p.2 #2 · 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?
That's where the lighting comes in, I'd guess.
Also, I don't think faster apertures will get enough DOF for fashion shots most of the time.
p.2 #4 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
I've done a number of fashion assignments, and I definitely relied on autofocus for a couple of them. The best assignments are with fluid models, not the ones that hold a pose (boring). The more interesting "pseudoeditorial" have me capturing the canned motions and activities of the subjects, and for this AF is a must for me.
Also, in more challenging locations/shoots you don't get to pick exactly where you want to stand for frame, so a zoom is also very useful... Furthermore, focusing on the eyes at any aperture wider than 2.8 will typically blur the REAL subject, the clothes. This negates the need for fast glass, in most situations. Not to say I don't always have a fast 35 and 50 nearby (I do), its just that they are too shallow in 90% of scenarios, for fashion photography.
Clients don't care about "rendering", they care about creative (and accurate) capture. In other words, your answer is a 24-70 and a 70-200 (with a 50 on the side).
p.2 #5 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
I have to agree with pretty much like, what, everyone else now? AF is nice for fashion shooting but I'll add: if the set isn't your own. If it is then actually I think MF is better but if your shooting shows and stuff like that then AF...
p.2 #6 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
sebboh wrote:
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.
Because people in the lighting and pro forums, which I just merely mentioned as a source of reference and perspective for those in the alt forum, are the one's who are typically doing a majority of the paid fashion work, at least among FM'er's. You could go to Model Mayhem etc and see the same thing.
Look, I get that you love shooting alt MF glass. I know thats your hobby, passion, obsession etc. Its far more fun, enjoyable, satisfying etc to use to use some old Rokkor's on a NEX, and you have some amazing images taken with them.
Getting some adapters for the mirrorless platform of choice and trying out a bunch of different lenses is part of the fun. As is the fun of finding an old Soviet Jupiter 3 for $30 on Ebay etc.
Having specific image threads dedicated solely to a given lens, or brand of lens is fun and those are some of the most popular and long running threads here.
However, that same aesthetic and mentality simply doesn't translate to commercial work in most cases.
Lets be blunt, camera gear per the Alt forum is to an extent masculine jewelry, much akin to watches. Nothing wrong with that mentality mind you, but its simply at odds with how most professionals merely view their gear as tools.
I know most here eschew the though of a big bulky DSLR and zoom lenses, find the likes of "Canikon" so pedestrian and boring. There is no unique style to set one apart, no retro flavor, no rarity or exclusivity (sans the hard to find D800e) and no real history.
Lets face it, many here can tell you exactly who designed a given Leica lens of a given era. Knowing that history is kind of cool. Its makes having that Mandler era lens more enjoyable. Who has a clue who's behind the latest 70-200 f2.8 VR II Nikon lens. Probably a huge team and a bunch of computers.
Its a heavy, boring, mass produced product that while having excellent optical qualities lacks any sort of real soul or character.
Its simply a professional tool and naturally isn't going to appeal to the Alt mentality. If it did why would one be here reading on the alt forum right ??
p.2 #7 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
It's not my field, but I look at fashion photography as a sub-set of advertising/commercial photography.
If the shots are in-studio, then the lighting is controlled, and MF will be viable. Due to the electronic flash, IS isn't needed for much studio work. Zooms could still be the most versatile, but Macro lenses might be assests for their sharpness, even at non-macro range. Alt lenses might have more opportunity in these controlled situations.
On-location, the shift is to AF and IS, with supplimental lighting as fill. I've seen more blurred backgrounds and telephoto look on location shots, at least that's how it seems -- less emphasis on the background details.
p.2 #8 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
millsart wrote:
Because people in the lighting and pro forums, which I just merely mentioned as a source of reference and perspective for those in the alt forum, are the one's who are typically doing a majority of the paid fashion work, at least among FM'er's. You could go to Model Mayhem etc and see the same thing.
Look, I get that you love shooting alt MF glass. I know thats your hobby, passion, obsession etc. Its far more fun, enjoyable, satisfying etc to use to use some old Rokkor's on a NEX, and you have some amazing images taken with them.
Getting some adapters for the mirrorless platform of choice and trying out a bunch of different lenses is part of the fun. As is the fun of finding an old Soviet Jupiter 3 for $30 on Ebay etc.
Having specific image threads dedicated solely to a given lens, or brand of lens is fun and those are some of the most popular and long running threads here.
However, that same aesthetic and mentality simply doesn't translate to commercial work in most cases.
Lets be blunt, camera gear per the Alt forum is to an extent masculine jewelry, much akin to watches. Nothing wrong with that mentality mind you, but its simply at odds with how most professionals merely view their gear as tools.
I know most here eschew the though of a big bulky DSLR and zoom lenses, find the likes of "Canikon" so pedestrian and boring. There is no unique style to set one apart, no retro flavor, no rarity or exclusivity (sans the hard to find D800e) and no real history.
Lets face it, many here can tell you exactly who designed a given Leica lens of a given era. Knowing that history is kind of cool. Its makes having that Mandler era lens more enjoyable. Who has a clue who's behind the latest 70-200 f2.8 VR II Nikon lens. Probably a huge team and a bunch of computers.
Its a heavy, boring, mass produced product that while having excellent optical qualities lacks any sort of real soul or character.
Its simply a professional tool and naturally isn't going to appeal to the Alt mentality. If it did why would one be here reading on the alt forum right ?? ...Show more →
look you've given this same speech over and over on every thread you post on. that's all well and good and i get your perspective. people who make their money from photography think of their gear as tools, and as such they're subject to cost benefit analysis from a business perspective. duh. i don't really see many people talking about rendering, specialness, or look of lenses at all in this thread except for oneant and maybe the OP unless you count my recommendation that he try the two different options he was interested in to see what he likes better.
i'm questioning the cost/benefit of autofocus and zooms for this application because the majority of the people in the field that i knew a decade ago used medium format and some still used primess when they used slrs (though usually zooms when shooting in conjuction with medium format). this makes me question how much autofocus is needed for this type of photography. it's possible all those people have changed to dslrs now, i don't know. i was just very surprised to hear all the people insisting that autofocus and zooms were necessary when that had not been my experience.
p.2 #9 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
Posters on here might like to browse copies of high end mags like 'Hunger' before determining whether fashion photography is art or just a job of work.
However.....as a practitioner I would argue that the gear is secondary to the concept and design team / model. If you are a one man band then you have to be the concepts man as well.
Basically however you will come to know the lenses you prefer through user experience. I regularly use the 50mm f1.4 (Canon)....and would never consider a more expensive 50mm as this one is pin sharp, and provides quick and accurate focusing at F5.6...my standard setting at ISO 100.
I believe David Bailey has always used prime lenses for what it's worth......
p.2 #10 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
For fashion photography I use a kit of 24-70, 85/1.4 and 135/2. You don't have to worry about lenses too much, honestly in controlled situation almost any lens will do. Lighting is the most important part.
Jul 14, 2012 at 11:12 AM
AmbientMike Offline • • • • • • [X]
p.2 #11 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
My first thought when I read op was I'd rather have af. But it's all personal. I'd hate to miss a great shot while focusing. But af isn't a panacea, either.
p.2 #12 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
I would go for the 70-200 to be honest. Whoever has shoot the 100mm MP for fashion is definitely not professional because otherwise you need to spend a ton of time on PP to remove the skin blemishes that the 100MP captures.
p.2 #13 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
dimitris77 wrote:
I would go for the 70-200 to be honest. Whoever has shoot the 100mm MP for fashion is definitely not professional because otherwise you need to spend a ton of time on PP to remove the skin blemishes that the 100MP captures.
This just screams to me that the photo wasn't worth the effort. I think that the mistake you and others are making is that many here have higher expectations of an image than the average, very average commercial photographer.
To say what cannot be used is absurd when every day we are bombarded with over shopped bokeh pics. Its not just the photographers that complain about the flood of new photographers, as viewers we have to suffer them as well.
I also think what many here are confusing this thread of 'fashion' photography with 'commercial' rather than 'craft'. I would expect that craft photographers are very alternate these days and commercial photographers are a buck an hour.
So, yeah, when someone says it's not professional to use a 100MP or something like that; it's extremely absurd!
I also think distinctions such as "art or job", "commercial or craft" are nothing more than a perception - different for each individual - and arbitrary - even nonsensical.
EDIT: I would also add that in my experience "the Zeiss character" is accentuated by stopping down not minimized.
p.2 #16 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
dimitris77 wrote:
I would go for the 70-200 to be honest. Whoever has shoot the 100mm MP for fashion is definitely not professional because otherwise you need to spend a ton of time on PP to remove the skin blemishes that the 100MP captures.
You mean that the 70-200 isn't sharp and won't capture the blemishes?
p.2 #20 · Zeiss vs Canon set of primes for fashion photography?
In my experience, the Nikkor 70-200/2.8 VRII is as sharp as the 100MP, stop for stop. It has less CA, and it autofocuses a lot faster. The new Canon 70-200/2.8IS is meant to be at least as good as the Nikkor, so if that is not what you are seeing, I think there is something wrong with your lens. Of course, they don't have as much contrast, nor as much macro-contrast, nor as good colours as the 100MP, but they are fully as sharp, at least to the eye (I own both).
