24-70 for portraits

[DickArnold]

Robin. First of all I am, as Jeff expressed earlier, speaking from actual experience which is exclusively mine not yours. Second if you read my post I did a lot of outdoor weddings and used my 70-200 to frame a lot of head shots. I use it exclusively shooting head shots at swim meets indoors because that's what I use to shoot the actual events. Further I used a 28-70 2.8L and made a lot of pictures with it but not in your face candids. I now have a 24-105 f4L now. Here are real life examples of my experience of why I used a 70-200 at weddings. I had a referral contract with a local Inn where I did a lot of weddings both in and out of doors near the ocean. I had a bride who dearly wanted pictures of an outdoor ceremony and the minister banned photography. Having worked for a paper our motto was anything to get the picture. I crawled into a bush in my wedding suit and shot 80 pictures at 200mm. He never knew. She was delighted and she was the one who paid. A couple of guests were startled when they saw me crawling out of the bush. Indoors in that same Inn I had a nice perch over the dance floor and used the 70-200 for candids in many weddings. My style, not someone else's was to record the wedding not to manage and not to disrupt the action. It was to provide a professionally competent, complimentary history of the wedding. Believe me I know how to shove a camera in someone's face as I also shot local politicians for the local paper I worked for. Robin this is my opinion and my preference based my style of shooting. At least I have experience, however, meager, to back it up. Argue with someone elses preferences.

[p_ghosh]

<p>If you really want a good portrait lens, a 85mm or 135mm is perfect.<br>

I got the Sigma 85mm 1.4 at 1000, it's comparable to the 85mm 1.2L which is double the cost at 2000. There is also the 85mm 1.8 for around 300 or 135mmL for 1100</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p><em>"Dick does post photos. He doesn't post portraits. But he does post photos."</em></p>

<p>So in a thread specifically titled "24-70 <strong>for portraits</strong>" is his input acceptable to you and John? Because a master at macro could suck at portraits.</p>

<p><em>"one cannot even ascertain if someone is a photographer by their written posts here"</em></p>

<p>Equally one cannot judge the usefulness, practicality or value of their input by seeing images they attribute to themselves here, or on their own blogs or sites. I know one regular poster who often refers to his own site for examples that are not his images.</p>

<p>You are very lucky to have a well stocked public library, I don't, in fact the Territory I am a resident of has no public library service, similarly many thousands of USA residents are not within practical distances of well stocked library services either.</p>

<p>Forum advice is of low value, it can be informative, it can tell people things they don't know about, but the answers people give re buying advice is very limited. Jeff, as an example, we have both answered threads about shooting at music venues, our results are both very good (I have posted my examples in those threads) but we take a completely different approach, both are valid and get valuable images (well we both sell them) but our advice is poles apart. So which is more valuable? If I wanted to know the nuances of MMA fighting focus use I would hope you would chime in to the thread, if I was starting out a wedding business I'd hope Nadine and William W were there to help; street shooting? I'd want to know what Brad does, but not because of the images they have posted, because of their posting history. Though even then, what works for them could very well not work for me.</p>

<p>Another thing, even experienced, educated photographers with good posted images quite often get things wrong. I recently commented on the inverse square law with a poster with an education in photography. They knew the classic use verbatim, they obviously didn't understand it though because they couldn't transfer that to another situation. Many years ago I got into quite a heated debate with a well respected Canon expert over a Canon lens, he was totally adamant that the lens did not exist, but it does. </p>

<p>No, I maintain my position, judging the validity and value of posters comments on the images they have, or have not, posted, is not the best way of ascertaining that value.</p>

[DickArnold]

P. I have an 85 1.8 that I use with my studio lights. A lot depends upon the subject although I have used my 70-200 for portraits. I really liked mostly to use my Bronica PE 150mm which is full frame 90mm. Some depends upon the subject. Somewhere around 135 is better for sharp features I think.

 

Jeff. I really have tried to post on PN a broad representation of what I photograph on PN save betraying client trust. My level of photography is what it is and I think other posters should see something of what I do to make their own judgments about my credibility. I do think it shows some photographic versatility. I also have posted my spotty photographic history in my bio to aid in that. Like I said there are adequate public records of my work performance in aviation so that may count for something as well. But, as I said, it is what it is and have to live with whatever that is. So be it.

[william_bray1]

Why do a lot of people think that their equipment and style of shooting is the only way

of being a good photographer, and when someone else offers a different way of getting

the job done we have to shoot them down in flames. If I were to say something as stupid

and ignorant as "canon are rubbish and Nikon is the only equipment I would ever buy "

then I deserve to be set straight. As regards this , "you have to be posting great photos

to be worthy of giving advice" . I've taken advice from people who sell camera

equipment all day long , but them selves only shoot with basic equipment , or I've asked

advice on macro photography while they specialize in motor sports, while the person

may not have an award winning photo in the category I need, so they can justify themselves, they have got feed back

from other photographers they have delt with. Does that persons opinion not count? I

haven't posted photos here, not because I don't think they're not good enough I just

haven't thought about it, perhaps I will now. I've been doing photography for about 8

years or so, its not my full time job, I've done art exhibitions, sold photos to shops , done

weddings, advertising work one client was a well known credit card company, but most

important I do it because I like it. What little I've done is nothing compared to a lot of

you , but at the same time I never think I've learnt everything I can about a certain

aspect of photography, that also applies to life. Thanks to everyone for taking the time to

help, to the others who are looking for an ego boost, I feel sorry for you. We all need to

be different in our approach to photography otherwise we'd all be walking around with a

canon camera and a 24-70, taking the same boring photos.

[DickArnold]

Willam I agree with your post. I have my own idea about belonging and contributing to PN as follows:

 

- Over the past five years I have learned an enormous amount here. There are people here who I really respect. Therefore I pay my annual dues with gratitude for far more than I ever got out of photo magazines at considerably more expense for more than fifteen years before my membership.

 

- I post my biography not only to give myself some credibility but because I would like establish some rapport with others here on PN. I really want to provide something for other people to judge and maybe to relate to as I relate to others.

 

- Dale Carnegie taught me a long time ago that the only thing I am really expert at is my own experience and so I use examples from my personal experience in my posts because that is what I know most about. You will note in this thread I do not try to tell others what to do. I just tell them what I do and they can judge for themselves based upon their own expertise with their own experience.

 

- I am human. I have been wrong and made many poor decisions in my life and some good ones too. I don't think I am here to provide definitive answers to anyone but I have a valid role in sharing my photographic and human experiences.

 

- I took a course at the American Management Assn. on corporate hubris. They presented a course on hubris induced management failures about people who thought they knew too much who failed to listen to the advice of others. That is why I am here to listen to the advice and more appropriately in Jeff's words the experience of others.

 

- As a pilot I learned to keep myself alive from the self admitted mistakes of others and I am not afraid to talk about my failures and have done so here on PN.

 

So I do think I have some obligations here to pay back a little of what I have received. PN has its' flaws but it is a great place to trade experience and knowledge. So I agree with Jeff.

[Robin Smith]

<blockquote>

<p>Argue with someone elses preferences.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A bit touchy I think? Clearly I am not allowed to express my opinion either. I suggest you need to be less sensitive.</p>

[DickArnold]

Robin I don't think anyone is right or wrong. If you like the 24-70 that's fine with me. I respect your opinion. I expect others to respect mine and not try to discredit a simple statement about 40 mm being too short for me on a full frame body in certain wedding situations. It is. That's my experience for what it's worth. I just have no wish to engage in a back and forth discussion about who is right. I suppose I fell into that trap when you advanced your argument to your second post and I responded in detail. Mea Culpa. I don't know your wedding background but you know something of mine so let's quit this discussion now as it is not very productive. There is no right answer.

[ken_carver1]

Unless you have a huge studio a 24-70 2.8 on a full frame body for indoors portraits is all you need. Inside

you have control over your lighting and background. .Outside you will need a a 70-200 2.8 or 85mm for

background blur. Stay away from f4 lens outside unless you are using off camera lighting.<div></div>