I don't really care about the manual or auto focus as much. My main priority is the actual rendering of the image. Through your point of view, which would you say would be more pleasing for portraiture?
p.1 #2 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
For fashion photography, I'd use a zoom lens for convenience, and deep DoF is mostly required. Therefore, a fast prime is usually not as useful as a zoom here.
p.1 #3 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
For fashion photos Canon 70-200mm f2.8 (IS or non-IS) is considered as standart. Last 70-200mm f2.8 IS MK2 is really good lens.
For controlled lightning and slower work, maybe Zeiss 85mm f1.4 wouldnt be bad. Tho my favorite would be most likely 100mm f2 Contax. But that would be really expensive..
From those you listed, I kinda like 85mm f1.2 Canon. Zeiss 35mm f1.4 might be good choice for indoors and when you wont have enough space. Other Zeiss might be bit problematic as they will show every skin problem that model has. Zeiss is bit unforgiving in this..
p.1 #4 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
I'd worry about the lighting, not lens signatures, because no art director I've ever worked with has cared in the slightest about the rendering/drawing style of a givens lens.
Thats frankly "cork sniffer" talk (don't mean that in a bad way) for online photo forums.
p.1 #5 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
You may not worry about the auto/manual focus issue, but my guess is you will lose lots of 'right moments' trying to pull focus unless you are shooting stopped down a long way!
I'd go the Canons - and probably a zoom anyway
For portraits, you usually go 80-135 range anyway.
p.1 #6 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
Yes, AF and IS will be invaluable.
Also, I'm sure you would find use for the compressed telephoto effects of 300/2.8L IS.
I'd be looking at 35L 50L 85L 135L 300/2.8L and 70-200/2.8L IS II.
Personally, I'm more of a zoom guy, and would probably use 16-35L II and 24-70L along with the 70-200 above. But if you think super shallow DOF is the main thing, then the primes it would have to be!
p.1 #8 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
I agree on the spend money (and time) on lighting and post but would have thought the photographer's eye at a particular FL was critical to extracting the art. I'm often surprised by the reference to chance and while I appreciate chance as a street photographer, I'm a little disappointed that I would hear it in places that I might regard as higher-art.
When using a FL I see the scene in that FL and use the whole image frame. I dont crop and my few that are, give a sense that they are incomplete and a common appearance I see in images taken with a zoom. I have a very strong ambition to cultivate a high-art in my pictures and with the billions of generic images out there believe its necessary to differentiate and add a value that might not suit the generic taste. I accept that a photo editor might not care to take the same chance but I'm financially able to not care and know that there is little satisfaction in taking mail catalogue pics.
We'll see how I go, proof in the pudding and all that but I'm taking a path that lets me spend some passion and I dont want to be another fat and miserable tog on anti-depressants (something I saw recently).
I borrowed a 70-200vr this weekend and thought ...jeez, I'm gonna need a ton of Prozak and bench presses to enjoy it.
For fashion, I'll even give the zf15 a crack at it, the 21 and 25/2 absolutely, the 35/1.4 maybe(and likely needed) but the 50/2 and 100/2 would be indispensable.
I'll design my lighting and scenes and so I'll examine the content and objective closely. My third-eye will see what is necessary and in what FL ...and I would be utterly devastated if my images are the consequence of luck above skill. If this is the outcome then I'll resign myself to buying zooms.
Lastly, if a zf greater than 100mm ever eventuates ...then I'm in pig-muck heaven but something at the longer end is needed as part of a tool kit but maybe the limit to 100 keeps me in the creative zone.
We'll see if I have to sell out and eat my own heart.
p.1 #9 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
have to agree with ant here. maybe i'm just thinking of something different as fashion photography than the rest of you, i don't really see the need for zooms or autofocus at all in a studio/model environment (multiple cameras does sound wise though). i would also expect somebody planning on doing fashion work to already have their lighting squared away.
as far as canon versus zeiss goes, that would be a matter of taste and the look you want. if you don't already know which you'd prefer i'd rent to find out.
p.1 #10 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
98% of fashion work is just work, sure some art to it but its rare. We're not talking about high art capturing the essence portraiture like HCB.
This is a gear forum. Most lenses will do, studio and model time is $$$ and your clients aren't paying for radically new, just show off the clothes and models.
If you want to do "art" with fashion work, that would be something entirely different.
p.1 #11 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
FlyPenFly wrote:
98% of fashion work is just work, sure some art to it but its rare. We're not talking about high art capturing the essence portraiture like HCB.
This is a gear forum. Most lenses will do, studio and model time is $$$ and your clients aren't paying for radically new, just show off the clothes and models.
If you want to do "art" with fashion work, that would be something entirely different.
but fashion is art according to designers. and unlike say sports photography or wildlife photography, fashion photography is work that you can plan ahead for. i really don't understand the need for zooms or autofocus in fashion photography or product photography, there's no decisive moment unless your shooting a runway i guess.
p.1 #12 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
Maybe if you had lots of multiple bodies to load all your primes on but that sounds like a pain in the ass to be honest.
Often you want to switch from wide to normal to long to wide as you're trying different looks and angles quickly. You don't always know what FoV will be the best shot.
Fashion is art but its like you're taking pictures of Monets, not creating one.
p.1 #13 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
+100
Fashion photography is simply a job for a client about 99% of the time, and one that has to be done under the constraints of time and budget, not to mention pleasing the art director your working for which almost always already has a concept in place that your simply expected to execute.
When your paying the talent and production staff on an hourly basis few have the luxury to worry about their inner "artist". Its not an exercise in playing with a bag full of lenses, or any self indulgence.
In fact, with the exception of rather high end campaigns, the focus (pun...?) is actually on the clothing and making it look as good as possible. I can't tell you how many times I've had to reshoot shots that otherwise looked great in terms of lighting and pose just because the stylist didn't like how something was laying for a given shot.
Its basically akin to being a chef. For every one famous celebrity chef you may see on TV that has free reign and a seemingly unlimited budget/pantry to practice new areas of "gastronomy" there are 1000's of chef's working in corporate restaurants who are expected to crank out consistent food night after night and ensure food cost stay low.
Its also akin to being a commercial painter. 99.999% of the time a client is simply going to want their living room painted a pleasing color with nicely done trim and no paint dripped on the carpet. I imagine most go their whole career without someone telling them to go all Jackson Pollock and express themselves.
Maybe when they get home from work and trade the power roller and latex for a fine camelhair brush and some oils they can become "artist" on their canvas, but the rest of the time its a job.
Just take a look at the pro and lighting forums on this site. Do you see any of the discussions here about the subtle rendering differences of a given lens etc ? Comments on photos of "I just love how that lens draws" etc ?
FlyPenFly wrote:
98% of fashion work is just work, sure some art to it but its rare. We're not talking about high art capturing the essence portraiture like HCB.
This is a gear forum. Most lenses will do, studio and model time is $$$ and your clients aren't paying for radically new, just show off the clothes and models.
If you want to do "art" with fashion work, that would be something entirely different.
p.1 #14 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
sebboh wrote:
but fashion is art according to designers. and unlike say sports photography or wildlife photography, fashion photography is work that you can plan ahead for. i really don't understand the need for zooms or autofocus in fashion photography or product photography, there's no decisive moment unless your shooting a runway i guess.
A great deal of sports photography is actually planned for. You specifically plan for the shots your after, where to install a remote camera, where you expect the action to be etc.
Even during the heat of competition there is usually a given shot your after and a shooting location you want.
When Michael Phelps is going for gold #9 nearly every editor and picture desk staffer is going to want the reaction shot. 99% of the time that means shooting him as he looks up at the time on the jumbotron. They touch the wall, take a breath and then look up to see if they won, then its the reaction "money shot".
If you don't know what your going for, be it reactions, general stock coverage, touchdown's etc your simply leaving it to luck of being in the right spot at the right time. Luck is involved in all of it of course but you can greatly better your odds with a plan.
Agreed you don't per say "need" zooms for fashion work, but when a 70-200 covers a wide range of bases quickly and is optically fine, its hard to justify spending thousands more on a bag of fancy primes.
I guess being the Alt Forum, and few here being actual working photographers, many here have a hard time grasping that fact.
Lenses, the "process" of shooting, pixel peeping, etc are the passion here, for some in fact probably more so than the image themselves. Its a hobby, its a collection, its a way to interact and discuss similar interest with a like minded community.
Thats totally different than the typical mindset of trying to earn a living where its not about what you want, but rather what you need, what you can justify etc.
p.1 #15 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
millsart wrote:
A great deal of sports photography is actually planned for. You specifically plan for the shots your after, where to install a remote camera, where you expect the action to be etc.
Even during the heat of competition there is usually a given shot your after and a shooting location you want.
When Michael Phelps is going for gold #9 nearly every editor and picture desk staffer is going to want the reaction shot. 99% of the time that means shooting him as he looks up at the time on the jumbotron. They touch the wall, take a breath and then look up to see if they won, then its the reaction "money shot".
If you don't know what your going for, be it reactions, general stock coverage, touchdown's etc your simply leaving it to luck of being in the right spot at the right time. Luck is involved in all of it of course but you can greatly better your odds with a plan.
Agreed you don't per say "need" zooms for fashion work, but when a 70-200 covers a wide range of bases quickly and is optically fine, its hard to justify spending thousands more on a bag of fancy primes.
I guess being the Alt Forum, and few here being actual working photographers, many here have a hard time grasping that fact.
Lenses, the "process" of shooting, pixel peeping, etc are the passion here, for some in fact probably more so than the image themselves. Its a hobby, its a collection, its a way to interact and discuss similar interest with a like minded community.
Thats totally different than the typical mindset of trying to earn a living where its not about what you want, but rather what you need, what you can justify etc.
sorry, but you can't ask athletes for a replay and you can't tell them when to do things. with models you can and do. i don't see manual focus being any faster or slower that autofocus here.
i admit i haven't spent any time talking to fashion photographers since the digital revolution really took hold, but none of the ones i knew seemed to be particularly concerned with speed and they all brought multiple cameras with different lenses to shoots (well the ones with slrs did anyway).
i'd love to hear about how they shoot (not what gear they shoot) from somebody that actually does fashion full time now though, rather than people who shoot everything. i'm sure most dslr shooters use canikon zooms, because most of everybody that shoot dslrs shoot canikon zooms.
finally, why on earth would people on the lighting forum talk about lens rendering? it's the lighting forum. this is basically a lens forum, so people tend to talk about lenses.
p.1 #17 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
FlyPenFly wrote:
I was at an Armani shoot and they were using zooms.
A lot of the fashion photography isn't in studio but on location somewhere.
indeed, but all the ones i've been to the photographer scouted out before hand and knew the shots he (or highers up) wanted.
the question is not what do they use (because 90% or everybody uses zooms), but whether using primes would actually hamper them. i would think the best way to cover the most options would be a long zoom on one camera and a fast wide prime on the other with maybe a specialty lens (zoom or prime) on hand. if i knew what i wanted advance (as i've said the photographer did at every shoot i've been to), that would make a big difference.
p.1 #18 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
zooms definitely have advantage here. However, would the f2.8 be fast enough to freeze the fabric fluttering in the wind, long legs striding on the walkway, quick turn of the head on location?
All other factors can be post processed in, I guessed.
p.1 #19 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
ManWearPants wrote:
zooms definitely have advantage here. However, would the f2.8 be fast enough to freeze the fabric fluttering in the wind, long legs striding on the walkway, quick turn of the head on location?
All other factors can be post processed in, I guessed.
even on location usually the "wind" is fans with lights next to them and striding on the walkway is more for video and "journalists".
edit: but again maybe i have just seen a small subsample of fashion photography and maybe it doesn't exist anymore.
p.1 #20 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
My alt favorites for this type of shooting are my Contax N 85/1.4, my adapted ZA 135/1.8, C/Y 35/1.4, and 24/1.4G. The new ZE 35/1.4 would be a good choice too.
But I agree that zooms are much easier and more practical if doing a lot of fashion shooting.
But that would be really expensive..
Zeiss is bit unforgiving in this..