISO over a slower lens. For outdoors a 70-200mm f4 can't be beaten by any 85mm lens. Atention, this is my opinion which may differ from others. I mention this to avoid some possible debates.

[BigMackCam]

1. Candid portraits
This old lady was sitting in front of her small house and I took the shot with a K-5 II and Tamron 70-200mm lens with me sitting behind the fence of her house so that she wouldn't be distracted by my presence.

I believe - or, at least, suspect - this is one of the reasons why the classic, fast ~70-200mm zoom is so beloved of wedding photographers, not just during the ceremony (where distance to the couple may be a factor) but before and afterwards when candid shots might be taken...

[Dan Rentea]

I believe - or, at least, suspect - this is one of the reasons why the classic, fast ~70-200mm zoom is so beloved of wedding photographers, not just during the ceremony (where distance to the couple may be a factor) but before and afterwards when candid shots might be taken...

Yes, it's one of the reasons. I personally tend to avoid the 70-200mm f2.8 for indoor events because to me it seems a distraction in certain situations because the f2.8 version is very big and once the people see it, they look at you with the photo face with fake smile. I got used to 85mm f1.4 for candid shots and sometimes I shoot in live view, from waist level... I use the 70-200mm when I know that I shoot from a dedicated spot (I had 2 corporate events where I wasn't allowed to move and having the 70-200mm f2.8 rented was a necessity).

---------- Post added 02-12-20 at 07:40 PM ----------

I often try different approaches than the photographers who are shooting next to me when we go out to have fun. If they shoot with 50mm or 85mm I'm happy because I can go to places that they can't and shoot at 200mm from angles they can get with the 85mm lenses. Here is an image from the same shooting with the girl on the bridge. I saw the fence which was placed on the left of the bridge and it was perfect for shooting somehow at the level of the bridge. 70-200mm lens gave me enough reach to get a few images that no 85mm lens would give me due to distance between me and the model (with water between us). That's why for shooting outdoor portraits I vote for flexibility. For the ones who have money, an 85mm lens will also be a good addition for different look and for the fast aperture.



---------- Post added 02-12-20 at 07:52 PM ----------

One last thing... Having a 70-200mm f4 lens doesn't mean you have to shoot only at 200mm f4 to get some subject isolation. Below are 2 example with me not moving from the place you can see in the behind the scenes image.

The behind the scenes image



The first image, taken at 1/160s, f4, ISO 125, 93mm (there is enough subject isolation even with a not so clean background)



And here is a different framing, taken from the same place at 1/160s, f4, ISO 125, 144mm

[Wheatfield]

The only issue with using a 200mm f4 for portraits in my opinion, is the working distance is pretty long. I always thought that that, rather than depth of field, was why fast 85mm lenses were so popular on full frame cameras for portraiture. I don't shoot those sorts of photos as much on APS-C, but I prefer the DA *55 there for the same reason.

As far as out of focus rendering and transitions from in focus to out of focus, that is going to be lens specific and looks decent, but not necessarily stellar with this lens.

A very good reason for going long is to control what is in the background. Depth of field is a combination of aperture and reproduction ratio. An 85mm lens at f/4 will have the same DOF as a 200mm lens at f/4 presuming the subject is the same size in the viewfinder in both pictures (and presuming the format isn't changed of course). What changes is how expansive the background is in the picture with the shorter lens and it's wider field of view.
The new 70-210 has very good bokeh for a zoom. It's certainly not the melted butter bokeh of the D FA* 50/1.4 but it's decent enough.

Edit: one of the nice things about threads like this is that it draws out Dan Rentea and his gorgeous photography.

[c.a.m]

I often try different approaches than the photographers who are shooting next to me when we go out to have fun.

@Dan Rentea; I really like how you illustrate your thoughtful comments with your excellent real-life images! Thanks!

- Craig

[thibs]

Edit: one of the nice things about threads like this is that it draws out Dan Rentea and his gorgeous photography.

Yeah, we need more Dan moments

[Dan Rentea]

A very good reason for going long is to control what is in the background. Depth of field is a combination of aperture and reproduction ratio. An 85mm lens at f/4 will have the same DOF as a 200mm lens at f/4 presuming the subject is the same size in the viewfinder in both pictures (and presuming the format isn't changed of course). What changes is how expansive the background is in the picture with the shorter lens and it's wider field of view.
The new 70-210 has very good bokeh for a zoom. It's certainly not the melted butter bokeh of the D FA* 50/1.4 but it's decent enough.

Edit: one of the nice things about threads like this is that it draws out Dan Rentea and his gorgeous photography.

Ha, thank you. I like the discussions where people post images. Despite the fact that I know the technical aspects of photography, I'm not a technical guy and I hated math and physics in school. And I know there are a lot of people like me, who learn much better certain aspects when others use simple words and images instead of mathematical formulas and lab charts. That's why I try to post images most of the times...

---------- Post added 02-13-20 at 01:21 PM ----------

Yeah, we need more Dan moments

Here you go, me having fun at the end of the nude shooting, when we also took some shots of the model with clothes on her (to have something to show to our wives at home). We were so tired and hungry that we decided to make our life a little easier than the guys shooting from the other boat and so we hided from the sun in the reeds, laid down on our backs and we started to shoot in live view. I'm the guy with the hat, trying to "blind" my friend with the flash so that he wouldn't get the same shot as me. This is how we spend our shooting days when we have time to gather 5-6 photographers. We also took some wildlife shots given the fact that we were in Danube delta.



And the final image, downloaded from my Facebook page. It's quite nice the result given the circumstances. The light of the sunset was great...



---------- Post added 02-13-20 at 01:22 PM ----------

@Dan Rentea; I really like how you illustrate your thoughtful comments with your excellent real-life images! Thanks!

- Craig

Thank you and my pleasure.

[pres589]

A few months ago I was asked by a friend to take some portrait pictures of her, outdoors, with her camea. Canon 5D and her only lens was a 24-105 f4 (I think the mk2 version but I don't know and it doesn't matter). All shots taken were with the lens at 105mm and f4. She was very happy with the shots as was I on review afterwards. I could definately see this 70-210 f4 being a great protrait lens. I'm seeking something similar for my film kit.