Purchase of a New Lens

[james_hester]

<p>Hello all. I'm considering purchasing a Canon 300MM F4 Lens for my system. I would like to know if I can use this lens for portraits as well as sports. Before anyone starts in on me, I already have some portrait lenses (1.8's, 2.8's and such) that I'm completely satisfied with. I'd just like to know if this lens will perform double duty. Please help me out. Thanks.</p>

[Charles_Webster]

<p>Well, you're going to need lots of working distance for anything bigger than a face.</p>

<p>This FoV calculator says your 300mm lens on a crop sensor will fill the frame with a rectangle 1ft X 1.5ft at a distance of 20feet.</p>

<p>http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/calc.htm</p>

<p><Chas><br /></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>You can more or less use any lens for just about anything. The question with the 300mm lens is whether or not that very long focal length is going to give you the functionality you want for portraits. That is a very long FL for portraits of a traditional sort, but perhaps you have something very unusual in mind and this is the best lens to accomplish that?</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[james_hester]

<p>Dan, not really anything unusual in mind but I want to buy that lens to use for sports, and was just wondering if it could be used for inside portraits as well. If it can, then it will be my first L lens. I'm torn between it and the 70-200 F4 L lens. I already have a 70-200 2.8. I want a bit more reach for my sports photography.</p>

[paul_russell1]

<p>On a full frame body 300mm would be pretty nasty as a portrait lens. It forces a very very flat perspective so your portriats would lack any resemblance to the subleties of your subjects features.<br>

It's one thing using a 50mm to make a flat face seem more 3 dimensional, or a 135 to flatten a big nose of chin.<br>

300 will make the person look like a cardboard cut out against a totally blurred background.<br>

On an APS-H or APS-C the effect will be even worse.<br>

It's just not a flattering portrait lens. Not to say you couldn't use it. Just that perhaps you shouldn't.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Well Canon thinks 300's make great portrait lenses, for years the adverts for the 300 f2.8 included portraits of rather nice looking women. Looks like they have moved onto children now though. http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=7317</p>

<p>If you have the space to accommodate the working distance and like the remote feel you can get with tele portraits then it will double up fine.</p>

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Yes, it can be used for portraits. <a href="http://www.stevedunn.ca/photos/friends_and_family/1563Dee.jpg" target="_blank">This shot of my then-girlfriend</a> was taken with the 300/4 IS on a 20D. But as others have pointed out, you'll need quite a bit of working distance, particularly on a smaller-sensor body.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>It's sort of like the statement about fire size:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Normal people use small lens, stand reeeal close. TelePhoto people use long lens, stand waaaay back.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Here is a portrait taken with a 500mm lens, otherwise known as "the unbearable flatness of being" :</p><div></div>

[ben_goren]

<p>James,</p>

 

<p>Fashion photographers have been known to like supertelephotos for portraiture. They have to

resort to talking to an assistant with a walkie-talkie to give instructions to the model, they’re so

far away.</p>

 

<p>Unless “indoors” to you is as big as a ballroom, I doubt you’ll have the kind of

working distance you’ll need to consider 300mm a “portrait” lens, though.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p><div></div>

[zml]

<p>300mm for portraits..? You know as they say, thou shall use 1mm for each pound of the subject's heft. So yes, judging by the tremendous "expansion" of our society, 300 mm will soon function as the standard portrait lens :-)))</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>It is much longer than the lenses that people are usually thinking of when they think of "portrait lens." If you have a full-frame body typical portrait focal lengths might be in the 85mm to 135mm range. As you can see, you are talking about a lens that is approximately 3x longer. (If you shoot a cropped sensor camera typical portrait FLs might be in the 50mm to 85mm range, so the 300 would be longer than typical by an even greater factor.)</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[james_hester]

<p>Guys, thanks for the responses. It would appear the answer to my question is "YES". I can use the lens inside and outside for portraits it appears. Great. I believe it will give me everything that I need. The images you've posted here, taken with the lens, are great. That's what I'm looking for.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>[i just posted this reaction on a similar themed question.]</p>

<p>Maybe you could borrow or rent it.<br>

My guess is that if you like long portrait lenses you'll love it.<br /> You'll need some distance or you'll get headshots.<br>

I absolutely love long portrait lenses and very tight headshots but they're not everybodies cup of tea. Some shooters insist that you need to show a lot of the environment or props. They need 50mm on FF.<br>

Anyway, just try it and see if you like it. Technically the lens is capable of shooting very fine pictures.</p>