Check out The Pampered Pets Corner section of our forum.
Nikon 24-70mm
Jan 25, 2015 11:52:19 #
DavidPine
Loc: Fredericksburg, TX
GoofyNewfie wrote:
I agree it is a nice shot. The rectangular catchlight does not bother me.
If David were using natural window light, the shape would be rectangular too. Sure, the sun and moon are round but they would be so small in a reflection that you would not notice the shape.
As far as the 24-70 for portraits go, for full-frame, I think is a bit short.
Great lens though. I do not miss having VR on it. VR isn't as useful with shorter focal lengths.
If David were using natural window light, the shape would be rectangular too. Sure, the sun and moon are round but they would be so small in a reflection that you would not notice the shape.
As far as the 24-70 for portraits go, for full-frame, I think is a bit short.
Great lens though. I do not miss having VR on it. VR isn't as useful with shorter focal lengths.
:thumbup:
Jan 25, 2015 15:26:02 #
DavidPine wrote:
That was the shape of the soft box on her right side. It was a one light shot with a reflector on her left side. I am an amateur and only shoot for my pleasure. Therefore, I make lots of mistakes and usually on a daily basis. I do appreciate your critique though.
I remember an article in PopPhoto about ten years ago that talked about catch lites on reflective surfaces. The author talked about using softboxes but also said that when shooting models to use either an umbrella or round reflector to make sure that the reflections in the eyes were round. It is something I never forgot. I have been an amateur for many years and just started shooting professionally in the last few years. I use 3 lites with my travelling studio. A SB800 with a 24" softbox for a main lite, a SB600 with the wide diffuser for a hair lite, and a second SB600 with an umbrella for the catch lite. I use a 105mm manual focus Nikkor on my D610 and shoot from between 6 - 10 feet away. I meter wit a Seconic meter and shoot manual, and RAW. I get good results about 90% of the time that way. When I shoot home schooled kids(a lot of my paid jobs lately) my biggest problem is keeping the parents from trying to shoot with my setup. Of course since I'm using CLS, their cameras won't fire my speedlites.
Jan 25, 2015 16:56:39 #
Based upon above comments and in an effort to answer OP: is it safe top say the 24-70 would work well on a crop sensor body and on FF the 70-200 would be a better choice?
Check out Landscape Photography section of our forum.
Jan 25, 2015 17:49:03 #
JimEaco wrote:
Based upon above comments and in an effort to answer OP: is it safe top say the 24-70 would work well on a crop sensor body and on FF the 70-200 would be a better choice?
sounds reasonable
Jan 25, 2015 18:35:20 #
DavidPine wrote:
No, not really. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a fantastic portrait lens. Images (portraits) should be made from 15' to 9' from subject.
Gorgeous portrait of a gorgeous woman, David. Thanks, too, for your input. I was afraid that the 24-70 would be too short. I can't believe my grammar was so terrible. Bad typos that I didn't review.
Thanks to all who replied as well.
Jan 25, 2015 20:43:11 #
DavidPine
Loc: Fredericksburg, TX
You are welcome. The 24-70 is a great lens and I use mine a lot. I also like the 105G and I would like to use it for portraits and I sometime do. For portrait work, I have found the 70-200 f/2.8 to be my workhorse. Good luck.
SteveR wrote:
Gorgeous portrait of a gorgeous woman, David. Thanks, too, for your input. I was afraid that the 24-70 would be too short. I can't believe my grammar was so terrible. Bad typos that I didn't review.
Thanks to all who replied as well.
Thanks to all who replied as well.
Jan 26, 2015 05:57:02 #
jsmangis wrote:
That is a very nice shot, David. My only criticism is the square catch lite reflections in her pupils. I know that I am nitpicking, but I find them distracting. A professional of your calibre should know better.
So I guess that would also include catch light created by natural light and rectangular windows.... NOT!
Check out Street Photography section of our forum.
Jan 26, 2015 06:05:05 #
SteveR wrote:
Is this lens long enough to be used as a portrait lens? I trying to decided whether to purchase this lens or the 70-200mm first.
I own both the 24-70 and the 70-200. Both are great, but I use the 70-200 over the 24-70 for most portrait shots.
Jan 26, 2015 06:13:00 #
jsmangis wrote:
I remember an article in PopPhoto about ten years ... (show quote)
JS, what do you use for a traveling backdrop? I have been looking for something more portable than full stand with muslin backdrop.
Jan 26, 2015 06:17:17 #
SteveR wrote:
Is this lens long enough to be used as a portrait lens? I trying to decided whether to purchase this lens or the 70-200mm first.
Steve:
My answer is based on full frame sensor.
24-70 No
70-200 Yes.
For portraits, I alternate between the 70-200 f/2.8 and the 85mm f/1.8.
Many people believe that 135mm is the more ideal focal length to use on portraits. I know its Ken Rockwell, but I believe in this case many will agree:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/135mm-f2-dc.htm
Jan 26, 2015 07:10:55 #
David and DwsPV; I totally agree! With Full Frame (FX) cameras, the 70-200 is the way to go, especially for multiple uses.
Took about 50 portraits Saturday night for our scrap book of our residents here and found that most all were at 85 to 105 at f4 to f4.5. I was very pleased with the results.
This tells me that since I have the 70-200, it just works. However, if you have the 85 f1.8 or the 105 f2, you have a great portrait lens at a considerable reduction in price.
Took about 50 portraits Saturday night for our scrap book of our residents here and found that most all were at 85 to 105 at f4 to f4.5. I was very pleased with the results.
This tells me that since I have the 70-200, it just works. However, if you have the 85 f1.8 or the 105 f2, you have a great portrait lens at a considerable reduction in price.
Check out The Dynamics of Photographic Lighting section of our forum.
Jan 26, 2015 07:16:01 #
Kmgw9v wrote:
I own both the 24-70 and the 70-200. Both are great, but I use the 70-200 over the 24-70 for most portrait shots.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:
Jan 26, 2015 07:45:24 #
SteveR wrote:
Is this lens long enough to be used as a portrait lens? I trying to decided whether to purchase this lens or the 70-200mm first.
IMO 70mm is not quite long enough for portrait work. I use either my 851.8 or my 1052.8.
Jan 26, 2015 07:47:07 #
GeneC
Loc: Rhode Island
It's a great portrait, and you need a catch light to give the eyes life. Retouch it out and see. I learned classic portraiture more than 40 years ago and if one wasn't there you put one in on the negative. That beng said, the rule then was that a portrait lens was twice the diagonal of the negative. So, for 35mm it would be around 92mm ( I think the 35mm negative has a 46mm diagonal - it's been along time). So, a 85mm or 105mm would fit the bill. Those photographers that didn't like working close used a 135mm and today I have heard of photographers that use 200mm, but they are working quite a distance from the subject. I used a Nikon 135mm f2 defocus lens. Amazing piece of glass.
Jan 26, 2015 07:48:42 #
DavidPine wrote:
No, not really. The 70-200 f/2.8 is a fantastic portrait lens. Images (portraits) should be made from 15' to 9' from subject.
This answers some questions for me. Your results are beautiful, as is the person you photographed.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Check out Advice from the Pros section of our forum.