Kelvin Hammond wrote:

I can't believe you'd actually dare to shoot @ 1.8 on a paying gig...    it scares the crap out of me. I love my 85, but it rarely sees any action at larger then a 3.2.   

Then again, I think I struggle with Nikon camera handling, always have.  To me, they aren't as intuitive as 'the name-brand we dare not mention on this thread'.     

I shoot 4 different brands of cameras, and while I prefer the Nikon's rendering of fashion, both for sensor and glass, I have to work for it, because I feel like I'm fighting the camera body. The 'brand we shall not mention' doesn't seem to call attention to itself as much, in terms of simple things like setting it up to focus.  But to be fair, I haven't really used primes much with the 'other' brand so it's possible I'd like it just as well. My lenses seem to dictate which camera body I use for what, rather then the other way around.

Just get your lenses fine tuned and you will be pleased with the output.

Kenny Goldberg wrote:
Two lenses for me, the Nikon 24-70 f2.8 and the very sharp and lightweight Nikon 70-200mm f4.. I had the 80-200mm f2.8, but it started to go soft and weighed a ton, rented the 70-200mm f4 and was shocked at how sharp and lightweight it is. Bokeh really nice as well for an f4, but at 150-200mm bokeh is wonderful, especially with subject a distance from background.

The 24-70 is an awesome piece of glass indeed.

John Fisher wrote:

Model: Rebecca White. shot with the 85 f1.8 at f2.8 using the cropped sensor EOS 7D. I would have preferred to shoot at f2 (see below), but because my shooting technique involves a lot of fill flash, without a neutral density filter I was limited to f2.8 (typing this I suddenly realized that I could have used high speed sync........duh!!)

Ben, because of this (excellent) post a few months ago, I started thinking about using my 85 f1.8 a lot more again. This was a lens you could have welded to my camera when I was shooting film and I would have been perfectly happy. However, because zoom lenses have become so much better (particularly the 70-200 f2.8), laziness had set in and I found myself using zooms most of the time.

The problem started when I sold my 5D Mark II in preparation for the getting the new 5Ds, and was left with two cropped sensor EOS 7D's in my bag. I like using the the cropped sensor bodies for a lot of reasons, but I just wasn't satisfied with something in the images. Your post reminded me what it was............depth of field. Those zooms (including my favorite 24-70 f2.8 on the cropped body) just didn't give me that beautiful soft focus on the backgrounds that I so preferred. The real problem was exaggerated when using zooms, because I don't feel comfortable shooting at the widest f stop, so I'm always shooting at f4. This may work fine on a full frame body (and I am generally pleased with the images), but when you go to cropped body the depth of field (for the same frame view) goes up to almost to an equivalent f8!

Switching back to the 85 f1.8 and shooting at f2.2 or f2.8 softens those backgrounds again. Yeah, I gotta zoom with my feet, and I'm one lazy son of a bitch, but the results are definitely worth it. The other advantage of a prime like the 85 f1.8 is it is so sharp that even shooting at f2 doesn't frighten me. So shooting with the 85 on a cropped sensor (Canon) gives me an equivalent 135mm f3.2 to f4.5 (depending on the actual f stop I select), which for me gives me the images I want to see.

On the other hand, I am looking forward to getting the 5Ds (with probably a 5D III to back it up) and once again I will be able to use my zooms with confidence. And, thanks to your post, the amazing 85 more often!

John
--
John Fisher
700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
(305) 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Shoot at f/1.8 period. Just fine tune the lens on your camera body. My most recent shoot for Harper's BAZAAR was a mix of my 85 and 180 all shot wide open at f/1.8 and F/2.8 respectively. Coming out in their September Issue...

By the way...nice shot, the model is HOT!

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:
Shoot at f/1.8 period. Just fine tune the lens on your camera body. My most recent shoot for Harper's BAZAAR was a mix of my 85 and 180 all shot wide open at f/1.8 and F/2.8 respectively. Coming out in their September Issue...

By the way...nice shot, the model is HOT!

I agree, the EOS 7D I was using I had just purchased from another photographer and I hadn't fine tuned it yet to my lenses. We have been discussing the problems of achieving the  desired background blur with cropped sensor cameras in a post here on Model Mayhem I titled "Wonk Wonk". You really do have to go to f stops like f2 or less if you want the kind of blur you are familiar with on full frame cameras. Unfortunately most zooms just won't let you get to those numbers!



The model (and unfortunately that word is inappropriate) is truly beautiful. 18, 173cm (and still growing!) with flawless porcelain skin, but....... she has a boyfriend who doesn't think modeling is a good idea for her. Well, if I was the boy I would probably feel the same way. It certainly wouldn't be in my best interest to have my girlfriend running off to Paris or Milan, doing interesting things with exciting people, while learning Italian in Rome from some guy named Paolo. And women have options in the US which is a good thing. There are reasons why most of the top models today are from Eastern Europe or Brazil.

Anyway, I would have loved to send her to you, Ben, but it ain't happening. I hated to let her go, but on days like this I try to remember that God, in her infinite wisdom, makes more!

John
--
John L. Fisher
700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
(305) 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

John Fisher wrote:

I agree, the EOS 7D I was using I had just purchased from another photographer and I hadn't fine tuned it yet to my lenses. We have been discussing the problems of achieving the  desired background blur with cropped sensor cameras in a post here on Model Mayhem I titled "Wonk Wonk". You really do have to go to f stops like f2 or less if you want the kind of blur you are familiar with on full frame cameras. Unfortunately most zooms just won't let you get to those numbers!



The model (and unfortunately that word is inappropriate) is truly beautiful. 18, 173cm (and still growing!) with flawless porcelain skin, but....... she has a boyfriend who doesn't think modeling is a good idea for her. Well, if I was the boy I would probably feel the same way. It certainly wouldn't be in my best interest to have my girlfriend running off to Paris or Milan, doing interesting things with exciting people, while learning Italian in Rome from some guy named Paolo. And women have options in the US which is a good thing. There are reasons why most of the top models today are from Eastern Europe or Brazil.

Anyway, I would have loved to send her to you, Ben, but it ain't happening. I hated to let her go, but on days like this I try to remember that God, in her infinite wisdom, makes more!

John
--
John L. Fisher
700 Euclid Avenue, Suite 110
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
(305) 534-9322
http://www.johnfisher.com

Unfortunately I do not work with models shorter than 1.75M...5'-9" minimum.

Shei  P wrote:
Ben it seems to me that the "long tele" look is really popular in French fashion mags.  Is this true or an i just imaging this?

Its the 80's look come back.

Edward Chen wrote:
You don't say a lens a good one if you shoot stopped down.

Nikon 85/1.8G is a good lens. Agree. Sharp wide open. Anywhere: center, corner.

Those 135/2.0 and 180/2.8 however, are junk. It shows flaw on my d800e. I don't keep old lenses anymore (prior D800) except 14-24/2.8.

Even 24-70/2.8 is a junk. All Nikon 50s are also junk. And many others.

Best in lines (to fit 36 MP optimally):
85/1.8G
14-24/2.8
20/1.8G
35/1.8G (FX)
70-200/2.8 VR2
80-400/4.5-5.6G VR2
SIGMA 35/1.4 ART
SIGMA 50/1.4 ART

I don't know about 200/2 VR2 and all 300, 400, 500, 600 lenses. From I heard the only lens that lives up to the expectation is 200/2.0 VR2.

The 135 and 180 are junk?????? I have covers and tons of editorials shot for ELLE, VOGUE and Harper's BAZAAR all shot with those lenses...What are you going on about???

Benjamin Kanarek wrote:

The 135 and 180 are junk?????? I have covers and tons of editorials shot for ELLE, VOGUE and Harper's BAZAAR all shot with those lenses...What are you going on about???

everyone is entitled to their opinion.