I've shot portraits with a Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR for just that reason, and its light weight is a real blessing. Not as much bokeh at f4, of course, but you can always shoot a bit closer to compensate. I happen to prefer deeper background perspective, so f4 suits my style.
@@CockatooDude 3 months late but.... Yeah, if you sport a big camera+lens people usually stay away and give some space, of course theres always a couple who try to "steal" some angles with their cellphone (dont know really what, but if they dont interfere, im usually neutral).... the bad thing is.... big camera+lens is a bright neon flag for anyone interested in steal those heavy things out of your hand
@@juliojimenez6286 Yeah it does make you more of a target for thieves, although usually I look around periodically when I shoot in shadier places to compensate for it.
I use 70-200mm f/4.0 lenses (both Canon and Sony) on crop sensor and full frame Canon and Son cameras. Yes, this lens doesn't have an f/2.8 aperture but, using a long focal length and placing my subject critically, I can achieve background separation AND the lenses are quantum smaller and lighter in weight. I have Sony and Canon 85mm f/1.8 lenses for a different rendering of my portraits. Wide open, these lenses are almost magical. An 85mm f/1.4 lens might be even more magical.
The 70-200 range is the best portrait range, but the longer end is best for giving a natural but flattering look to the face, with the wider end only for tight spaces. It is surprising how versatile it is in studio. But it is not my favorite. My favorite is the Canon 200 f2. That lens is ridiculously expensive but nothing touches it for portraits. That extra stop over the 2.8 zoom is pure heaven. The fact that it is sharper than the 2.8 zoom is a bonus. Few lenses are truly unique. That one is.
As a fashion photographer with 30 years of experience, I can absolutely assure you that unless you are a somewhat anorexic supermodel who's 5'-10" tall, weighs 110 pounds, and has really long legs, having your portrait shot at a subject-lens distance exceeding 9' will likely make you appear to be broad, short, dumpy, and fat, and your oval face will go roundish or squarish. And generally speaking, 135mm and 200mm lens are commonly used at distances that exceed 9'. Therefore, if you are a typical average woman I would suggest that you request the photographer use a 50mm lens at closer distances if you are a bit over weight or a 70mm lens if you are at a healthy weight, and that they utilize shooting distances between 5' and 8'..... if you want to look your best in your portraits. On the other hand, if you are having gag photos shot and you want to appear really ugly in your photos, then by all means request that the photographer use their 200mm lens at long distances and you should be very satisfied. Chances are extremely high that the photographer who enjoys their 200mm lens for portraits is really more enamored with the appearance of the creamy dreamy blown out background and is less concerned about YOUR appearance in your portrait. Please keep in mind that the background can always be blurrred during the post production and retouching stage, and does not have to be blurred to oblivion at the capture stage. So make sure the photographer understands that you are paying for the portrait, and that you want to look YOUR best. 135mm and 200mm lenses are lenses for sports and wildlife photography, not portrait photography.
Dude great explanation. I was stressing about buying an 85mm 1.4 for portraits. But after seeing this and owning the 70-200 g2 myself I think I'll just get better using the 70-200. On a side note your model is extremely gorgeous.
The model is extremely gorgeous and could be a Playboy model or in Victoria's Secret, but is there a single photo in this lengthy video that truly represents the full potential of this model?
Did someone notice that with the increased focal length the temperature of the last washing of the models shirt increased quit a bit too? Have a look at the comparison at 3:40.
Great video, thanks. One suggestion for the future, remember to explain that there will be a significant difference when using these lenses on a crop sensor camera. To get the same angle of view as you show here at 200mm on your ff camera you would be at around 130mm on a typical crop sensor model.
@@brahbrah908 There are a number of videos that explain it really well but how I think of different sensor sizes in cameras is this. All cameras with a lens attached to it are effectively identical regardless of the sensor. The lenses (let's assume for now they are all full frame lenses) all focus at the same distance behind the lens, and they all produce a circular image bigger than the sensor. Depending on the focal length of the lenses the circular image will show more (wider angle, smaller focal length) or less (narrower angle, larger focal length) of the scene it's pointed at. Now think of what size of sensor is at that place. A bigger sensor will have more of the image projected on it than a smaller one. As a result the image you get from a smaller sensor will show less of the scene than a larger sensor even though the lens is the same. The smaller sensor image will look like it is "zoomed in" compared with it's larger brother. In the case of a 200mm lens the image a full frame sensor camera will make will look similar to that of a shorter 130mm lens on a crop sensor model. If we put the 200mm lens on a crop sensor camera the image produced will be similar to a full frame camera with a 350mm lens. I'm sure I've done a poor job explaining this but as I say there are plenty of videos that explain it better but it is really important to understand when you have a crop sensor camera and are trying to duplicate the results of a tutorial where the photographer is using a full frame model. Anyway, hope this helps, good luck and happy snapping.
Recently i accompanied a friend fashion photographer to shoot models, he handed me 1dx with 200 mm for additional photos. damm the combo was bloody so heavy even with neck strap that i keep falling on the models @lol full day fashion shoot is a mastery of mind body and soul... respect to all wedding / fashion photographers... PS: Lessons i learned, Take own snacks (for models also), water bottles, hat, a folding high chair, monopod instead of heavy tripod always align all 4 lines > background-model-your eye-camera eye and talk to the model, give her cues when you shoot and give her positive feedback for better shots Many models are so beautiful but pose and expression are not that good... pose and expression are all what sets apart...
Incredible info and just another reason to justify the purchase. I wanted it for wildlife during camping and hiking but this will stay on for portraits as well over my 35mm prime. Thank you for sharing this!
Love this! My problem, though, is that in shooting families on the beach here in Hawaii, I find I can't really go much further out than 50mm, otherwise my peeps can't hear me very well above the wind, waves, and other family chaos haha
On the Canon 2.8 70-200 mk2 I can go down to 1/40th sec at 200mm. One thing that might help other than the IS is the fact it's so heavy. I even get some pin sharp shots without IS even on at 1/80th. Only downside of these lenses is this weight and bulk which makes primes a lot more attractive, especially for events or if you have an assistant and/or another camera body set up with a different prime.
The cheapest way to do this in Canon is your favorite crop sensor camera and the wonderful 135mm L lens. That gets you to 216mm full frame equivalent focal length.
Amateur Hobbyist here ...The 200mm picture has thinned down the model @3:42 considerably (her face ) than the 70MM.Of the 3 at 35mm she looks real skinny..Is this because the focal length was f1.8 in the 1st one? The second question is With the same F2.8 Longer focal length produces skinnier image ..Personally my wife would prefer the thinnest face :)
it's all about choosing what you want the focus of the photo to be. If you want the model to be the focus you use a low f stop so you blurr the background. Otherwise it is going to be distracting.
You did miss the part where the photographer explained exactly why he wanted to get rid of distracting elements. I keep finding comments that are just plain idiotic whenever a photographer outlines his/her preference in lens use. Luca Agati is one of those completely ........s.
I think there is the alternative option for a FF camera with 70-200mm, Corp sensor camera with a 135mm lens will do the same job. I prefare the prime lens
The 200 makes her face a lot chubbier tho. Or maybe the 35 slims her down. Idk the way mm effects size and shape is always an interesting factor that all comes down to your own style
Ó hát istenem....... Kösz szépen..... Egy👍 akinek szüksége van ilyen oktatóvideókra az nyilván egy kezdő. Ami azt jelenti hogy többnyire sem ilyen vázra sem ilyen objektívre nem lesz közel sem elegendő pénze. Kettő✌️aki meg MÁR ilyet használ annak meg régen nincs szüksége ilyesmire....
That's a great review with an excellent lens. However let me ask you a question: Due to the focus breathing of this lens at 150mm, which is rather 135mm than a real 150mm, is it better to use a prime lens like the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 which is a lighter, smaller, faster lens with a fantastic bokeh and unique separation from the background (f/1.8 aperture) than using this beast? And if you could only afford to buy one lens, what would that be, the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 or the Sigma 135mm f/1.8?
Do these questions relate to portraits of women? If so, please do yourself and women a favor and chuck your 70 - 200 and your 135 into the rubbish bin..... unless you have clients who will actually pay you to make them appear wide, short, dumpy, and generally unattractive.
There's really no "rule" that says you "have" to shoot at a shutter speed equal to or higher than your focal length (for instance, shooting at or higher than 1/50th of a second with a 50mm prime) That being said there's also no rule saying when you should turn on your VC/VR/IS etc. You go by what you see. I have the Tamron 70-200 and I found at 200mm I don't have to turn on the vc until about 1/30th of a second. Above that I am still getting consistently sharp photos and I'm on an aps-c sensor (which effectively multiplies my focal length by 1.5).
Apparently you can only use photoshop to remove the fire hydrant when shooting with the 70-200! LOL . And you could've positioned her against the wall in the first place, also no distracting sky.... LOL And what’s the point about banging on about a beautiful cobblestone street and then not using it as an element in your shots, why did you bother changing streets? I get the feeling this is less about pro tips and more about selling gear! That’s my humble opinion. 😉
I'd say the 70-200 is huge and heavy. It's also very disengaging with the subject when you shoot at the longer end. I'd much prefer a 135 f2 or 85 f1.4.
I've wanted to get a Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 A for my Canon 80D for a while now, but I'm starting to think that VC on the Tamron could be really advantageous.... The problem is I'd need to upgrade to a full-frame first or that f/2.8 would look like f/4.0 :/
Agree with you but I would say a 85 or 50mm prime lens 1.4 are as good as 70-200mm for shooting portraits as the background would be blurry too. Right?!
Patrick, I have a question for you... What do you think about me using my 70 to 200 mm Nikon lens with my d500? (This would be for portrait photography!)
I agree but a Sony FE 70-200 2.8 cost $2,600. Compare that to the Sony FE 85 1.8 that only cost $550 its hard to think if its really worth it. Good example though.
No offence meant, but why can't the model move to the left so she actually covers the fire hydrant with her torso? If you shift your frame a bit to the left, would that unbalance your composition?
The video doesn't really count when you take a full body shot on the 35mm and a half body portrait on the 200mm, wouldn't that make it a whole different aspect and change the background.
Did you calibrate the Tamron before the shoot? You did have to bring that EXPENSIVE I DONT have, Speedlight for the shot??? Why not an off-camera flash or on-camera flash for those of us that don't have that beautiful light. :(
Yo tengo un 33mm 1.4 y poco dinero, así que tengo que pensar muy bien cuál pueda ser el próximo lente que compre. Me interesa tomar retratos de niños y algunos animales, pero me parece que 200mm puede ser algo corto para eso, o no?
Nice tutorial but don't you think that increasing the final length is simply making the photograph a little cramped. I think there is a reason why the 85mm is considered as the sweet spot for portrait photography
If you are shooting portraits of women, trust me 85mm is not the sweet spot unless you are attempting to make anorexic supermodels appear healthier. 50mm is the sweet spot for 99% of women, and I shoot over 5000 images of women every week as a fashion photographer. 85mm has been promoted as a "portrait" lens, because lens companies wanted to sell more lenses, and many photographers already had the 50mm. And that's the reason and the only reason why the 85/90mm lens was touted as THE portrait lens. If you doubt this, go shoot a half length horizontal (cinematic) portrait of your wife with a 50 and an 85 and ask her which portrait makes HER look more attractive. Don't tell her which lens is which, have the mask of her face and her nose pointing off axis by 20°, and make sure her waist and torso, and the mask of her face is clearly visible. She will pick the 50 guaranteed. Curiously, that may be the reason why the 50 was left out of this lens focal length comparison video, because there is no way in hell that a 3/4 length shot taken with a 200mm lens will look more flattering to the MODEL than the same shot taken with a 50mm lens.
It feels he is more into shoot at this focal so and so, Don't be too hard on yourself, there were many instances in video that only changing composition of those shot would result in better result instead of trying to sell us those lenses.
We have lots of 50mm portraits on our channel but I'd say the 50 is still too wide for most portraits. It tends to have a bit of a warp on the models when shot at 50.
I'm a professional fire hydrant photographer and I find this video offensive.
I'm a fire hydrant myself and find this video objectist
My mother was a fire hydrant and a 35mm lens killed her
Juan Quispe lol
i sexually identify myself as a 35mm f1.8mm lens and all the above posts are offensive
Juan Quispe that’s hot
I love the 70-200, but I HATE how heavy and massive it is. It’s like oh don’t mind me just out here with my bazooka
Nah it's good, people will be like "Oh wouldn't wanna get in the way of the photographer here."
I've shot portraits with a Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR for just that reason, and its light weight is a real blessing. Not as much bokeh at f4, of course, but you can always shoot a bit closer to compensate. I happen to prefer deeper background perspective, so f4 suits my style.
I have the Canon 70-200mm f4 which is a hell of a lot lighter than the 2.8 and takes great portraits wide open. Check it out online..
@@CockatooDude 3 months late but.... Yeah, if you sport a big camera+lens people usually stay away and give some space, of course theres always a couple who try to "steal" some angles with their cellphone (dont know really what, but if they dont interfere, im usually neutral).... the bad thing is.... big camera+lens is a bright neon flag for anyone interested in steal those heavy things out of your hand
@@juliojimenez6286 Yeah it does make you more of a target for thieves, although usually I look around periodically when I shoot in shadier places to compensate for it.
Finally a good video on why to use a 70-200mm for portraits. Glad you added light at the end was about to say just add OCF .
OCF stands for Off Camera Flash, if anyone's wondering. Took me a bit of experimenting in Google to work out what it stands for.
It’s my favorite lens
I use 70-200mm f/4.0 lenses (both Canon and Sony) on crop sensor and full frame Canon and Son cameras. Yes, this lens doesn't have an f/2.8 aperture but, using a long focal length and placing my subject critically, I can achieve background separation AND the lenses are quantum smaller and lighter in weight.
I have Sony and Canon 85mm f/1.8 lenses for a different rendering of my portraits. Wide open, these lenses are almost magical. An 85mm f/1.4 lens might be even more magical.
The 70-200 range is the best portrait range, but the longer end is best for giving a natural but flattering look to the face, with the wider end only for tight spaces. It is surprising how versatile it is in studio. But it is not my favorite. My favorite is the Canon 200 f2. That lens is ridiculously expensive but nothing touches it for portraits. That extra stop over the 2.8 zoom is pure heaven. The fact that it is sharper than the 2.8 zoom is a bonus. Few lenses are truly unique. That one is.
As a fashion photographer with 30 years of experience, I can absolutely assure you that unless you are a somewhat anorexic supermodel who's 5'-10" tall, weighs 110 pounds, and has really long legs, having your portrait shot at a subject-lens distance exceeding 9' will likely make you appear to be broad, short, dumpy, and fat, and your oval face will go roundish or squarish. And generally speaking, 135mm and 200mm lens are commonly used at distances that exceed 9'.
Therefore, if you are a typical average woman I would suggest that you request the photographer use a 50mm lens at closer distances if you are a bit over weight or a 70mm lens if you are at a healthy weight, and that they utilize shooting distances between 5' and 8'..... if you want to look your best in your portraits. On the other hand, if you are having gag photos shot and you want to appear really ugly in your photos, then by all means request that the photographer use their 200mm lens at long distances and you should be very satisfied.
Chances are extremely high that the photographer who enjoys their 200mm lens for portraits is really more enamored with the appearance of the creamy dreamy blown out background and is less concerned about YOUR appearance in your portrait. Please keep in mind that the background can always be blurrred during the post production and retouching stage, and does not have to be blurred to oblivion at the capture stage. So make sure the photographer understands that you are paying for the portrait, and that you want to look YOUR best. 135mm and 200mm lenses are lenses for sports and wildlife photography, not portrait photography.
Wow. The moody shot was amazing. The beige and blues were beautiful!
Dude great explanation. I was stressing about buying an 85mm 1.4 for portraits. But after seeing this and owning the 70-200 g2 myself I think I'll just get better using the 70-200. On a side note your model is extremely gorgeous.
The model is extremely gorgeous and could be a Playboy model or in Victoria's Secret, but is there a single photo in this lengthy video that truly represents the full potential of this model?
The model is incredibly beautiful.
Looks like a go to portrait lens, thank you Patrick, great video!
Did someone notice that with the increased focal length the temperature of the last washing of the models shirt increased quit a bit too? Have a look at the comparison at 3:40.
I love my 70-200 Canon 2.8L. it is the workhorse in my bag. Thanks Patrick for the great video.
Great video, thanks. One suggestion for the future, remember to explain that there will be a significant difference when using these lenses on a crop sensor camera. To get the same angle of view as you show here at 200mm on your ff camera you would be at around 130mm on a typical crop sensor model.
What does that mean?
I’m kinda of slow
@@brahbrah908 There are a number of videos that explain it really well but how I think of different sensor sizes in cameras is this. All cameras with a lens attached to it are effectively identical regardless of the sensor. The lenses (let's assume for now they are all full frame lenses) all focus at the same distance behind the lens, and they all produce a circular image bigger than the sensor. Depending on the focal length of the lenses the circular image will show more (wider angle, smaller focal length) or less (narrower angle, larger focal length) of the scene it's pointed at. Now think of what size of sensor is at that place. A bigger sensor will have more of the image projected on it than a smaller one. As a result the image you get from a smaller sensor will show less of the scene than a larger sensor even though the lens is the same. The smaller sensor image will look like it is "zoomed in" compared with it's larger brother. In the case of a 200mm lens the image a full frame sensor camera will make will look similar to that of a shorter 130mm lens on a crop sensor model. If we put the 200mm lens on a crop sensor camera the image produced will be similar to a full frame camera with a 350mm lens. I'm sure I've done a poor job explaining this but as I say there are plenty of videos that explain it better but it is really important to understand when you have a crop sensor camera and are trying to duplicate the results of a tutorial where the photographer is using a full frame model. Anyway, hope this helps, good luck and happy snapping.
Recently i accompanied a friend fashion photographer to shoot models, he handed me 1dx with 200 mm for additional photos.
damm the combo was bloody so heavy even with neck strap that i keep falling on the models @lol
full day fashion shoot is a mastery of mind body and soul... respect to all wedding / fashion photographers...
PS: Lessons i learned,
Take own snacks (for models also), water bottles, hat, a folding high chair, monopod instead of heavy tripod
always align all 4 lines > background-model-your eye-camera eye
and talk to the model, give her cues when you shoot and give her positive feedback for better shots
Many models are so beautiful but pose and expression are not that good... pose and expression are all what sets apart...
*proceeds to order canon 70-200mm after watching this video*
Incredible info and just another reason to justify the purchase. I wanted it for wildlife during camping and hiking but this will stay on for portraits as well over my 35mm prime. Thank you for sharing this!
Your 35mm prime will be the lens you use if you want to make a woman feel gorgeous. Only use your 200mm if you want revenge.
IDK why but the 35mm shots looked good, maybe it was because of the background
Love the 70-200 Tamron for Portrait. Got this marvelous bokeh in the Pics ....🙏🏼
I love 70-200 vertical straight gold
Ur doing very useful explaining thank u sir
Great lens, some real cool shots there
You're like the Howard Wolowitz of photography 😁
I'm a beginner and really understood your explanation! Thank you.
can we get pat to make his own youtube channel and he just drops all his knowledge in it!? he's my favorite fstopper.
MrPwnedo thank man, glad you appreciate what I do. I'll try to do more like this
Thumbs up fro the GnR shirt.
One of my favorite albums of all time....locomotive for the win!
Fstoppers Dude. Same. We're best friends now.
Love this! My problem, though, is that in shooting families on the beach here in Hawaii, I find I can't really go much further out than 50mm, otherwise my peeps can't hear me very well above the wind, waves, and other family chaos haha
On the Canon 2.8 70-200 mk2 I can go down to 1/40th sec at 200mm. One thing that might help other than the IS is the fact it's so heavy. I even get some pin sharp shots without IS even on at 1/80th. Only downside of these lenses is this weight and bulk which makes primes a lot more attractive, especially for events or if you have an assistant and/or another camera body set up with a different prime.
That flash is awesome.
You also consider on apperture also
The cheapest way to do this in Canon is your favorite crop sensor camera and the wonderful 135mm L lens. That gets you to 216mm full frame equivalent focal length.
best video about photography I've ever watched haha thanks man!
Amateur Hobbyist here ...The 200mm picture has thinned down the model @3:42 considerably (her face ) than the 70MM.Of the 3 at 35mm she looks real skinny..Is this because the focal length was f1.8 in the 1st one? The second question is With the same F2.8 Longer focal length produces skinnier image ..Personally my wife would prefer the thinnest face :)
would this still apply to a 70-300 mm lens with f 4-5.6 and no VR?
"we are in a beautiful location, so in order to make the photo look better i'm going to completely blur the background " -_-
it's all about choosing what you want the focus of the photo to be.
If you want the model to be the focus you use a low f stop so you blurr the background.
Otherwise it is going to be distracting.
You did miss the part where the photographer explained exactly why he wanted to get rid of distracting elements. I keep finding comments that are just plain idiotic whenever a photographer outlines his/her preference in lens use. Luca Agati is one of those completely ........s.
he wants to shoot portrait....not scenery. duh~
kevinr ruiters You are an idiot who did not get the joke. So it is YOU are one of those completely assholes
Very funny. hahah
What a beautiful model
This was soooo great! So much shared knowledge! Thanks!I loved seeing the cobblestone streets in Charleston.
I've never liked a 35 prime, 50 is my go to prime but 24-70 is overall my child.
Was the 70-200m too heavy during your walk to Mount Doom? Was 200mm enough to get a good shot of sauron?
I think there is the alternative option for a FF camera with 70-200mm, Corp sensor camera with a 135mm lens will do the same job. I prefare the prime lens
What a model !!!!
Really great tips. You explain things very well. Thanks for sharing.
The 200 makes her face a lot chubbier tho. Or maybe the 35 slims her down. Idk the way mm effects size and shape is always an interesting factor that all comes down to your own style
Lee Cason exactly! He's shooting 200 to get a ” more pleasing background” at the expense of the model.
But too wide, and you risk big noses
Nice shot. She looks great.
can you do this for video, or it's similar?
5:40 Yes, there are MANY things going on there, it's called Kirsten :)
Very beautiful model!
Wow great work man
Thak you FStoppers. You saved me!!!!!!!!!!!!!
great video, amazing tips and tricks, will try this out next shoot!
70-200 is good if your using Full Frame. :)
You are right dude, on a crop it's not so good in blurrin background. Especially with f/4.
I pretty much use my 70-200 for sports photography. What would you suggest for a lens on a crop sensor for this kind of photography?
@@nighthawk20011 50mm will do the job.
great one Patrick. these lens will be my go to for next year)
Hello Sir , Very Useful , you are a good teacher . Thank You
Wow. Great instruction thanks
Great instruction. Thank you!
Ó hát istenem....... Kösz szépen..... Egy👍 akinek szüksége van ilyen oktatóvideókra az nyilván egy kezdő. Ami azt jelenti hogy többnyire sem ilyen vázra sem ilyen objektívre nem lesz közel sem elegendő pénze. Kettő✌️aki meg MÁR ilyet használ annak meg régen nincs szüksége ilyesmire....
That's a great review with an excellent lens. However let me ask you a question: Due to the focus breathing of this lens at 150mm, which is rather 135mm than a real 150mm, is it better to use a prime lens like the Sigma 135mm f/1.8 which is a lighter, smaller, faster lens with a fantastic bokeh and unique separation from the background (f/1.8 aperture) than using this beast? And if you could only afford to buy one lens, what would that be, the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 G2 or the Sigma 135mm f/1.8?
Do these questions relate to portraits of women? If so, please do yourself and women a favor and chuck your 70 - 200 and your 135 into the rubbish bin..... unless you have clients who will actually pay you to make them appear wide, short, dumpy, and generally unattractive.
really didactic , thanks mate!!
Very useful - thanks!
There's really no "rule" that says you "have" to shoot at a shutter speed equal to or higher than your focal length (for instance, shooting at or higher than 1/50th of a second with a 50mm prime) That being said there's also no rule saying when you should turn on your VC/VR/IS etc. You go by what you see. I have the Tamron 70-200 and I found at 200mm I don't have to turn on the vc until about 1/30th of a second. Above that I am still getting consistently sharp photos and I'm on an aps-c sensor (which effectively multiplies my focal length by 1.5).
Apparently you can only use photoshop to remove the fire hydrant when shooting with the 70-200! LOL . And you could've positioned her against the wall in the first place, also no distracting sky.... LOL And what’s the point about banging on about a beautiful cobblestone street and then not using it as an element in your shots, why did you bother changing streets? I get the feeling this is less about pro tips and more about selling gear! That’s my humble opinion. 😉
and you could of
Tobias Beer Indeed!
and you could HAVE
Now...how do I get her to stand around for me while I learn how to do this?
Great Video.
Love that Guns N Roses shirt! Use your illusion is my bestest album.rock on!
Thank you!!!!! this was very helpful!!!!
I'd say the 70-200 is huge and heavy. It's also very disengaging with the subject when you shoot at the longer end. I'd much prefer a 135 f2 or 85 f1.4.
I've wanted to get a Sigma 50-100 f/1.8 A for my Canon 80D for a while now, but I'm starting to think that VC on the Tamron could be really advantageous.... The problem is I'd need to upgrade to a full-frame first or that f/2.8 would look like f/4.0 :/
Agree with you but I would say a 85 or 50mm prime lens 1.4 are as good as 70-200mm for shooting portraits as the background would be blurry too. Right?!
You can blur the background with a kit lens if You know how. All depends on the type of a portrait.
There are many lenses with shallow DOF.
Enjoyed a lot.
Thank you for this. I now love you.
beautiful model..tommorow i will buy a camera...
Oh man you are awesome. May triune god bless for your efforts..
Patrick, I have a question for you... What do you think about me using my 70 to 200 mm Nikon lens with my d500? (This would be for portrait photography!)
I like the context of 35 mm though sometimes.
I agree but a Sony FE 70-200 2.8 cost $2,600. Compare that to the Sony FE 85 1.8 that only cost $550 its hard to think if its really worth it. Good example though.
No offence meant, but why can't the model move to the left so she actually covers the fire hydrant with her torso? If you shift your frame a bit to the left, would that unbalance your composition?
Great video!!
Excellent video!
Great video!
The video doesn't really count when you take a full body shot on the 35mm and a half body portrait on the 200mm, wouldn't that make it a whole different aspect and change the background.
why dont u use a 85mm prime instead?
Did you calibrate the Tamron before the shoot? You did have to bring that EXPENSIVE I DONT have, Speedlight for the shot??? Why not an off-camera flash or on-camera flash for those of us that don't have that beautiful light. :(
Can I get the same effect with a prime 200mm?
Which camera and lens you used for this video???
Yo tengo un 33mm 1.4 y poco dinero, así que tengo que pensar muy bien cuál pueda ser el próximo lente que compre. Me interesa tomar retratos de niños y algunos animales, pero me parece que 200mm puede ser algo corto para eso, o no?
Nice tutorial but don't you think that increasing the final length is simply making the photograph a little cramped. I think there is a reason why the 85mm is considered as the sweet spot for portrait photography
If you are shooting portraits of women, trust me 85mm is not the sweet spot unless you are attempting to make anorexic supermodels appear healthier. 50mm is the sweet spot for 99% of women, and I shoot over 5000 images of women every week as a fashion photographer. 85mm has been promoted as a "portrait" lens, because lens companies wanted to sell more lenses, and many photographers already had the 50mm. And that's the reason and the only reason why the 85/90mm lens was touted as THE portrait lens. If you doubt this, go shoot a half length horizontal (cinematic) portrait of your wife with a 50 and an 85 and ask her which portrait makes HER look more attractive. Don't tell her which lens is which, have the mask of her face and her nose pointing off axis by 20°, and make sure her waist and torso, and the mask of her face is clearly visible. She will pick the 50 guaranteed. Curiously, that may be the reason why the 50 was left out of this lens focal length comparison video, because there is no way in hell that a 3/4 length shot taken with a 200mm lens will look more flattering to the MODEL than the same shot taken with a 50mm lens.
I bought one 70-200 canon FL4
Did you have to get a permit to shoot this video in that town?
Hello Sir, can you tell me which light( the flash Profoto) did you use in this video?
Perfect Dude
Great video and information
Which camera are you using ?
It feels he is more into shoot at this focal so and so, Don't be too hard on yourself, there were many instances in video that only changing composition of those shot would result in better result instead of trying to sell us those lenses.
What camera are you using?
great video. thank u for uploading it.
Where does the 50mm prime, which is supposed to be ideal for portraits, fit into this line of thinking? Thanks.
We have lots of 50mm portraits on our channel but I'd say the 50 is still too wide for most portraits. It tends to have a bit of a warp on the models when shot at 50.
Can u tell me that which lens is best for blurry background even shoot from near or far tamron 70 300mm or 70 200mm???
At 3:56 is there that much compression of the background with this lens or did the model move from then first image to crop of some of the background?
Thank you for your video.
Wow she's tall 🤩!!
What do you use to film with?
Sir which lens you refered for canon 6d mark 2?
Tamron 70-200/canon 70-200?
can i use it in my canon 200d or any normal body?