Best Portrait Lens for Karate Event - 17-55 or 70-200?

I have been shooting a karate exhibition several times a year for the last

three years. Until now, I have worked freelance but the school has been so

pleased with my pictures that they have now contracted with me to be their

exclusive photographer to shoot the entire weekend event, including posed

portraits the evening before the actual event.

 

I don't have a lot of experience shooting posed portraits, but have been

practicing with my wife and son with excellent results. I have proper lighting

and a nice backdrop, but am not sure which lens would work best, my 17-55 or 70-

200?

 

For full body shots, I will definately use the 17-55, but I am not sure what to

use for closer portraits. Both lenses produce such excellent results. As far

as I can see, the main difference is depth of field and how out of focus the

backdrop is.

 

Any insight would be appreciated.

<i>I don't have a lot of experience shooting posed portraits, but have been practicing with my wife and son with excellent results.</i><p>

It's good they are in the same weight class, but kinda tough on the kid, doncha think?<p>

Seriously, a rule of thumb for portraits and ~35mm format is 85mm to 105mm. I think you will be happy with that range.

Elliot, You are the best person to answer your question, as you can compare both lenses.

 

My advise is if you are happy with your shots at 55mm. Use your 17-55 as it will be easier to work with. You need less space as you will be closer to your subject.

I do a lot of gym work, mostly with boxing gyms. I shoot almost all the portraits at 40mm.

<p>

The backdrop should never be an issue. You should shoot on white or greenscreen and drop a background in. If you use a patterned backdrop, it doesn't need to be out of focus. And depth of field isn't an issue, with the proper lighting on the backdrop, everything should be in focus and aperture is not an issue, especially with proper lighting.<p>

 

<center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/keri2.jpg"><br><I>Keri Taylor, World Champion Muay Thai Kickboxer, Copyright 2005 Jeff Spirer</i></center><p>

 

And look for people who actually have experience doing this (far more of them on the Sports Forum than here) when you look for advice.

Jeff, Sorry did I step on your toe?

 

It was a very professional image you posted. I can imagine it on a packet of vitamins, as endorsed by Keri Taylor.

 

Elliot, Ignore my previous advise and listen to Jeff, as he is a professional sports photographer.

Anthony, your advice was fine. What usually happens on these threads is that a variety of people chime in who have never shot in these situations. <p>

 

BTW, here's Keri when she's doing more than posing:<p>

 

<center><img src="http://www.womenkickboxing.com/taylor_nguyen/strikeforce_0323.jpg"><br><i>Taylor vs Nguyen, Copyright 2006 Jeff Spirer</i></center>

Jeff, My post was a little sarcastic, as I felt Elliot had not been given bad advise. But I stand by what I said, he should listen to you because you have experience to back up your comments.

 

Your second image posted, was a nice action shot. But do you not think a wider aperture would of isolated the fighters more?

That is shot at maximum aperture, f2.8. Given that you have to use a fast zoom to shoot fights, that's the maximum you will ever get. Generally speaking, the other people at ringside will be in focus given the distance you are typically shooting at. That was shot with the zoom at 44mm on a 1.3 camera. What you really want for better isolation is a better lighting pack - when ESPN is at the events, I get much better lighting in the ring, and the background mostly goes dark. For this fight, there were no TV crews and I don't get the intensity of lighting over the ring.

Jeff, Thank you for the reply, It just did not look 2.8.

 

Now my last question why not use a fast prime? I do not know Canon's range but they must have a fast f1.4, 50mm or 35mm. I ask because of genuine interest, although my subject is more likely to be concert photography.(85mm f1.4)

 

Elliot, I have not hijacked your thread! I am sure you are interested in Jeff's thoughts (advise).

Jeff, I checked out your homepage, and was glad I did. I think your B/W images are fabulous.

 

So it seems you do change focal lengths regularly during fights. I had the impression this was not the case. But is a second body with your favorite length at f1.4 not desirable?

There will be a white backdrop (paper roll type) supplied by the school that will be used. I have my own blue/gray that I intend to setup as well.

 

I use my 17-55 a lot for weddings and other event photography and know what to expect from it (always great results). I use the 70-200 for fast action sports but have not used it a lot for portraits except my test shots. I find the 70-200 produces superior results color wise to the 17-55.

 

The reason I brought up depth-of-field is because both lenses work exceptionally well wide open but have a fairly shallow depth of field. Some of the poses may be with the subject extending his arm or foot forward or at a 45 degree angle, which would have the subject focused but not their arm or leg.

 

I have two cameras and perhaps will setup with both lenses just to be sure!

Anthony, I shoot fights with two cameras, one with a 28-70/2.8 zoom, the other with a variety of primes. I use the primes for the in-between shots, typically the corners between rounds. The problem with shooting with a prime for the fight is that the action can move from one end of the ring to the other, from 2 feet away to 20 feet away, in just a few seconds. It's difficult to pick a prime that handles that well.<p>

 

I'm not sure the faces are a problem, at least when the lighting is better - it makes it looks a little more like an event rather than a studio. But the better lighting does change the effect, here for example:

 

<p><center><img src="http://www.spirer.com/michaelm/images/mm19.jpg"><br><i>Michael Mananquil vs Danny Steele, Copyright 2005 Jeff Spirer</i></center><p>

 

BTW, I recommend using Opanda's IEXIF, then you can see what lenses and settings someone used without leaving the browser, if they keep the EXIF info in the images.

17-55 will be fine for the portaits, we sell stacks of these.<div></div>