105/1.8 versus 70-200/2.8: I am doing a series of headshots for friend. Which of these lenses would you recommend that I use? Will be outside so light is not an obstacle requiring a...

zacksoccer

I am doing a series of headshots for friend. Which of these lenses would you recommend that I use? Will be outside so light is not an obstacle requiring a faster lens. Using a Nikon D750. Thanks

ELNikkor

The 105 should be all you need.

zacksoccer

Thanks. Any reason to use a zoom or can just move around for focal lengths?

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

zacksoccer wrote:

Thanks. Any reason to use a zoom or can just move around for focal lengths?

No reason to use a zoom if you both are mobile unless that's all you have.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

zacksoccer wrote:

I am doing a series of headshots for friend. Which of these lenses would you recommend that I use? Will be outside so light is not an obstacle requiring a faster lens. Using a Nikon D750. Thanks

Assuming the 70-200mm is one of the Nikkor lenses, the versatility of the zoom far out weighs any fixed focal length. Other zooms may be just as good too, but I can only vouch for the bokeh of the Nikkor lenses.

The point is that subject to camera distance determines the perspective. That can be chosen without even looking through the viewfinder. Once camera to subject distance has been selected, and only then, the focal length is selected to properly frame the image.

The concept of "zoom with your feet" is a false myth, and should be avoided for best results. A fixed focal length portrait lens is appropriate in a studio where the distance and focal length have been predetermined and will not be changed.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Apaflo wrote:

Assuming the 70-200mm is one of the Nikkor lenses,... (show quote)

Versatility? Aren’t people’s heads pretty much the same size?

Have you ever used a prime lens? The bokeh is much more predictable.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

selmslie wrote:

Versatility? Aren’t people’s heads pretty much the same size?

Have you ever used a prime lens? The bokeh is much more predictable.

I have shot mostly people pictures for decades. I much prefer longer distances than a 105mm lens allows. Experience, and a good understanding of the fundamentals involved, tends to lead to the use of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses by most high end non-studio photographers. Few beginners realize the significance (I didn't either for maybe 20 years...).

Incidentally, bokeh is certainly not "more predictable", regardless of whether it is better or not.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Apaflo wrote:

I have shot mostly people pictures for decades. I much prefer longer distances than a 105mm lens allows. Experience, and a good understanding of the fundamentals involved, tends to lead to the use of the 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses by most high end non-studio photographers. Few beginners realize the significance (I didn't either for maybe 20 years...).

Incidentally, bokeh is certainly not "more predictable", regardless of whether it is better or not.

I admit I don't speak from personal experience but from what I have seen the consensus seems to be that portrait photographers prefer focal lengths of from 75 to 120 mm for the small (24x36 mm) format depending on how much will be included besides the head and shoulders.

The question of zoom vs. prime is a matter of convenience and availability. In a studio setting the subject distance is pretty much consistent.

Resolution is not a consideration. Who want's every pore and nose hair to be included in the final image?

Bokeh is not an issue either since the background is usually irrelevant and often artificial.

To each his own.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

zacksoccer wrote:

I am doing a series of headshots for friend. Which of these lenses would you recommend that I use? Will be outside so light is not an obstacle requiring a faster lens. Using a Nikon D750. Thanks

Zack, it depends on the end result.
If you own both lenses, use the zoom, it will be endlessly more versatile and it will go faster, especially if you're shooting smaller than 2.8.
Unless your getting artistic, the zoom will work fine.
Nothing worse than getting into position and having to say, "Wait a minute", you scoot back, get ready and have to say it again, or compromise the framing. Just my two cents!
SS

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

selmslie wrote:

I admit I don't speak from personal experience but ...

As usual. End of conversation.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Apaflo wrote:

As usual. End of conversation.

Let’s be real. On the main land, I couldn’t imagine anyone would hire you to do portraits. Unless you are putting your worst of the worst examples on your website, I wouldn’t be advising others what to use.

Back to the OP: zooms are more convenient but my favorite portrait photographer uses primes only. Both will work, maybe if you could practice beforehand and see which results you like better. Maybe convenience will win.

Check out http://ljhollowayphotography.com/

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

tdekany wrote:

Let’s be real. On the main land, I couldn’t imagine anyone would hire you to do portraits. Unless you are putting your worst of the worst examples on your website, I wouldn’t be advising others what to use.

Back to the OP: zooms are more convenient but my favorite portrait photographer uses primes only. Both will work, maybe if you could practice beforehand and see which results you like better. Maybe convenience will win.

Check out http://ljhollowayphotography.com/

Prior to 2013 Lisa Holloway was using a Canon 70-200mm zoom lens for all of her work. That was for many years! In 2013 she bought a 200mm f/2, and has primarily been using that every since. Note that she seems to have never used a 105mm lens for people photography, ever.

Perhaps, if the intention is to replicate a similar style the purchase of a 200mm f/2 lens would be appropriate. B&H Photo has them for $5700.

tdekany Loc: Oregon

Apaflo wrote:

Prior to 2013 Lisa Holloway was using a Canon 70-200mm zoom lens for all of her work. That was for many years! In 2013 she bought a 200mm f/2, and has primarily been using that every since. Note that she seems to have never used a 105mm lens for people photography, ever.

Perhaps, if the intention is to replicate a similar style the purchase of a 200mm f/2 lens would be appropriate. B&H Photo has them for $5700.

Takes 2 seconds to find the above info by anyone, why are you trying to sound knowledgeable about her? Btw, no one ever said that she used a 105mm lens. She uses the 100 2.8.

Here is her updated gear list, and if anyone is interested in her work, she is a regular on FM (FredMiranda.com) in the people forum. She uses natural light.

http://ljhollowayphotography.com/in-my-bag/

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Apaflo wrote:

As usual. End of conversation.

No matter how much we lower the bar you still prefer to crawl under it.

You have never shown us that you have an aptitude for portraits either, only snapshots.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

tdekany wrote:

Takes 2 seconds to find the above info by anyone, why are you trying to sound knowledgeable about her? Btw, no one ever said that she used a 105mm lens. She uses the 100 2.8.

Here is her updated gear list, and if anyone is interested in her work, she is a regular on FM (FredMiranda.com) in the people forum. She uses natural light.

http://ljhollowayphotography.com/in-my-bag/

She does not shoot people pictures with her 100mm f/2,8 macro lens. Your initial claim that she only uses fixed focal length lenses is clearly false.

Another "End of conversation" point!