Zooms vs. primes for small studio

<p>Hi all,<br>

I've recently began shooting portraits and group shots in my home. My usable area is about 20x12. I have a D700 and a 24-70 2.8 along with an 80-200 2.8 (2 ringer). I also have a decent lighting kit with some added accessories. Now, everything (almost everything) I read about portrature seems to point to primes. My go-to lens has been the 24-70 2.8 for indoor studio, which has been giving me some very nice images, and the 80-200 for the outside stuff. The only prime I have right now is an old Nikon 50mm 1.4 which, for some reason, renders soft images even stopped down. My lighting techniques are getting better as I learn. But, an experienced photog friend of mine, who's coaching me, is bugging me to ignore the zooms and invest in primes in order to shorten my PP time. First, I don't have the $$ right now to start buying primes. Second, and I hope this doesn't sound stupid, but when I use the 50mm in a session I feel like a freakin' yo-yo. To go tight, I'm in...to go wide I'm out, and with shooting small kids there's no time to use your feet to zoom. I now understanding that if you're going to do studio work, and do it right, you need to keep learning and practicing. So, I'm all eyes...any learning info is more than appreciated.</p><div></div>

<p>There's nothing wrong with your two zooms, at this stage of the game. You're <em>not</em> going to make portraits with more charm (or drama, or interest) because you've popped an 85/1.4 on that D700... unless razor thin DoF is what you must have, creatively.<br /><br />Judging from your posted example, I'd say that your first area of concentration (which costs you mostly time, and perhaps some more light modifier money) should be <em>light</em>. <br /><br />I know you'll take this constructively when I say: that's pretty boring light, there. No sculpting, no life to the hair, etc. For less than what one serious prime lens costs, you could add another monolight, a stand, and another modifier.<br /><br />Also, see if you can get your subjects just a little farther away from that backdrop, or use a wider aperture so that you can throw it a bit more out of focus (to avoid the wrinkly bedsheet look).<br /><br />I'd highly recommend a book or two on portrait lighting so that you can get a sense of how to deal with key/fill ratios, rim/hair/kicker lighting, etc., to better flatter your subjects or create interest. What you learn while delving into that area will have <em>far</em> more to do with the results you get than will the difference between your 80-200 at 85mm and f/4 and an expensive prime used exactly the same way. <br /><br />Light! It's all about the light. Well, that and having a good rapport with your subjects. Looks like you've already got that part working. Keep shooting, and have fun learning.</p>

<p>I agree with Mark. However, DOF must taken into account, especially when shooting 2+ faces. I est that for your camera with zoom at 60mm there is only 12 inches of DOF. You might have trouble getting both sets of eyes sharp if you open up to much.<br>

Nice sharp image btw.<br>

Jeff</p>

<p>oops, I missed the fact that the lady is not sharp when you enlarge the image. it looks like you focused on him and he is further away. I think you need to always focus on the nearest face.</p>

<p>Your 24-70 is as sharp as most primes and is wide enough for smallish indoors, though your 80-200 will probably be better to avoid perspective distortion of portraits if you have enough space to back up...</p><p><br></p>

<p>As everyone else has said, your lens is not your problem. The first thing I noticed is you image is slightly soft, probably due to misfocus. For two people shoot at f8-11 for enough dof. Also check the autofocus accuracy of your camera/lens combination to see if it's accurate.</p>

<p>Thanks alot guys...<br>

Matt, I definitely agree that I need to learn more creative lighting. Although these subjects loved the results, I wasn't nearly as satisfied as I wanted to be. Lens-wise, I'm going to stick to what I have. Especially the 24-70. After the fact, I saw that I could've put an overhead snoot or something to highlight the hair. I just bought a reflector and a shoot through umbrella. Next will come a mono light. I found a couple of great sites on youtube demoing various techniques. With you guys and your tidbits of help, I'll strive to do better!!</p>

<p>Greg, as always, I agree completely with Matt. I'm not sure how a prime is going to save pp time. There an many folks on this site who make a living with that 24-70 shooting weddings or events. If you are looking for sharper, funny, Santa is bringing a Zeiss Softar filter to soften. That will save me time softening portraits pp. How often does someone say to you, gee, I want my wrinkles, blemishes emphasized? Thank you, Bob Bernardo and Nadine for the suggestion. The lighting in your example is well exposed but pretty flat, but for most of us, slimming is a good thing and flat front light doesnt do it. Plus, moving that light off the camera -subject axis provides modeling. Take a look at the nose shadows on shots you like. The light is opposite of the shadow. The chin shadow too. Take a look in the eyes to see where the light is placed. It will also tell you the shape, round, round containing anachroid legs(an umbrella), round donut possibly a ring light or beauty light, rectangular. Matt is dead on, for the cost of a pro zoom, you can have light gear that will transform your images. Be sure to learn how to use it. As he said, a couple of books will help. If you have lights, you can light what you want to emphasize and put shadow over what you want to hide. Here a 24-120 was used , allegedly one of the worst lenses in Nikons line. Because was in tight quarters and rapidly flowing shoot left it on after another location at 24mm, used it FF at about 60 mm, f/5.6. The room was pretty well lit, just over powered it to emphasize the glow to the blue gelled xray machine and to make her pop using the contrast. Value of that lens, about $250. I think light makes this shot not the lens (and a great model who hit some wonderful poses). High gridded mono main, high gridded blue gelled mono on xray machine, gold reflector left for fill and zoomed speedlight right for rim light(could move it around with no cord showing). Taken at Preston Castle-1860's former boys reformatory, which has some gorgeous ambient light. But, for my taste, the Preston ambient didnt have the flavor of this light that had existed only a few minutes earlier in my truck/battery pack. That prime you've been rocommended would have captured what I think, was that soft, gentle, but boring ambient light. And thats what most other photos will look like too. I guarantee no one has taken this shot in that building. It comes from my imagination. Its not the 100 millionth shot of Half Dome from the same tripod holes, the gazillionth Antelope Canyon shot. Few faces look alike and everyone has a different personality to capture. And you dont have to travel far to find them or get up at O dark 30 and stumble around in the dark(usually). I commend you for the courage and determination to take control and add lights to your photos, many folks dont have it. As Alton Brown says, your patience will be rewarded. Looking forward to see your future efforts. </p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>But, an experienced photog friend of mine, who's coaching me, is bugging me to ignore the zooms and invest in primes in order to shorten my PP time.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>What does prime or zoom have to do with PP time? That sounds ridiculous.</p>

<p>I'm working on a new series and I've been using a zoom for them all. I move back and forth anyway, as it changes perspective and I want that for some of them. I don't see the point of this friend's comment.</p>

<p><center><img src="http://spirerphoto.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/angeliquex.jpg?w=700&h=525" alt="" width="700" height="525" /><br>

<em>Performer Series, Canon 24-70, Copyright 2009 Jeff Spirer</em></center></p>

<p>Jeff, gorgeous shot. It wasnt a lens that created that shot, it was your eye and vision. Speaking of eyes, those dark eyes in all that white bg and skin, are riveting. Wouldnt have been as powerful with dark, distracting lips. Feels like the viewers eye is fenced into the face by the dark ,oof hair on 3 sides and the chin shadow (I like that use of a chin shadow on a big head shot, I am always learning here). If my eye trys to escape at the break in the hair, her striking right eye, forces me back in and creates tension. It forces me to follow the line of sight of that eye and takes me back to the left eye. She really connects. Great shot. I know in SF it probably isnt snow( we had some here in Sac couple of weeks ago), but the white on the hat adds some mystery to the shot. Makes me wonder, is it snow, is it cold? Did you use a makeup artist? The narrow dark area of makeup over her left eye sets up the high contrast there but doesnt lead away from the eye as it might if it was graduated to the pencil thin eye brow that doesnt pull the viewer away either. The left eye is also razor sharp again reinforcing it as where I am drawn or forced. It seems a bit sharper than the right and that also pulls me back to it. Wow. As one of my professors used to say, take a note. Mimimal modeling on the cheeks and nose to distract from the eye. Lesson to be learned for original poster, be concerned less about the gear than learning the craft. I certainly learned from this image. Thanks, Jeff. </p>

<p>Jeff...<br>

Thanks for the input....I'm assuming my friends comment regarding the relation of primes vs. zooms to PP time has to do with variables (more potential distortion..etc?). As a novice, the only thing I can think of what he's talking about is that he sees primes having an advantage (for lack of a better word) over zooms in portrait application? Clearly, with over 34 years of professional experience, I'm not about to debate with him his "rediculous" comment. However, the more I read about this topic, the more subjective it seems to me. I'll have to talk to him and get more clarification. Anyway, my learning curve continues and it gets sooo interesting!!<br>

BTW...that shot you posted is amazing!!</p>

<p>Greg, you may be a novice, but you are heading in the right direction and in the right place for answers. As Tred Barta, the obnoxious hunter says, do the work. You are off to a great start.</p>

<p>I agree with Jeff, the notion that prime lenses intrinsically equal less post is just weird. I'd disagree with ML only to say that I don't think you need more light or lights or modifiers, but that you actually need less. Shadows are how our brain determines the shape of a thing (like a face/body). You could gain some shadow shaping by just powering down or turning off your fill lights, and instead use them as a back or background light... t</p><div></div>

<p>I've been lucky enough to be able to use both zooms (24-70 and 70-200) as well as my favorite primes (24, 50, and 100) in my studio. I agree that really good zooms, even if they do not ultimately measure up to the primes at their best, are usually plenty good enough for studio work.<br /><br />I fully sympathize with your frustration at having to perform some tricky "sneaker zoom" maneuvers when using primes in a small studio. The zooms give you both more creative control and are more practical.<br /><br />The most important recommendation I could give is to get used to working with manual focus in the studio. The PP stuff, as everyone says, is nonsense. But if you like to use many different kinds of lighting, and not always with modeling lights on, manual focus can be faster and more finely attuned to your goals. I use that a lot in the studio.</p>