i am about just about to purchase a canon 300mm f/4 IS lens and wanted to use it for portraits

i am curious to see examples of portraits taken at this focal length. also, would love to hear what you guys think about shooting that far away.

I just shot a marching band competition this past weekend with a 300 2.8. So we're talking about 20,000 300mm binge portraits.

Unless you need to take portraits from afar for whatever reason or want crazy background blur that you won't get with a shorter lens, I'm not sure why you'd need such a long lens. If you're used to shooting portraits with a shorter lens like a 70-200, you'll find that 300mm gets really tight, really quick.

I prefer shorter lenses so that it would allow me to get closer to my subjects.

As far as sample images, I'm reviewing my shots now and may post a few up shortly.

I was thinking about it for better creamy blur while having a deeper depth of field. Would love to see how the lenses look at that distance

I took a couple headshots with this lens way back in the day before I knew what I was doing. It was nice enough, IQ wise, but the focal length is not very practical for portrait purposes.

A 135L gives better results in more situations, and is far more practical in terms of working distance and aperture.

deepbluejh wrote:
I took a couple headshots with this lens way back in the day before I knew what I was doing. It was nice enough, IQ wise, but the focal length is not very practical for portrait purposes.

A 135L gives better results in more situations, and is far more practical in terms of working distance and aperture.


that is a good observation... damn the 135mm have gone up in price over the last two years

however, isnt the depth of field at 135 @ 2.0 more shallow than the 300 @ 4.0?

what if i am trying to get two people in focus and still try to maintain the creamy bokeh... is that possible?

Yes longer lenses at the same framing and f/stop will give the same DOF, but a more blurred background. If I was to estimate, I'd say the 135 at f/2.5 or so would give the same amount of blur as the 300 at f/4.0 (this is a huge guess )

I'm currently debating getting a 200 f/2L IS or a 300 f/2.8L IS for portraits, just to get that blurry background and telephoto compression

I find that the 85L II shots force me to get too close sometimes. At f/1.2, the keeper rate for focus is extremely low on a 5D Mark II, I keep on having to burn through the shutter to get in focus pics

The decisive factor for me may be my cheap ebay tiggers...I think they won't have the range to handle the 300mm FOV

300mm will be very challenging for portraits because of the distance required. As you increase the distance from the subject, obstacles can get in the way, elevations change (you're too high or too low), stray objects in the foreground enter in the frame, it's unlikely that a pleasing fill flash effect can be (easily) achieved from that distance...

Another option is a larger negative. For example, a 200mm lens on a 645 has about the same FOV as a 135mm lens on a 35mm camera. Mostly likely with the 200mm lens on 645 you'll step into the shot, further boosting the shallow DOF effect.

I vote for the 135L on a FF dSLR. And if you have the time (and inclination), research medium format. It might be a good fit for your vision & style.

choiboyogg wrote:
what if i am trying to get two people in focus and still try to maintain the creamy bokeh... is that possible?

Move the background further back

To answer your original question, here is a shot take with the Nikon 300mm f/4 on a crop body.

andrew_rs wrote:
choiboyogg wrote:
what if i am trying to get two people in focus and still try to maintain the creamy bokeh... is that possible?

Move the background further back



oh ok, but then that is more dependent on the focal length and not f/2.0

Here is a sports shot with the 300 for an idea anyway...from 2005, sheesh, where does the time go! But regardless, that is one of Canon's finest lenses. But really, it is too long for nearly any "protrait" work you are going to do...IMHO.

A 70-200 2.8 IS is what I use the most...sharp, the zoom is easy for framing, very handy. I use the 85 1.2 most after that. The 135 after that...but the zoom is just so easy to use...

ADDED:

Ooops...you said 300 f4...oh well, here is one with at 2.8. Maybe is it useful for comparisons...

The 300/4IS is a sunshine lens, very sharp and very nice boken nice color






+ kenko 1.4X

Near/far size perspective is a function of relative distances between the near and far objects. In portraiture shooting from further back will make the nose appear smaller relative to the ears in an full face pose, or when the face is at an oblique angle make the far side of the face look larger than it would relative to the nearer nose when shot from a closer distance.

All faces are different shapes, some more naturally symmetrical than others, and part of finding the most flattering look involves looking at the five "prime" views of a person's face -- left profile, left oblique, full, right oblique, left profile -- from different shooting distances to let your brain, by comparison, tell you which is most flattering. WIth experience you'll be able to look at a face and know when shooting from further away with a long lens would be more flattering.

The conventional wisdom for portrait FL of 85-150mm is based on a FF 35mm camera producing in camera crops ranging from loose H&S to tight head shots from a distance of around 8ft, which produces "normal" (as seen by eye) perspective. With the 300mm you will find that by the time you get far enough back to get the desired in-camera crop it will be so far away that noticeable near/far size distortion will be evident.

Chuck

Hey KKfung is that your wife in that picture? if so did you notice her nipples are showing?.

Not my wife but I did notice her nipples are showing

The photo removed.

300/2.8L IS @f/2.8 on 1D Mark III, not exactly portrait though

KKFung wrote:
Not my wife but I did notice her nipples are showing

The photo removed.

D@mn, missed that

But luckily the crotch showing in Peter's shot makes up for that

Daan B wrote:
KKFung wrote:
Not my wife but I did notice her nipples are showing

The photo removed.

D@mn, missed that

But luckily the crotch showing in Peter's shot makes up for that

You have to totally delete your post to remove it. Anybody can click on the "view previous version" and see the picture there.

nikey wrote:
Daan B wrote:
KKFung wrote:
Not my wife but I did notice her nipples are showing

The photo removed.

D@mn, missed that

But luckily the crotch showing in Peter's shot makes up for that

You have to totally delete your post to remove it. Anybody can click on the "view previous version" and see the picture there.

Sorry again, I deleted it in the photobucket now

Why it still can come out in "view previous version"??

And I can't find a way to totally delete my post?