full lenght portrait lens

<p>GOOD AFTERNOON,<br /> i'm searching for a good lens for full lenght portrait<br /> for example<br /> http://www.taistoisoisbeau.com/blog/wp-content/2009/09/Street_style_fashion_week_Sophie-NYFW9-09-5.jpg<br /> i have a dx body <br /> what is the ideal lens for my work?<br /> hope someone can give a good advice</p>

<p>thanks</p>

<p>I'd like to know whic one offers better proportion of the body</p>

<p>You keep asking about lenses. First of all, it isn't the lenses that make the photo. It's everything else, the hard stuff that can't be solved through "which thing should I buy" questions. Second, get a used 18-200 and use it until you know which focal lengths you are finding useful. Given that you are asking these questions, I don't think the slightly inferior image quality of a zoom like that will matter much. Find out what works and buy then.</p>

<p>You have asked very similar questions a couple of times already:</p>

<ul>

<li><a href="00ZH3X">50mm 1.4 or 85mm 1.8 fashion photography</a></li>

<li><a href="../portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00ZH3d">lenses used by fashion photographers</a></li>

</ul>

<p>Don't those threads give you answers already?</p>

 

<p>Hi Purple. You can, of course, use any lens for a full-length portrait, simply by standing farther back. I'd be hesitant of using too extreme a wide-angle to get this effect simply because the start of the image will look distorted if viewed from a conventional distance. If you're using the old "15 feet" guideline to keep the subject from looking too distorted, that's roughly an 85mm lens on (35mm) full-frame, or about 60mm on DX.<br />

<br />

However, the image you linked to looks wider than that to me (it appears, from the angle of the feet, that the photographer was closer to the subject). Perhaps something in the 35-50mm range on FX, or 24-35 on DX? In fact, it appears to have been cropped asymmetrically - which would be a good way to stop the head being too distorted, but stretching out the legs. This was probably a moderate wide-angle lens (assuming it was a pro shoot, the first guess would be a 24-70 f/2.8, but that's just because they're common professional kit). I don't have a good enough eye to work out exactly how wide it was. You could achieve this without cropping by using a tilt/shift lens, but that's probably overkill in this day and age of large pixel counts and easy digital manipulation.<br />

<br />

The image you linked has a lot of depth of field (although it's a little hard to see at web size). Good news: you don't need Nikon's latest and greatest 35mm f/1.4 to do this. Do you have a kit zoom for your DX body? I'd expect it to perform admirably, stopped down to f/11ish. And, as a zoom, you can play with it and get the focal length you want. There may be some distortion with the zoom, which can be fixed up reasonably well using either Photoshop's distortion filter or something like DxO tools. If you don't have buildings in the background, this may be irrelevant.<br />

<br />

This assumes you're really shooting fashion (as in your other thread), and want a deep depth of field, as in this photo. If you want a portrait that isolates the subject from the background, and you don't care about some of the subject being slightly out of focus (which is often, arguably, fine if the eyes are sharp), then you need to go faster. If 35mm is about right, the Samyang 35mm f/1.4 has got stellar reviews and is a bargain - <i>if</i> you can live with manual focus. Sigma make decent autofocus lenses in that range too. If you're happy just to stand farther back, the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 is worth a look. I hope that helps.</p>

<p>Shun - this particular image seems to have been taken with a wider lens than the 50-85mm lenses previously discussed, and wider than is conventional for portraiture. I don't think the question was redundant, although simply describing it as "full length portrait" might be missing some critical information. If the thread title was "I'm trying to replicate this look, what lens do I need?" then I hope it would be clear that there's something new here. Although Purple may not have realised that the lenses previously discussed wouldn't give this effect.<br />

<br />

Jeff - I agree, Purple would benefit from playing with a zoom lens and experimenting to find the effects of various focal lengths. That said, for portrait lengths, an 18-200 may be overkill for her (I doubt the long end will be useful), although an 18-105 might include some useful lengths that the 18-55 kit lens doesn't.<br />

<br />

Purple: The important thing to realise here is that the perspective of your subject depends on your distance from the subject, not the length of the lens. The focal length only changes how your field of view is cropped. I'd suggest you try a zoom lens and try shooting from different distances to see how the subject (and the background) appears. You might also like to look at the "Dolly zoom" page on Wikipedia. I also want to make the point that a "portrait lens" and a "fashion lens" are potentially different things - there's a difference between making an ugly person look pretty, and making a pretty person's clothes look good. Being clear might stop some confused answers.<br />

<br />

Guys: I'm a little wary that we're not being very welcoming. Purple admits to being a beginner and that English isn't her first language. Asking questions when you don't know what you don't know isn't much of a crime, especially if (from other threads) she's under time pressure in making a lens purchase decision; I don't want her to be driven off. Purple: if you're still confused after you've tried out a zoom lens, I'd suggest the beginner forum - mostly because any answers you receive might be useful to other beginners. The Nikon forum tends to be quite technical and equipment-specific, and I think you're still at the stage of asking fairly general questions which would benefit non-Nikon owners. Not that I'm a forum admin, or that it's my business to tell you where to post. I hope playing with a zoom lens will help you come up with more specific questions (there is, sadly, no substitute for trying things out), and that the Nikon forum can help when you're trying to decide between specific Nikon lenses. We're all here to learn. Good luck.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You keep asking about lenses. First of all, it isn't the lenses that make the photo. It's everything else, the hard stuff that can't be solved through "which thing should I buy" questions. Second, get a used 18-200 and use it until you know which focal lengths you are finding useful. Given that you are asking these questions, I don't think the slightly inferior image quality of a zoom like that will matter much. Find out what works and buy then.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Follow this advice! It's good stuff.</p>

<p>My impression is that you are not ready for fashion photography. Your questions are those of someone without even a basic understanding of photography. My advice would be to volunteer to assist an established fashion photographer in your area until you have some confidence that you know what you are doing. You really shouldn't have to ask us what lens to use. </p>

<p>In case I've accidentally started a "which lens should I buy in order to decide which lens to buy?" debate: The 18-200 is a very good option and will tell you everything you're likely to want to know in the short term about the effects of different focal lengths. It's a little expensive, though; my suggestion of the 18-105 was only offered as a budget alternative, since I doubt, for portraits, you'll have much need of lengths longer than 105mm on a DX body (although the 200mm is certainly useful for sports and wildlife, for example). I <i>do</i> think it's useful to see what everything from 18mm to at least 85mm looks like while learning.<br /><br />Purple: pick whichever of these (or similar lenses with the same range) most appeals to you, and at least try it out in a store for a while - or, preferably, hire it. If you end up buying one and getting a prime lens of the length you most want for portraits later, you'll still have a versatile zoom to work with. For what it's worth, I've just picked up a zoom lens to add to my selection of primes, solely for a bit more flexibility - it won't be wasted.<br />

<br />

Robert: I agree that Purple seems to be a beginner, as she admits. I'm assuming that the talk of "fashion photography" is a miscommunication and that she's not really talking about trying to do a shoot for Vogue at this point. That said, taking some publicity photos of a friend's student clothing line is still "fashion photography". And there's no harm in doing some learning on your own time before you go to a pro and become an assistant, if that's what Purple wants to do. (Not that I know anything about fashion photography beyond what I've read on this site and the technical side of what equipment can do - the chances of my being in a state to take a decent photo when presented with a supermodel in skimpy clothing are even lower than usual.)</p>

<p>Does a chef have to ask what pots to use?</p>

<p>Ditto the advice to start with a zoom. Any decent midrange zoom will do for now - there are some good third party zooms with relatively fast f/2.8 maximum apertures if you need something faster than the affordable Nikkor variable aperture zooms.</p>

<p>Take lots of shots of models or friends helping you gain experience. Then study the EXIF data to see which focal lengths you use most often with a zoom. That will give you a good idea of which prime lens to get if you feel the need for a faster lens. Wega2 is a good free EXIF data utility for examining your tendencies when using zooms.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Does a chef have to ask what pots to use?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A chef, maybe not. A student learning to become a chef, sure.</p>

<p>I don't know about cooking apprentice . We are dealing with the dishwasher. Purple has been asking essentially the same questions over 16 posts.</p>

<p>400 mm f2.8. Stand back.</p>

<p>I'm thinking we could cut Purple some slack here. Purple does show plenty of enthusiasm! My suggestion is to do some reading, go to some actual fashion shows and watch, and during the slow times the photographer might have some good info. For fashion I would think a fast f2.8 zoom and a good flash such as SB-700 or even SB-900 would be where to start, at least as far as equipment. Purple would be best served by learning the basics right now that would lead towards the goal. </p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Robert - I realise it may be frustrating when someone doesn't seem to be receiving information, but what happened to giving the benefit of the doubt?<br />

<br />

As I see it, Purple has effectively asked three questions in different threads:<br />

<br />

1) "Dear Nikon forum. I'm trying to decide between a couple of specific Nikon lenses for the purposes of shooting fashion-style photographs. Please advise."<br />

<br />

Shortly afterwards, she asked:<br />

<br />

2) "Dear fashion photographers, what focal length is most typically used for fashion shooting?"<br />

<br />

These are certainly related questions, but I'd call them different. The latter got answers from Canon shooters talking about the 85mm f/1.2; the former got answers about the quality of the bokeh on the Nikkor f/1.8 AF-D. (We should possibly also allow for the fact that it's hard for a newcomer to photo.net to know how long it takes for people to respond. What seems to be a duplicate post might simply be the belief that she's been ignored.)<br />

<br />

3) "I've had portrait lenses recommended to me and am probably leaning towards an 85mm lens, which is a longish telephoto on DX and has probably been recommended for head-and-shoulders shots. I'm concerned that this will leave me unable to take full-length images. Here is a full-length portrait which has clearly not been taken with an 85mm lens. If I want to take portraits like this, can you suggest a supplementary lens for me?"<br />

<br />

She may not have expressed the entire train of thought very clearly, but I think she asked three different and - for a beginner - reasonable questions. She's doing research on-line, and has had a way to expand her knowledge suggested to her. She's admitted that she's a novice and trying to learn. Let's not bite her head off - if she seems to be asking the same question repeatedly, perhaps either we're not giving her a satisfactory answer, or we're not understanding the questions.<br />

<br />

I get the impression that the "fashion photography" thing may have got people riled up for some reason. I'm assuming this is like the people who say "I'm starting a wedding business, what beginner DSLR should I buy?" without appreciating that wedding photography is a highly skilled and complex business - they tend to get short shrift from those who have put in the time and effort to become competent, and whose business might be impacted by being under-cut by an incompetent amateur (you can't go back and re-shoot a wedding once you realise your photographer is no good, so the business is lost). I imagine that someone offering to do a fashion shoot for an aspiring model might similarly cut into the business of a pro. All this is an assumption on my part - I'm an amateur, and all I can do is try to deduce why Purple seems to be being accused of being incompetent when she's already said she's a beginner. In fact, I'm sure (especially after the reception she got) it's all a miscommunication, and that Purple is not planning on diving straight into setting up a fashion photography business claiming to be an experienced pro. For all I know, she's seen some magazine images, thought "I wish I could do that", and then made what appears to be the heinous mistake of asking for help.<br />

<br />

Kent - you pre-empted my rant. :-) For what it's worth, I agree that a flash (especially used off-camera) might be a better investment than an expensive prime. It'd probably be a good idea to add some kind of diffuser to the wish list, though, and no doubt some experts will be concerned about whether speedlights can fully overpower the sun (although in England this is not, admittedly, such a problem). For a budget starting point, picking up a cheap collapsible reflector might be a good thing, especially if there's an assistant available.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.amazon.com/Fashion-Photography-Complete-Guide-Techniques/dp/081742721X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1315261971&sr=8-1">Fashion Photography</a></p>

<p> </p>

<p>no one force you to answer<br>

that is dedicate to people criticize my question<br>

and when someone starts a new experience it is quite normal asking or when you started you were all amazing photographers i dont think so and <br>

yes i'm a person who likes know different opinions but i have my idea already<br>

now i'm asking something different<br>

I AM ASKING WHAT IS THE LENS THAT OFFER A BETTER PROPORTION <br>

IN A FULL LENGHT IMAGE</p>

 

<p>forum are made for asking <br>

and since i have not receive informations that i need i will asking here or anywhere<br>

if someone asks me <br>

something that i know i always give informations<br>

and to person who linked a book yes i have read a lot about that<br>

i am a novice <br>

in my opinion it not so bad learning from people who had more experience</p>

 

<p>andrew garrard thank you <br>

you have understand everything<br>

i am not sayin i am a pro <br>

i'm only trying to learn watching photos made by people who make photos for work not only for hobby<br>

humility is a virtue </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>since i have not receive informations that i need</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You have received plenty of information on three almost identical posts. If you choose not to listen, you can remain a beginner. And I will repeat my information. Buy an inexpensive zoom and find out what works for you. Anything else is not particularly useful given the request that was made.</p>

<p>The suggestion for the 18-200mm VR is a great one. Very underrated lens.</p>

<p>yes i am a beginner<br>

it not a shame<br>

RENOIR WAS A BEGINNER WHEN HE WAS INFLUENCED BY DELACROIX<br>

the questions that i have made give me a lot of informations but one i receive informations about bokeh and it is not the answer i was searching for</p>

 

<p>If the OP wants to get into fashion/portrait photography, I would get a 17-50mm/f2.8 type zoom and perhaps add a 85mm/f1.8. The 50mm/f1.8 she already has is also a plus.</p>

<p>Like several people have already pointed out in this thread as well as threads the OP started a day or two ago, beginners should focus on technique rather than lenses. All you need is 2, 3 lenses, including a good mid-range zoom, and that will go a long way. I would avoid the 18-200mm DX zoom; the fact it is soft on the long end aside, it is too slow. Fashion photography requires a lot of indoor shooting and an f5.6 lens will not get the job done. When you get more serious, you'll need a 70-200mm/f2.8 VR lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>RENOIR WAS A BEGINNER WHEN HE WAS INFLUENCED BY DELACROIX</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Renoir learned to paint in a ceramics factory long before any influence from Delacroix. And the influence from Delacroix was in subject matter and portrayal, now "which brush" type of questions. Perhaps you should ask about photography rather than simply what you should buy, then you could make the analogy.</p>

<p>i am reading a lot of books, i'm using web to improve my abilities<br>

and i asking to professionists<br>

i have been interested by art since i was a child<br>

now i am a young newcomer in this field <br>

i have got the humility to ask <br>

if someone ask me please teach me greek russian or french i will help <br>

or if someone ask me about picasso, van gogh or kandiskij i will give all my knowledge<br>

i have shooted with an analogic camera and it quite different digital photography<br>

i have some indecisions about lenses because it is quite strange the different between 35mm dx or fx<br>

and for example 50mm was recommended to me but in my everyday experience i found it not so suitable wide open<br>

so i 'd like to listen heterougenous suggestions</p>