File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Well /p/, what do you think?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Chib
>>111657
Should go back to /b/
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>111659
This is relevant to my interests.
>> Anonymous
>>111663

Shot with Canon 100mm f/2.8 macro.

Macro + portrait lens in one = win
>> Anonymous
>>111664
What size sensor do you have? It's a little long to be a portrait lens on a crop sensor.
>> Anonymous
>>111679
What's the ideal length for portraiture? Is 90mm on an 1.5 crop good?
>> Anonymous
>>111696

Whatever your crop is, remember the often used ones for 35mm format and work it out from there.

50mm for full length, 85mm for upper body and closer for face, 135mm for face or head only.
>> Anonymous
>>111696
At the outer edge. The traditional "portrait lens" is pretty much any fast medium telephoto with nice bokeh, and MT goes from ~70-~135 in terms of 35mm film.

That said, I think the notion of a set focal length range for portraits is a bit silly; the best portrait I've taken was taken at 36mm equivalent. My skepticism towards a 100mm lens as a portrait lens on a 1.6x crop sensor was because of the huge physical distance there would be between photographer and subject; that portrait was also taken sitting right next to the subject.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
longer lense = flatter image = more flattering (no pun) photo.

A 135mm would make a subjects nose smaller and flatten the face making them look more attractive, which is why the pro guys use 200mm+ sometimes.

Its not a major difference but google up on it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>111679

Not my picture, sorry. Just got it off another forum.

It was in a thread about people using the 100mm macro lens as a portrait lens. Extremely good results
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>111702

Oops, sorry, got confused. Using it as a non macro lens is what I meant. Was reading the thread and typing at the same time.

Have some more non macro shots.
>> Anonymous
Is there an upper limit? Would a 600mm lens make it look funny somehow, or would it be even better?
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>111706

If you want to score some voyeur shots, sure.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>111706
I would imagine the distance needed at 600mm would be so great that it would be utterly impractical, but i have seen photographers using radios to communicate with models when using longer lenses so SKY'S THE LIMIT.
>> Anonymous
>>111700
Supposedly more flattering.

Longer lenses make the face look less distinctive for those reasons; this is an advantage for the ugly, but not for anyone else.

Pros shoot with long lenses because the ideal magazine woman looks like a goddamn mannequin. You see photographs of those models taken with normal (or at least sensible) lenses and they look better than they do in those hideous advertisements.
>> Anonymous
>>111711

It also compresses the background and tends to give better bokeh.
>> Blackadder !!bSWRwu/NqzQ
Why settle for 600mm when you can pick up a used 1200mm on B&H for a mere $99,000? A snip. I bet it'd be great for your "portrait" work.

Apparently the bokeh is lovely.
>> Anonymous
>>111713

I'm not Buttefly, I can't handhold 1200mm.
>> Anonymous
>>111716

butterfly can do it with three stacked 2x teleconverters on it too.
>> beethy
I love shooting portraits with the 100mm 2.8

it's a very versatile lens :]
>> I||ICIT !!mknjFN/v/49
>>111719
to bad it wont AF on his sony...

>>111720
whats /p/'s opinion of 100 f/2?
is the extra speed and nice VF worth not having macro?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
     File :-(, x)
>>111719
>>111716
Compliments are the best type of trolling.


This is my walkaround lense.
>> Anonymous
>>111720

Works great for TRUE HDR.

>>111724

I'd rather get the 85/1.8 or more for the 100 2.8.
>> Anonymous
>>111725

It's a mirror lens though. It will have terrible bokeh.
>> Anonymous
The 100mm 2 is a portrait lens and better for that job. The 100mm 2.8 is a macro lens and better for marco work. Which is more important to you? That is the one to get.
>> Anonymous
>>111732

>>111664Macro + portrait lens in one = win
>> Anonymous
>>111738

>>111732
>The 100mm 2 is a portrait lens and better for that job. The 100mm 2.8 is a macro lens and better for marco work
>Which is more important to you? That is the one to get.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>111731
I dont care much for bokeh, besides you can get acceptable bokeh with reflex lenses if you know what to avoid.
>> Anonymous
>>111746

Reflex lenses give you condom bokeh. Horrible. Some of the worst you can possibly get.

Bokeh is important for most people.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>111746
>I dont care much for bokeh
That's like saying "I don't care much for dynamic range" or "I don't care much for resolution". Bokeh isn't really a *thing* as such. I think you mean you don't care much for narrow depths of field.
>> Anonymous
>>111739

>>111664Macro + portrait lens in one = win
>> Anonymous
>>111755

>>111732
>The 100mm 2 is a portrait lens and better for that job. The 100mm 2.8 is a macro lens and better for marco work
>Which is more important to you? That is the one to get.
>> Anonymous
>>111757

>>111664Macro + portrait lens in one = win
>> Anonymous
>>111758

>>111732
>The 100mm 2 is a portrait lens and better for that job. The 100mm 2.8 is a macro lens and better for marco work
>Which is more important to you? That is the one to get.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
The whole "portrait lens" thing seems overblown to me. If you're approaching the subject properly, you can make a great portrait with just about any lens. Sure, longer focal lengths can be wonderful at times, but we shouldn't be limited by the assumption that great portraits can't be made with any given kind of lens.
>> Anonymous
>>111761

It seems to have worked as a standard for generations. I don't think it's that overblown.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
>>111762
I'm not saying there's no basis for it (there certainly is), but rather that a lot of the time people just sort of take it as a given and fail to consider other possibilities when it might be in their best interest to do so.
>> Anonymous
>>111765

Ah, then I wholeheartedly agree with that. Nothing wrong with being creative and learning the standards and ideas that others have worked out at the same time.
>> Warren !WSxruxpIJs
     File :-(, x)
An example. Consider Art Kane's 1964 portrait of boxer Joe Louis. IIRC, taken with a 21mm lens.

Art Kane:
“When one thinks of a portrait, one thinks of a face. A permanent record. A vicarious approach to immortality. I always felt that presenting faces was never quite enough. I wanted to communicate the unseen elements in a personality.”
>> thefamilyman !!rTVzm2BgTOa
     File :-(, x)
>>111751
lol someone say reflex?
(its hard to handhold 750mm on crop)

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNIKON CORPORATIONCamera ModelNIKON D70Camera SoftwareVer.2.00Maximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern650Image-Specific Properties:Horizontal Resolution300 dpiVertical Resolution300 dpiImage Created2008:01:12 14:41:52Exposure Time1/250 secExposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageLight SourceFine WeatherFlashNo FlashCommentCopyright 2008 Patrick BridgmanRenderingCustomExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlNoneContrastNormalSaturationLowSharpnessHardSubject Distance RangeUnknown
>> Anonymous
>>111787

So much for 1/focal length.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>111753
Ive seen a load of 500/8 reflex images and the bokeh isnt stunning or anything but its hardly imageruining.

What im saying is i dont think its the beall and endall of images, a donught bokeh can make a bad image worse, but it wont affect a good image. Typically this comes from me doing documentary not art types.
>> Anonymous
>>111663

What the fuck is with you? Sometimes you give extremely professional advice and come across sounding like you actually know your shit, then other time, like this, you act like a fucking newfag and go goo goo eyed over a pair of tits.
>> Anonymous
>>111709

Jesus christ, you were dumb enough to put your sig on a voyeur shot? Talk about inconspicuous...
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>111843
this is 4chan, you cant be serious all the time. using memes (which is what he did btw) is part of being here. you need to LURK MOAR on the other boards and see how everyone behaves.
>> Chib
>>111843
hes not allowed to appreciate a pair of tits?
>> Chib
     File :-(, x)
>>111843
This is my angel.
>> Anonymous
>>111846

I lurk enough to know that you say "LURK MOAR" in caps lock more than any other tripfags. Not to mention that you seem to troll 24/7.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>111851
I dont troll 24/7
>>111822
is me being marginally more helpful than useful and I try to be civil when talking about photos. But say if you went to /o/, you would see tripfags being helpful about fixing cars, then suddenly going SAVE IT FOR RACE WARS or something utterly unrelated and pointless. Thats how it goes, ac is doing the same thing.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>111843
Fag.
>> Anonymous
>>111859

good comeback. Now go have sex with your obese girlfriend, fucker.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>111861
The point I was trying to make there is that the answer to the "What the fuck is with you?" question is easy: I'm a heterosexual man. The whole reason I got into photography was to take pictures of attractive women.

This is intuitively obvious to anyone who's attracted to women. That you don't get it suggests that you're not. There being no girls on the Internet, that leaves just the one possibility.
>> Anonymous
>>111856
omg are that sum feet??? i love your feet! show us your feet Butterfly!! pweeeeeeez
>> Anonymous
>>111793
but get a good bokeh in those feet pictures ok?
>> Anonymous
creepy doll is creepy
>> else !L6xabslN96
>>111775
I CAME!
>> mdt !btr76hqMa6
lol thats really cool
>> OPFOR !8vKpfCqy8A
>>111657
It's ok. I do not like pictures that have very visible grain/noise unless used in a certain way.
>>111659
pretty good.
>>111843
The man likes tits. What more do you want?
>> Anonymous
likes
>> Anonymous
>>112432

/p/ - where they are always glad you came.