Lenses used by Steve McCurry for portraits

<p>Does anyone know or care to make and educated guess as to what lens(es) Steve McCurry, my favorite photographer, uses for his wonderful portraits?<br>

<br /> I feel compelled to be a bit of a smart-ass and implore posters ahead of time to please resist the urge to make asinine comments like "it's the photographer that matters, not the equipment." I am interested to know what he uses.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p>Depends on when......Nikons for years but more recently Hassy as well..........</p>

<p>Probably the 85mm f1.4</p>

<p>Probably? For which image(s)?</p>

Simply Googling "lenses steve mccurry uses" reveals a lot of information on the first page.

<p>Sorry Brad, that is embarrassing. I should have done some more reading first. Yes, plenty of info there. I had assumed it was a bit too esoteric. I guess this thread can be closed.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>The portraits that I have seen of his are usually in the 50-100mm ranges. So it's either the 50, 85,105mm or, say, the 28(or24)-70mm. But the lens doesn't really matter and I would bet he would agree to that as well.</p>

<p> It's always interesting to find out what the famous photogs are shooting. It's not always that easy to find out as most of the pros do not chat about their gear that much. I think McCurry used Nikon primes when he shot film but afterwards I do not know. I did not know he was using Hassleblads. I figured he was just a Nikon guy. </p>

<p>I think one could draw some inferences from the pros' not talking about their lenses too much :)</p>

<p>When I look at McCurry's best work, I don't immediately think lenses. Lighting, color, composition, moment - if you're looking to get inspiration from McCurry to improve your own work, look at elements like these, and work with the equipment you like the best, because in most circumstances the same shots could have been taken with any of a large number of kits. (I think I read that for that Afghan girl shot he used a Nikon with an 85mm prime, but if he'd had a Canon with a 70-200 L would there have been that much difference? But suppose he'd shot it in direct sun, or she were looking away from the camera, or there weren't that striking color contrast between the clothes and the background, those would have been real differences, it would have been a completely different image.)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone know or care to make and educated guess as to what lens(es) Steve McCurry, my favorite photographer, uses</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mr. McCurry is probably qualified to know. Did you ask him?</p>

<p>http://www.stevemccurry.com/main.php</p>

<p>Google is also a better bet than guessing...</p>

<p><em>"...McCurry prefers Nikon lenses for their quality and interchangeability. “They’re extremely sharp and [produce] good color,” he says. In addition to fixed lenses like the <strong>Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D</strong> ($285; <a href="http://www.nikon.com/" target="_self">nikon.com</a>), which he likes for its clarity and speed, he always carries a zoom—such as the <strong>Nikkor 17–55mm f/2.8G</strong> ($1,700)—for precision framing with limited mobility. “Like shooting the street below from the edge of a building,” he says."</em></p>

<p>There's probably more to find.<em><br /></em></p>

<p> I don't know what he's using now, But when I spoke with him, he said that he used the Nikon 105 f/2.5 and Kodachrome 64, for the Afghan Girl snap.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>he said that he used the Nikon 105 f/2.5 and Kodachrome 64, for the Afghan Girl snap.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>That's what I remember reading also. Don't know about his others but the Afghan Girl was with the 105mm, not the 85mm...not that it matters much.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.quesabesde.com/noticias/steve-mccurry,1_en_2524">From the man himself,</a><em> "I use a <a href="http://www.quesabesde.com/camaras-digitales/camaras/nikon-d2x,846.html">Nikon D2X</a> digital camera and a Nikon F100 film camera, and I use mostly 50 millimetre lens, 35 millimetre lens… and sometimes 28 and maybe 85."</em></p>

<p><a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00Sdr8">This is a thread</a> from a while ago too. Amazing how wrong even some enthusiasts can be :-)</p>

<p>Brett, I told you McCurry is a heavy 50mm user!</p>

<p><em><br /></em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think one could draw some inferences from the pros' not talking about their lenses too much</p>

</blockquote>

<p>He seems to talk about it plenty.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>When I look at McCurry's best work, I don't immediately think lenses. Lighting, color, composition, moment - if you're looking to get inspiration from McCurry to improve your own work, look at elements like these...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did you not read my post? This is precisely what I asked posters not to do. It's frankly obnoxious to lecture when the poster specifically asked to avoid being lectured.</p>

<p>Brett....in an open forum it is not for the original poster to dictate the content of the responses.<br>

Others may actually feel that a <em><strong>suitable</strong></em> response may have to go into the forbidden territory just a wee bit to fully express the reply intended.</p>

<p>What is it that you find so offensive anyway? Freedom of speech? Freedom of expression? What?</p>

<p>Well, sorry, but it's true. As Leslie said, he used the 105 for that famous shot, but the truth is that you can do this sort of work with any of a range of good portrait lenses. So what's the point in answering a question with information you can get from a minute or two on Google (you mostly find references to Nikon 50, 85 and 105mm primes) when instead one can muse on the importance of everything-but-equipment?</p>

<p>When traveling in disguise in a war zone where you have to hide your film from unfriendly military and a society where photographing people is a sin, I'd expect you bring the lens that's least likely to break.</p>

>>> What is it that you find so offensive anyway? Freedom of speech? Freedom of expression? What?

 

Can't speak for Brett. But if it were me asking a very specific technical question and upfront

asked not be lectured with respect to exactly what you posted, I'd feel the same.

 

>>> ... if you're looking to get inspiration from McCurry to improve your own work, look at elements like

these...

 

From what I read he wasn't seeking inspiration, just for info about the kinds of lenses he used.

<p>A friend of mine who shoots those high end house photos spends 3 days to a week or more on a house; and has two vans full of stuff. More than one van is full of lighting gear; reflectors; gels. His camera and lenses are not what folks here would call the latest; or best. He considers it "obnoxious" when folks ask him what camera and lens was used; and often tells what folks want to believe as for equipment.</p>

<p>When I too a Nikon School back about 1968; the several pro course teachers told us they often told folks they use a Nikon F and 50mm F1.4; when it might be just a 50mm F2 or even a Nikkormat or Nikorex F too. Ie you tell folks what they want to believe.</p>

<p>Lay folks will always chase the equipment instead of the lighting.</p>

<p>Brett; you should spend more time with worrying about lighting; and be less obnoxious .:)</p>

<p>The exact same images can be shot often with many different lenses; thus chasing the lens doe not help</p>

<p>Before the internet; the story was McCurry did not remember if he uses a 85 or 105mm lens for the Afghan shot; thus today it is weird how it is now a 105mm F2.5.<br>

The sad part is the most important thing that defined the shot; is the actual distance and nobody ask about.</p>

<p>I'm sorry to all you lecturers, but I really don't see what is wrong with a straight forward technical question and requesting that responders restrict their input to the specific technical nature of that question.</p>

<p>Brett did not ask a philosophical question, he asked a technical one. His image galley shows that he has more than a basic understanding of light, how to use a camera, and lenses, and he probably does a better job than most of us. Sure you are free to reply any way you want, it is an open forum, but to out and out disregard the specifics of the OP's question only shows your own ignorance, nobody elses.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>He didn't remember? I love it!</p>

<p><em>"Does anyone know or care to make and educated guess as to what lens(es) Steve McCurry, my favorite photographer, uses for his wonderful portraits?"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Um......Scott et al.....is that your idea of a <strong>technical</strong> question? God help us all....</p>

<p>Robert,</p>

<p>I'm a certified marine engineer, it is not the most technical question I have seen or been asked, but it is certainly not a philosophical one.</p>

<p>What focal length did this? Sounds technical/analytical to me. As an engineer my answer would be a mm answer, as it was in another thread that prompted Brett to start this one.</p>

Robert, why ridicule? He was very specific about what he was seeking. And more importantly what

he was <b>not</b> seeking. Was lecturing an experienced photographer really necessary? Electrical engineer here...

<p>Brad....I specifically answered his question in my reply post, to the best of my knowledge.....I particularly would not characterise <strong>any</strong> of my responses in this thread as 'lectures'. <br>

And.....I totally enjoy engineers of all kinds.....:)</p>