D. Diggler wrote:
I think he was saying gear makes the photograph.
no question that better gear has the potential to improve photos
whether the photographer takes advantage of that gear depends on the photographer's skill !
I would seriously consider getting a 24-70 if there was a good one that had click-stops in the zoom ring at 35mm and 50mm. Large apertures is a big part of the reason I shoot all primes, but knowing the framing before I raise the camera is a big part as well.
D. Diggler wrote:
Yeah, I've used the Zeiss 50/2.0 macro for both portraits and the rest of the wedding candids.
First off, I will say it WAS sharp glass - even at 2.0! No haze! It had a short focus "throw" so even with a crop sensor camera, you can really see the focus going in and out - moreso than any Canon 50 I've used. (That's a good thing.) But for portraits end result, the clients didn't appreciate the lens that was used.
Second, for informal portraits, manual focus really slowed down the time it took to get the lens in focuswhen comparing what the expectations were of typical subjects. And, again, while the lens was extraordinarily sharp, some subjects bitched about the time it took to acquire focus. Overall, I don't think the Zeiss 50/2.0 macro is worth the money for events shooting. ...Show more →
I totally agree with you on the Zeiss lenses for portraits. If you are doing just a few portraits and want ultimate quality, the Zeiss is just awesome for this although the 50/1.2 and 85/1.2 are still better IMO for those shots. There is something about how the Zeiss lenses draw the photo that's just magic. If you have a lot of portraits to do, the Zeiss lenses will make you work too hard to lock focus instead of composition.
whtrbt7 wrote:
There is something about how the Zeiss lenses draw the photo that's just magic.
One of the top guys uses the new Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro-Planar and he said that thing is SWEEEET in how it renders. I've never used it, personally, but I wouldn't mind giving it a go sometime just to see the results. Right now, I've got an 85 and the 135L so I don't have any desperation for that focal length. (The 135L is good but I'm not WOWed by it like some people are.) Maybe I'll go look for some sample shots of the Zeiss 100 and see what I think.
D. Diggler wrote:
One of the top guys uses the new Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro-Planar and he said that thing is SWEEEET in how it renders. I've never used it, personally, but I wouldn't mind giving it a go sometime just to see the results. Right now, I've got an 85 and the 135L so I don't have any desperation for that focal length. (The 135L is good but I'm not WOWed by it like some people are.) Maybe I'll go look for some sample shots of the Zeiss 100 and see what I think.
Do you often use longer focal length than 135? I feel like my 70-200 zoom sits for most of the event.
D. Diggler wrote:
One of the top guys uses the new Zeiss 100 f/2 Makro-Planar and he said that thing is SWEEEET in how it renders. I've never used it, personally, but I wouldn't mind giving it a go sometime just to see the results. Right now, I've got an 85 and the 135L so I don't have any desperation for that focal length. (The 135L is good but I'm not WOWed by it like some people are.) Maybe I'll go look for some sample shots of the Zeiss 100 and see what I think.
Both of the makro-planar lenses have always interested me to own a copy. The 100/2MP is a great portrait lens as long as you have the space. The bokeh is smaller balls and the details on the face are really recorded well. I actually don't own the 135L since the 70-200LII is used for that purpose. The zeiss lenses always wow people since the rendering is just so special. Maybe one day I'll actually own both MP lenses but right now, I need the AF for speed and I move around so much that the only Zeiss I own is a 21/2.8 right now. Again, it's one of the advantages to shooting primes: you get an image signature unlike the zooms that really can make people be drawn to your photos. zeiss and Leica lenses are awesome for their rendering but they require MF and time to get the photo. I'm one of those people that just leaves their camera on continuous and shoot even when the camera viewfinder isn't on my face. You can only speed up your MF skill so much.
whtrbt7 wrote:
The 100/2MP is a great portrait lens as long as you have the space.
For a while I was doing most of my outdoor portrait work with a 135. (I have an 85 but the chromatic aberration is terrible.) Then one time this past year, while I was shooting portraits, I had a couple say that I should move closer to them - that they wanted some tight shots. I told 'em I was shooting tight shots. But the incident got me to thinking that you really are rather far away from the subject when using a 135.
D. Diggler wrote:
For a while I was doing most of my outdoor portrait work with a 135. (I have an 85 but the chromatic aberration is terrible.) Then one time this past year, while I was shooting portraits, I had a couple say that I should move closer to them - that they wanted some tight shots. I told 'em I was shooting tight shots. But the incident got me to thinking that you really are rather far away from the subject when using a 135.
I think the biggest challenge for all of the higher end 1.2 lenses is CA. I try to use compositions without lots of shiny stuff or try to control high contrast lines. The longer the lens, the farther you are from your subject which sometimes causes them to think you aren't taking tight shots. I like the 85 for this purpose since it seems like the perfect FL for portrait work for me.
whtrbt7 wrote:
I like the 85 for this purpose since it seems like the perfect FL for portrait work for me.
I would agree.
I've shot portriats with a 35 and did notice that the subjects became a little uncomfortable because I was too close. And this was just upper-body shots; nothing that tight. Must have been coming into their personal space.
My main lenses for the wedding day are the 35 f/1.4 and 70-200 II (on two bodies). I recently acquired a 24-70 II and I think that will find it's place on my camera for most of the day during prep and reception just for versatility (along with the 35).
My 16-35 may be used for less than a dozen frames and my 85 f/1.8 rarely leaves my bag. I just prefer the 70-200 more than the 85.
BriMcD wrote:
Anyone using a Zeiss for their portraits either during a wedding or anything? I've been curious about this for a while now, just never pulled the trigger.
I use both. Love having a 24-70 70-200 setup so Im always covered and quick to react/zoom to everything. This is my more "phojo" setup when I dont have as much time to move and compose. Such as ceremony. I want to not miss stuff because I had the wrong prime on.
The disadvantage is the weight and so I shoot primes in all of the prep and portrait portions when I have more freedom to move and zoom with my feet and nail a 1.4 depth of field.
I'm probably overcomplicating it that way but I like it.
I only shoot with primes now because I bought them and got used to them but I beleive these new zooms do very well what brides want not needing the magic shots when you pass the 2.8 zoom limitations most of the times.
I don’t like the 24-70 range (I want 35-85) but it is much more usable than primes in a wedding situation. For me being able to respond and nail the shot in fast moving situations without being caught with the wrong lens or missing focus due to the inferior focus accuracy/speed of fast primes is more important to me than turning the background into mush. Content is king and sells pictures.
The 24-70 basically never gets used outside of wedding work, I also can’t work 35/85, I usually go 50/85.
Mark_L wrote:
missing focus due to the inferior focus accuracy/speed of fast primes.
It does depend upon the system, the lenses, the situation. Often a prime will focus much faster than a zoom. That part isn't B&W.
Mark_L wrote:
Content is king and sells pictures.
I agree with you there.
However, I do feel this is besides the topic of lenses. My clients care about content but not about what I use to get that. It's a personal choice. What is better or worse will come down to the individual - some may fumble and sweat with a large zoom that they're not familiar with, or some will work effortlessly with one.
I'd be happy to leave it with "content is king" and forget about the gear, to be honest
