Nikon 400mm f/2.8 as a portrait lens?

<p>Hi,<br>

I shoot a lot of sports at times and have on occasion rented the 300mm f/2.8 VRI lens which is great for athletics but is also very good for portraits.<br>

It's the big 5-0 this year and an endowment matures as well and there have been a few good paying jobs recently so....<br>

The 300mm lens is a big tick on the NAS check-list. At some point this year I will probably rent a 400mm f/2.8 to try for sports but was wondering if anyone had tried it for portraits as well? (I have seen guys with one also use it for medal ceremonies, but have had to back up pretty far and make sure that the subject was also well in front of any background.) Is it just a wee bit too long? Will it flatten the subject, and perhaps make them look fatter as well?<br>

Basically, if I go for either of these lenses then they can't be sitting in the box too much between uses, so I'm just trying to narrow down the field to buy just the right one.<br>

rgds<br>

andyc</p>

<p>"Nikon 400mm f/2.8 as a portrait lens?" - Sure, if you buy a megaphone as well to direct the sitter.</p>

<p>Think eight rooms down the hall. . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>My understanding is when flattening the subject with a longer lens, it makes them look less fat. I've always used 105mm as my portrait focal length, which kept me close enough to the subject to communicate. My friend seems to prefer 135mm. I recently shot a cap and gown portrait and to get full body I was a good distance away using 105mm. Next time I'll probably go with 90mm for that.</p>

<p>You won't be the first to use the 400 2.8 for this, Google the Brenizer Method, and see what he has done. And remember to shoot wide open.</p>

<p>I've seen photoshoots of outdoor (highly professional) photoshoots where for sure a 300m f/2.8 was used. Yes, the "default" portrait lenses are between 85mm and 135mm but to dismiss the long lenses as being far too long is a wee bit too simple. The occassional portraits I've taken with a 300 f/4 are just fine - there is really little wrong in using a lens like this for a portrait. Working distance is still well within hearing distance.<br>

It will flatten the subject (more than 85-135), but I doubt whether you'll see a huge difference for them being fatter. And the difference between 300 and 400 in that respect will certainly not be huge.</p>

<p>Personally, would my budget allow for either one of these two, I'd get the 300mm - not only because it's a whole lot cheaper, but with a TC14 you'll have the 400mm (be it a f/4, but that's still quite limited DoF) - making the 400mm shorter when you need it is a lot more difficult. But, since my budget never came near the money needed for these lenses, so I really cannot comment on their respective optical qualities. Just a practical consideration, I guess.</p>

<p>Are you going to shoot it on a crop body!?</p>

I don't think of any lens as being job specific like portrait, group, candid etc. I use whatever I want to get the type shot I

want and forgoe labels.

 

Personally, I have used a 400mm ED-IF f3.5 on numerous occasions to get a certain look. About the width of an

athletic track will get you a head and shoulders and about 1/3 into the football field distance a 1/2 body and then it goes

from there. If you can shoot at f5.6, you can get a decent focus plane, if you're far enough for full length, I try to use f4

because there is more DOF at that point and I can still throw out the background. In the past I used to shoot a fair amount

if bridal fashions and 85mm, 200mm and 300mm were regulars, but had I had access all the time to a 400mm like I have

my own now for a few years, I would have used that too.

 

IMO, go for it, that's what makes different shots than the rest of the pack all running around with a 24-80. Also, I always

want to have as much control as I can over the background, there is a big difference, as I'm sure you know shooting

sports when you get into the long lenses.

 

Why don't you look for a decent used manual one and try it out for a while. Mine isn't AF it's an old Ex. copy and does

whatever I want at a great price tag.

Andy,

 

Whichever lens you chose: the 300 2.8

(a superb optic I have experience with)

or the 400 2.8 - bear in mind two

important facts:

 

 

I have talked to Nikon USA service and

they told me point blank that so many

years after a 300 2.8 or 400 2.8 lens

version is no longer manufactured,

they run out of spare parts and will

refuse to service it due to the possibility

the service cannot be completed to

factory specs.

 

 

These huge 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 are

robust, precise optical instruments that

WILL require service throughout their

lifetimes.

 

 

So this is the only case where I

recommend buying a version soon

after it is released. That way it will be

serviceable throughout the time of its

production run and an additional appx.

10 years after that.

 

 

These 300 2.8 and 400 2.8 (and 500 f4

and 600 f4) lenses are essentially

"perishable goods" so plan the timing

of your purchase carefully.

 

 

1)Buy New, USA warranty

2)Buy earlier in a version's production

run rather than just before a new

version is to be released.

<p>I have used my 300 for portraits. The good thing is that you can isolate/select the background quite easily, but I don`t like the flattening effect; it is quite noticeable.</p>

<p>I`d not say subjects look fatter, but actually <em>flatter</em>, certainly is not the same. Eyes, nose, and head crown looks to be in the same plane, making a very odd look. Sometimes after a fast first sight, it could seem <em>fatter</em>. Maybe modelling with light, and/or with the fastest aperture the effect could be minimized... anyway, I dislike it.</p>

<p>If a 300 force to have a too distant perspective (even for a head portrait), a 400 is even worst. If portraiture is your main goal, I`d advice you to check it by yourself before buying.</p>

A 400mm f2.8 on B&H is sitting new at $8999.99 currently. That's more than 20X what I paid privately for my near pristine

copy of the 400mm f3.5 ED-IF AiS. If I could find a very good working copy of a 400mm f2.8 AF model that would serve

the purpose for a lot cheaper, I would't be worried about spare parts. Some pro shop somewhere would be able to get it

back running more than likely.

<p>Funny, but actually I've read that on some fashion shoots, very long lenses are used and in fact the crew around the subject communicates with the photographer with walkie talkies. The flatness effect of the focal length ensures that features like noses and hands do not look overly big. </p>

<p>I have a suspicion that there are a lot of folks with too much time on their hands, hence this stuff. I have shot portraits with very long lenses. I thought they were interesting but almost nobody else agreed with me. I have a terrible idea -- why not just shoot some photos with impossible long lenses and see if they "fly" in the marketplace or wherever your photos go?Actually, a 500mm "mirror" lens makes a great "mug" shot.<br>

Or how about a 19mm Vivitar? If you get a good one they are awesome and there are environmental portraits, you know.</p>

Yes Barry, that's exactly the case. We have shot across small ponds or narrow sections of a river or lake from one side to

the other. Why? Because it has a certain look shooting from the water side into the land, and the preferred direction and

angle of the light for a specific emotion. And yes, years back the walkie talkies would be used. Anything from CBs to more

expensive units, later the small sportsman units. I'm out of this now but with cell phones and other digital communications

that is unnecessary, you could just talk on phones. And, the 400mm might just be the ticket to get the look.

Here are some web pages showing how different focal lengths affect portraits - take a look and decide which focal length

you like, although to be honest I think it may depend on your subject. If you are shooting skinny professional models you

might get away with a much longer lens, since the fattening effect mentioned above will be less apparent. Having said

that I have done some beauty work for magazines and preferred to use around 200mm, but then I have met other pro's

who like to shoot with wide angles, although looking at the examples in these links I hate everything below 50mm.

 

Edit: sorry just re- read the original question, had forgotten it was about sports. If you have to use 400mm to get the shot you need, then maybe you just have to do that.

 

gizmodo.com/5857279/this-is-how-lenses-beautify-or-uglify-your-pretty-face

 

www.photoflex.com/liteblog/how-lens-focal-length-shapes-the-face-controls-perspective-a-lighting-tutor

 

The second link has some three-quarter length shots that definitely shows the fattening effect.

<p>The founder of photo.net, Philiip Greenspun, <a href="../equipment/nikon/300-2.8"><strong>in his 1995 review of the Nikon 300mm f/2.8</strong></a>, notes the trend toward long lenses in fashion photography and has some rude things to say about it. It is worth a read.</p>

I have to say the 400 f/2.8 has always been the lens I most lusted after. I have a 200 f/2 VR that I use for candids

(bought just as the VR2 was announced at nearly twice the price - Andre's comments make me nervous, but the current

rate for a new VR2 makes me glad I didn't pay full whack a couple of years ago... besides, are we expecting the 400 to get

updated any time soon?) I'm sure the 400 would get the same use - I've used a 150-500 at weddings at its long end and the

only problem was the optics. To be honest, the 200mm is a bit longer than I'd like when I'm talking to the subject, but I hate

the LoCA of the 135 f/2, and I wanted to make fussy backgrounds go away. While the 85 f/1.4 and 200 f/2 win up close,

nothing loses a (semi-distant) background like a 400 f/2.8. For a fashion shoot, you probably have some background

control and there's no need; for my amateur shooting, not so much. After trying one recently, I reckon 400mm is about the

limit I can hand-hold (for a few shots) - my 500 f/4 is just too front-heavy for me to wedge my elbow against my body (if I

get thinner I may be stuck with a 300mm!) and for some situations, that matters; there's not always time to place a

monopod.

 

I'm an amateur, and can't vouch for experience with this lens. For candids (essentially what sport is) I wouldn't hesitate,

and I envy you. For staged shots, it does seem unlikely to be useful for the aperture unless you want perfect sharpness -

sticking a TC14 on a 300mm does pretty well by all accounts.

<p>By my reckoning you'd have to stop a 400mm down to f/11 at 5 metres to get eyes, earlobes and nosetip all in acceptable focus. So I'd be interested to see a head & shoulders portrait shot at f/2.8 on a 400mm. My own 400mm lens options limit me to a maximum aperture of f/5.6, and for most subjects that only just offers enough DoF. </p>

<p>For the same distance between subject and background, and keeping the aperture and subject magnification the same, the background blur does increase with focal length. Whether this is significant or not depends on the context of the image. It might just be easier to move the subject more forward from the background.</p>

RJ: I agree. For candids, I find focal length an invaluable cure to uncontrolled background (both in blur and in controlling what's in frame); I

sometimes have to stretch to fuzzy ears to achieve this, but I realise not everyone likes the look - the extra length of a fast 400 would help

me a lot. If you can control the subject it's much less of a problem. It depends what Andy means by "portraits" of course.

 

Plus, you know, it's good for the biceps...

If you need the 400/2.8 for sports then you need it, but for portraits you

typically want close interaction between the photographer and model ...

and on location you probably want to vary the composition and

background. At least for me, subtle and not so suble variations in

camera angle make a difference. Many of these would be difficult to do

with a 400/2.8. To achieve a change in subject size in the image, you or

the model would need to move a lot. Since the lens would be on a tripod

or monopod, changing the height is arduous compared to a lens that you

can hand hold. Personally the 200/2 is the longest and heaviest I would

use for portraits; and that only on occasion. Usually I use

35/50/85/105/135. Longer focal lengths can be used if you like to but at

least I find it impractical and the effect due to long distance perspective

unappealing.

<p>What I find interesting are the "speculations" about using such a lens. I have been using 300mm and 400mm lenses since about 1986. They're just another lens that you use to accomplish your goal, whatever it is. All this fatter, thinner, wider, ears wrapped around the nose etc. is only if you allow yourself to be at the magnification and shooting distanc that causes such stuff. If that's the case and the shot won't look good, just pick a different lens. If you're shooting and need a certain reach for a certain shot than just use whatever you need. In sports, and in Andy's case sometimes you want to isolate an athlete in a portrait type shot for an editorial reason or other such consideration. I'm going to try to attach a profile shot track side from a local township track meet. The shot is not post corrected the best but it was taken using a 400mm Nikkor f3.5 ED-IF AiS at f5.6 400 ASA with a D200. Maybe some of you also have an example you could post to demonstrate your particular opinion.</p><div></div>

<p>If you are shooting a lot of sports then the 400/2.8 is the way to go. If you happen to come across some portrait shots during an event then that's great, because it is also awesome for this. I have even used a 400/4.5 lens for candid portraits since your subject has no idea you are taking the photo. However, I would never buy a 400mm lens specifically for portraits. The 200/2 or 300/4 are much easier for handheld flexibility.</p>

<p>As for medal presentations, unless there is a big podium, you will never get the view you need for a 400mm lens, just too many people and other photographers in the way.</p>

<p>For sports and portraits I have used 85/1.4, 135/2, 200/2, 200/2.8, 300/2.8, 300/4, 400/2.8, and 400/4.5, with and without 1.4x and 2x converters. </p>

Dave: Hands up, I'm speculating, never having used this lens (though I've shot people at 400mm with cheaper glass). The effects that are

shown in the links are for head shots or upper body - you'll get the same effect from a shorter lens if the subject fills less of the frame, so I'd

say these examples are "best case" for "long lens distortion". Even so, I'd call the effect subtle compared with the benefits of controlling the

background - with the exception of sample where I think a poofy dress and lighting combines to make the model look fat at 200mm (there's

no way 135mm and 200mm are as different as suggested without a change of pose).

 

John: For podia, I'd assume the need to teleconvert, or crop. Some events are plenty small enough, though - Wimbledon springs to mind,

even from cheap seats. Of course, this is the good thing about the 400 f/2.8 - I've not met anyone selling focal reducers for turning a 600 f/4

into a 400 f/2.7 (though in the context of DX cameras I'm slightly surprised I haven't).

 

Would I buy this as a portrait lens? No way - even my 200mm is pushing it, and even then mostly for candids; I speak as someone with an

admitted unreasonable tendency to worship high end kit like this, but even I sometimes pick my objects of desire. If I had this lens, would I

sometimes point it at people? You betcha. I got the impression that this was the question?

 

Now, about the Sigzilla 200-500 f/2.8...

<p>Here is a picture of Norah Jones made with an FX camera and a 400mm f/4 lens.</p>

<p>

<p>If the viewer assumes it was taken at a distance typically between two people when they communicate with each other, i.e. 1-3 meters, which they implicitly often do, then the viewer would think her torso is maybe an inch or two thick and very wide shoulder-to-shoulder. I don't like this effect and this is why I prefer to photograph people with shorter lenses, so that I can keep the distance within the normal range and have the viewer feel the person in the picture is within communication distance. It makes the portrait more engaging and the viewer feels like they are involved instead of looking at the subject with binoculars or a telescope from the other side of town.</p>

<p>However, if you are a long distance away, and need to take the shot, then you use whatever lens will do the job, that is obvious. This was the case here; I was as close as I could get without special permissions given only to photographers with a press pass. I don't mind the perspective in the picture since there was nothing I could do about it but in actual portrait shooting circumstances, 400mm would not be my choice of focal length. I want to be within communication distance from my subject both to communicate while the shoot is going on, and to create the feeling to the viewer that <em>they </em>are close to the subject and could almost speak to them. Eye contact is important to create this impression as well.</p>

<p>If I were to buy an actual 400mm f/2.8 lens (mine is a 200/2+2X TC, have used 300+1.4X) the main reason would be to wipe out the advertisements that clutter backgrounds at sports events and concerts. Portraits, 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 work great for me thank you very much, and are a lot easier on my back.</p>

<p>There is already a <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00W7h9">thread</a> with a clear sample of the results with different perspectives, what I was talking in my post above.<br>

Check the second (400mm lens) and third (85mm lens) portraits by Charles Griffin (Mar 31, 2010; 10:01 a.m.); it is quite clear, and -exactly- what I have experienced in my own photos. The flatening effect of too much long lenses is (to my taste), simply ugly.</p>