LOOK what "landscape" and "wildlife" lens did!!

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

04/07/2009 08:12:54 PM · #1

Hey just wanted to show how a 10-22mm lens and a 70-200mm lens performed with a model shoot. This is Jess. A very excellent model on her way to a successful career.

70-200mm..

and the 10-22mm..

Dave

K3Master

Pentax K-3

04/07/2009 08:31:10 PM · #2

I believe that a good many people use a 70-200mm lens for portraits. Usually candids, granted, but the value of them is not to be denied. One has to be careful with the longer end not to flatten out the subject, of course, but I've seen some fantastic (not discounting yours!) portraits using such a lens.

04/08/2009 08:15:49 AM · #3

Originally posted by K10DGuy:

You are right about the long end flattening out. Fortunately I had enough space to walk in and out as not to zoom in too much. I have some more shots but I am saving for Free Study.

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

04/08/2009 07:11:47 PM · #4

bump

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/08/2009 07:36:48 PM · #5

I say you did great using a window and reflector as your light sources. The one in which you say you used a flash (i.e. 780393) is probably my least favorite in regards to the lighting but they are all good.

04/09/2009 07:08:45 AM · #6

Originally posted by yanko:

Thanks! NO pixel fungus this time around.

pixelpig

Sony Alpha a55

Sony DT 1.8/50mm SAM

04/09/2009 07:58:32 AM · #7

Nice work here. I have read of this, looks like it works out great. The light is perfect. Isn't it a special treat to have a model who knows how to work in front of the camera?

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

04/09/2009 03:15:56 PM · #8

Originally posted by pixelpig:

Nice work here. I have read of this, looks like it works out great. The light is perfect. Isn't it a special treat to have a model who knows how to work in front of the camera?

Yes it is a treat to work with someone who is comfortable in front of the camera. I could have shot those eyes all day!

MattO

Nikon D4

04/09/2009 03:41:05 PM · #9

Several of the photos look really over post processed. Of course some of that may be personal taste/opinion. Also the 70-200 is a pretty normal portrait lens on the FF cameras, and is in no way a Wildlife camera, way too short for that kind of lens. Normal wildlife lens starts about 500MM+.

Matt

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

04/09/2009 03:56:11 PM · #10

Originally posted by MattO:

You are right about the processing to taste. So for these shots the processing suits the images. Fashion mags are plastered with images of clean and overprocessed pics. In actual fact the processing I did was not extensive. The makeup artist actually did a fantstic job with the skin. The only "major" work I did was in the eyes and that was just to make them pop some.

How can you say that his lens is in no way a wildlife lens? Look at these picsCanon70-200mm and tell me that it is not used for wildlife. Granted, I know that it is a little short for some wildlife aficinados, but still effective.

Message edited by author 2009-04-09 15:57:50.

MattO

Nikon D4

04/09/2009 04:05:31 PM · #11

Originally posted by LVicari:

How can you say that his lens is in no way a wildlife lens? Look at these picsCanon70-200mm and tell me that it is not used for wildlife. Granted, I know that it is a little short for some wildlife aficinados, but still effective.

Most of those photos in that gallery, if you were brave enough you could literally walk up and pet those animals. AlexSaberi's photos are good examples of those. You can literally get within feet of those they are at a park. Scalverts is in a zoo as are many of the others. Venture to a wildlife forum and look at the exif of most photos, most are using long primes and teleconverters to get reach. I won't get into what is "real Wildlife" and what is not, however when most photographers think of wildlife and what they would shoot it with even budget photographers are using 50-500, 150-500, 400, or longer lens. I'd not even attempt wildlife with my 300MM without a TC attached to it, and I prefer 600mm or longer lens.

Matt

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/09/2009 04:08:30 PM · #12

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by LVicari:

How can you say that his lens is in no way a wildlife lens? Look at these picsCanon70-200mm and tell me that it is not used for wildlife. Granted, I know that it is a little short for some wildlife aficinados, but still effective.

Most of those photos in that gallery, if you were brave enough you could literally walk up and pet those animals. AlexSaberi's photos are good examples of those. You can literally get within feet of those they are at a park. Scalverts is in a zoo as are many of the others. Venture to a wildlife forum and look at the exif of most photos, most are using long primes and teleconverters to get reach. I won't get into what is "real Wildlife" and what is not, however when most photographers think of wildlife and what they would shoot it with even budget photographers are using 50-500, 150-500, 400, or longer lens. I'd not even attempt wildlife with my 300MM without a TC attached to it, and I prefer 600mm or longer lens.

Matt

You are right. I use the term wildlife loosely.

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

04/09/2009 04:09:19 PM · #13

The 70-200 2.8 is my favourite portrait lens by a mile!

04/09/2009 04:14:27 PM · #14

Originally posted by doctornick:

The 70-200 2.8 is my favourite portrait lens by a mile!

Man! those are great! this lens is new to me and I am quite surprised at its performance. I never thought of it as a portrait lens, but after seeing the results I wouldn't think twice before putting on my body for any portrait.