a fast, longish old lens ...

[Tesselator]

Ah, I see. Sounds like two very different styles. I was thinking celeb / glam / fashion type portraiture. For the bread & butter stuff you're talking about that's very different to what I have done lately or what I was envisioning. Santa lap-shots in the mall are also "portraits" I guess but not what comes to mind when I think of "portraiture" - even tho I did those for a few years - waaaaay back when. And yeah, for Santa Lap shots or what I guess you're doing by what you describe, for sure, a 120 ~ 200mm is probably just about right on a FF.

Terminology can be so confusing sometimes.

 

[DHart]

Tess... I'm sorry, I must have given you the wrong impression. My portrait work is not like "school pictures" or Santa photos... anything but... it's outdoors (not confined to small spaces), artsy, fashionable, edgy, high school senior portraits (about as far from "school" pictures as you can get).. the kind of images that today's cool graduating seniors and their parents are willing to pay top dollar for. Not mall type, typical portrait studio ho-hum. Perhaps best for you to see rather than read words, caution... bokeh ahead...

http://www.legendimaging.com

 

[Tesselator]

Glad you gave me the link! Those are pretty awesome! Really, that's mostly around 180mm? Hmmm, I never would have guessed! I would have thought 80mm or maybe 100mm.

Good to know tho! I'm learning! Is that mostly tripod work with directed poses?

 

[DHart]

All 5DMkII w/70-200 f/2.8L @ f/2.8 and mostly between 150-200mm, mostly 200. No tripod, pretty much all sand bag on different rungs of an 8' ladder, directed poses, reflector lighting. As I said, I haul it all around the acerage on a golf cart. The 85/1.4 on m4/3 gives me just about the same exact look!

Let's get back to Godfrey's thread, if we can please.... sorry for the diversion, Godfrey.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I'm sure Godfrey will forgive you. This is useful stuff

My girlie portraits from the race-track are often shot at even longer focal lengths btw. usually 150-200mm at f/2.8-4.0 (Nikon D300 with Nikkor AF-S 80-200). For travel portraits, I use mostly the Zeiss 85mm f/1.4 on the GH1, usually, but not always, stopped down to 2.0 or 2.8:

 

[DHart]

Nice Jorgen... I remember the pony driver portrait very well... the 85/1.4 Planar is a wonderful portrait lens on m4/3... amazingly beefy feel to it as well, which I feel stabilizes the lens moreso than a lighter lens does, but adds quite a bit of weight to the kit.

 

[Godfrey]

All 5DMkII w/70-200 f/2.8L @ f/2.8 and mostly between 150-200mm, mostly 200. No tripod, pretty much all sand bag on different rungs of an 8' ladder, directed poses, reflector lighting. As I said, I haul it all around the acerage on a golf cart. The 85/1.4 on m4/3 gives me just about the same exact look!

Let's get back to Godfrey's thread, if we can please.... sorry for the diversion, Godfrey.

No problem at all. I enjoyed seeing your photos. Nice work, indeed, modeling shoot quality. They're a bit more "commercial" than I'd want for my yearbook photo, but I guess I come from a different age and aesthetic. ;-)

And yes: in the day, a Nikon F/F3 with 180/2.8 netted this FoV/DoF, now I can get it with the E-5 and 85/1.8 in a lighter, more compact package. With another stop and some of light gathering power. That's progress!

 

[DHart]

No problem at all. I enjoyed seeing your photos. Nice work, indeed, modeling shoot quality. They're a bit more "commercial" than I'd want for my yearbook photo, but I guess I come from a different age and aesthetic. ;-)

And yes: in the day, a Nikon F/F3 with 180/2.8 netted this FoV/DoF, now I can get it with the E-5 and 85/1.8 in a lighter, more compact package. With another stop and some of light gathering power. That's progress!

Yes, a fast legacy 85 on m4/3 gives us that look in a very nice little package. Fantastic!

 

[Ron Evers]

I too live on acreage but my focus is nature photography.
I shoot with a Panasonic G1, now brace yourself - this is taken with a Sears 135/2.8 hand held.

This with a Vivitar 70-210/3.5 maxed out hand held.

I confess anything over 135mm is lens heavy on this camera. My favorite walk-about is a Helios 44-2, 58/2 that is very sharp & will close focus.

 

[Tesselator]

Yeah, I agree. 135 is the longest that's both comfortable and easy. I can still manage a 200mm hand-held but the keeper to blur ratio takes a nose-dive even at 1/1000 and the framing becomes somewhat difficult as well. At 300mm ever the more-so. Although while I can still get some sharp keepers from a hand-held shoot with it - it's basically a crap-shoot. I've shot hand-held up to 500mm (1,000mm equiv.) and that's, like, On My Gawd difficult.

Is it just me or do you guys also get out of breath with fatigue trying to hold, frame, and focus lenses of 200mm and more? It's weird because it's not at all physically demanding like shoveling snow or something - yet 20 to 30 min. into the shoot feels similar - my forehead even sweats. Just me?

 

[Godfrey]

... Is it just me or do you guys also get out of breath with fatigue trying to hold, frame, and focus lenses of 200mm and more? It's weird because it's not at all physically demanding like shoveling snow or something - yet 20 to 30 min. into the shoot feels similar - my forehead even sweats. Just me?

I don't know. I tend to put the camera on a tripod when shooting with any lens longer than about 100mm the vast majority of the time. Even with lenses down to 50mm. And with all lenses (particularly ultra-wide-angle!) when I'm going for maximum quality and resolution...

That makes it easy and takes the sweat out... ;-)

 

[turbines]

I shot with the FD 200 hand held the other day for about 45 minutes. I was huff'n & puff'n when I finished. Breath in, breath out! Anyone of you use a monopod? I agee the 85 - 135 is good limit on M4/3s.

 

[Godfrey]

I shot with the FD 200 hand held the other day for about 45 minutes. I was huff'n & puff'n when I finished. Breath in, breath out! Anyone of you use a monopod? I agee the 85 - 135 is good limit on M4/3s.

A monopod for such a tight FoV is a big help. I haven't done any of this work for a while, but when I go to the races and use longer focal lengths like that, a monopod is nearly essential to good results as it affords a good measure of stability while also allowing mobility for panning. It also takes the load off your arms and neck.

 

[DHart]

I've been considering (on and off) getting a monopod for about, oh, thirty years plus. Perhaps it's about time. I don't like to make rushed decisions, you know. :ROTFL:

I do have three or four tripods that have fallen into dis-use over the years (as I've gotten newer better tripods). Perhaps I should look into trading those old tripods off and buy a monopod!

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Yeah, I agree. 135 is the longest that's both comfortable and easy. I can still manage a 200mm hand-held but the keeper to blur ratio takes a nose-dive even at 1/1000 and the framing becomes somewhat difficult as well. At 300mm ever the more-so. Although while I can still get some sharp keepers from a hand-held shoot with it - it's basically a crap-shoot. I've shot hand-held up to 500mm (1,000mm equiv.) and that's, like, On My Gawd difficult.

Is it just me or do you guys also get out of breath with fatigue trying to hold, frame, and focus lenses of 200mm and more? It's weird because it's not at all physically demanding like shoveling snow or something - yet 20 to 30 min. into the shoot feels similar - my forehead even sweats. Just me?

Interesting comment, and yes, I have the same experience. I used to try to live by the "exposure time the same as the focal length" in 35mm terms, but in real life, I can shoot at surprisingly long shutter times with a WA lens, often twice as long as the "rule" should indicate, but once I get above 200mm, it's as if I can't hold still any more. I wonder if there's some psychological thing coming into effect here, or that it's simply because the longer lens throws the camera/lens/body combination somewhat out of balance.

On the other hand, when I use a monopod (I use one from Monostat, highly recommended) or any other supporting device, I'm back in business. Knees and elbows are great photographic tools, and you can often find me sitting down on the ground, using one or both of my knees as "twopods".

 

[Godfrey]

... once I get above 200mm, it's as if I can't hold still any more. I wonder if there's some psychological thing coming into effect here, or that it's simply because the longer lens throws the camera/lens/body combination somewhat out of balance. ...

A 200mm lens on FourThirds is an equivalent ~8x magnification over normal.

See the field of view shrink ...

One degree camera of movement nets a large change in what it's pointing at when working with such a long lens...

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

Very neat illustration, Godfrey. That explains a lot. Thanks for posting.

 

[Tesselator]

I shot with the FD 200 hand held the other day for about 45 minutes. I was huff'n & puff'n when I finished. Breath in, breath out! Anyone of you use a monopod? I agee the 85 - 135 is good limit on M4/3s.

Interesting comment, and yes, I have the same experience. I used to try to live by the "exposure time the same as the focal length" in 35mm terms, but in real life, I can shoot at surprisingly long shutter times with a WA lens, often twice as long as the "rule" should indicate, but once I get above 200mm, it's as if I can't hold still any more. I wonder if there's some psychological thing coming into effect here, or that it's simply because the longer lens throws the camera/lens/body combination somewhat out of balance.

On the other hand, when I use a monopod (I use one from Monostat, highly recommended) or any other supporting device, I'm back in business. Knees and elbows are great photographic tools, and you can often find me sitting down on the ground, using one or both of my knees as "twopods".

Yep, same experience here.

Well, if nothing else it's good to know that it's not just me. On the downside it means we need to buy more stuff.

I of course have a nice pod (it's a Linhof from the 60's and VERY lightweight) but I've been meaning to use monopods more often. There are some really good ones (with fold-out legs) from velbon at very reasonable prices. Only thing is... I don't wanna send my money to china. Hmmm, maybe I'll make one from oak. The one I have right now is busted.

I think this setup on a monopod would be optimal!

http://www.nikonians.org/html/resources/non-nikon_articles/manfrotto-222-grip-ball-head.html

​

 

[DHart]

Tesselator... that Manfrotto 222 looks like a great head for a monopod.

Here's a monopod I've been considering:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=cart_accessories&A=details&Q=&sku=387806&is=REG

Manfrotto gear never fails to impress me. Their engineering designs are amazing and the build quality matches the engineering.

I recently bought the Manfrotto Magic Arm for my Kesseler/Bloom Pocket Dolly and what an amazing design feat that Magic Arm is. (The pocket dolly is very impressive as well.)

 

[Tesselator]

I agree about Bogen errr, Manfrotto gear but do you think super engineering and such quality is really needed for a monopod? I mean't it's just a stick with a screw on top and a bit of padded tubbing. I've been thinking about making something like this:

​

Total cost including electricity is about $15 and it seems like a nice one or two day project. Then just get that Bogen 222 and it'll all be good? And I have a better design with higher quality parts than those shown above.

Whattya think?



.