|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Lenses for studio usage - what to compromise
Lenses for studio usage, what to compromise: Constant aperture vs. Image stabilization vs. Price What is your decision logic if you were to purchase a new set of lenses for studio usage only (full frame camera)? This question is hypothetical only since you are not going to spend money for studio use only without consider other possible usage you might have, but for this discussion, consider studio use only. Studio shooting would be typical MM model portfolio shooting, headshots and full body length – fashion, fine art, glamour nudes. I think it gives a generic idea of studio and lens usage for discussion purposes. Things like blurred background, bokeh are really a major factor for studio shooting and then lens aperture selection is import (not all studio shootings are against a backdrop)? In this scenario, how do I compare an AF-S NIKKOR 24-85mm f/3.5-4.5G ED VR (about $600) with an AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED (about $1900), for example? Any other lenses examples would be appreciated. I just choose these 2 because I shoot with similar focal lenses frequently – different lenses. I would like to hear you opinion if you had to compromise – which one (or more) would you choose, considering you do not have deep pockets? Sep 26 14 11:59 am Link I would likely sacrifice image stabilization first. For some people constant aperture might not be important in the studio as they're shooting over the movable area anyway. Sep 26 14 12:11 pm Link Marco R wrote: If I was using strobes / speedlights & always shooting around f8 then almost any lense would work. If my studio had nice natural light via windows, doors or skylights then I'd be grabbing a fixed lens around 85mm to 200mm with f1.4 / 1.8. Sep 26 14 12:16 pm Link Marco R wrote: That's a silly comparison; because cost seems to be your main consideration. Sep 26 14 12:18 pm Link If you can do without VR and a little on the wide angle end consider the Nikon 28-70 2.8. A really nice lens that you can get for about $600 used. Sep 26 14 12:22 pm Link Yeah -- if you have a sturdy tripod, you don't need image stabilization. Sharpness is near the top of my "must have" list, and in my experience, non-zoom lenses tend to be sharper than zoom lenses, but there are exceptions. Check the quality of the images from your candidate lenses. It might be possible for you to rent your candidate lenses & run some tests yourself, with your camera & setup. Price -- well, that is difficult to quantify. What is expensive to one person might be cheap for another. You are on your own to figure out your own "bang for the buck" calculations. Sorry -- wish I could help more. Sep 26 14 12:22 pm Link None of the Nikon lenses you listed are 'telephoto' enough for my tastes... BUT... the 24-120 F4 Nanocoat sure is... and you won't need to compromise much. Own one... use it in the studio exclusively... LOVE IT! Fast enough for available light... telephoto enough for headshots... definitely a lens to consider...  Sep 26 14 12:49 pm Link Not so. In some cases it is worth to spend the extra money on better lens. Sometimes you do not need the extra things it brings - someone might think differently. Personally I do not think in this case the money only would me make decide for either one, but thank you for your opinion. Leonard Gee Photography wrote: Sep 26 14 12:55 pm Link Thank you for your opinion. I am not restricting to the lenses I mentioned. These are just 2 generic examples to illustrate the debate between the 3 factors to consider when selection a lens for studio usage, any lens. Yes, the 24-120 is right on the spot on my average focal usage on studio. Probable I could do it all my studio shootings with one lens. Select Models wrote: Sep 26 14 01:00 pm Link It depends if you need af or not. I use a 28mm f2.8, which is the sharpest I've used, a 105 f2.5, and a 50mm f1.2. As far as I can tell the colour rendition and sharpness are as good as any modern lens. I have a 17-35mm f2.8 and, although it's a great lens, I prefer the 28mm. I've always been on a tight budget, so I suppose that would tend to make me look at the bargain end, but when you consider how good the primes are versus the cost I can't see a good reason for splashing out a grand or so on something like a 24-70. Sep 26 14 01:05 pm Link Thanks for all replies. I think it expands and confirms some of the opinions I had regarding the subject: - Good glasses, fixed lenses wide aperture, regardless of age are excellent option. Price varies with lens age and it could be inexpensive or expensive. Not as practical as zoom lenses if moving in the studio; - Fixed aperture lens are preferred for zooms and f/2.8 is the most common. Some good zoom aperture is f/4 but interesting an f/3.5-f/4.5 zoom isn’t appealing. Zoom provides flexibility and according some, acceptable quality; - Image stabilization: I did not get much a feedback on this, but my personal opinion I think it is important. It contributes to sharpness as a tripod does. On hand-help studio shooting it can improve sharpness (or prevent blur, to be more accurate) in some situations of movement / synch speed combinations. On the lens construction, I am not sure what advantage, if any a non-stabilized lens could have over an identical with stabilization; Thanks to all again, Sep 26 14 01:26 pm Link Actually I don't need a fast lens in the studio for a typical portfolio shoot. I don't care about the out of focus of the cyc wall and I do care a lot that the fashions or makeup are sharp and in focus. I shoot a f/16 (or higher on MF) if I can get enough power. Shallow depth of field is generally not a plus for designers or cosmetic companies. Sep 26 14 01:49 pm Link Marco R wrote: If you are using strobe in studio, where the room is light up by model light/strobe, then Image Stabilization has little to no meaning. Your flash duration can actually freeze the frame. Sep 26 14 01:50 pm Link Agree. With model static, stabilization has no use at all. Only with when movement in play and synch speed is limited it helps. You have a point on this. ChanStudio wrote: Sep 26 14 02:04 pm Link Marco R wrote: Nothing... no reason to... IS and/or VR is not necessary if using strobes... Zooms lens are not a cost effective route if quality a.k.a. sharpness and color rendering is important... AJ_In_Atlanta wrote: QFT... a designer will bitch and moan if every thread in their textile artistry isn't razor sharp... Doing work for a designer I never go below f8 for full body... which btw, typically is the sweet spot for nearly every lens out there... Sep 26 14 04:54 pm Link If you have strobes in the studio. #1 Constant Apature is not important as DSLR give constant apertures in the F5.6 to F32 range electronically and are constant even when you zoom as the f-stop is set on camera. #2 In my experience, between f8 and f16 the kit lens, I have tested are very sharp (Nikon 18-70, 16-85, 28-105, 55-200 old 28-70 varible-stop) (can the 24-120 f4 be called a kit lens) (PS the 24-120 variable is awful) (Canon 24-105) #3 Image stabilization is not necessary with strobes. (and I have read VR inter fears with strobe sharpness) Some of these lens sell for around $100 and most of the others are $200 but all of them are under $1100 and not in the $2000 and up range. Nikons 28-300 is also getting rave reviews from my picky friend on his D8100(and also Ken Rockwell - even he can be right once and a while The Nikon and Canon 70-200 f4 would be my choice int the studio over the f2.8. (The Nikon f4 focuses a lot closer) Sep 26 14 06:23 pm Link Photos by Lorrin wrote: You are being to kind, that is one of the worst lens I have seen. Long ago I replaced it with what was considered a crap Tamron lens and still felt it was an upgrade. These days I have the traditional pair of L lens for zooms, but dang is that a crap lens.... Sep 26 14 06:36 pm Link One thing everyone is forgetting is that an expensive lens like for example the 70-200 VRII can record better colors and contrast compared to any kit lens at any aperture. So, the extra money you spend is for the better glass. Sep 26 14 08:00 pm Link tho this seems to be a Nikon thread, I will respond to the subject matter which was not brand specific....studio setting...well, you can use a tripod, controlled setting so VR/IS can be done away with, so the classic lens numbers are always the same, a low 50 prime, 85 and 135...for tele the 24/70....but....spend the bucks, ditch the tripod, a good 70/200 with IS and full frame lets you be the lens, heavy yes...but you can move and deal with the light without the strobes when done right...I always say this...rent the lens before you buy or have good friends in the biz that will advise and sometimes let you borrow their lens...cannot go wrong unless you break their lens and they want full price for a new one...grinning as I typed that...Mo Sep 26 14 08:21 pm Link Assuming you are stopping the lenses down somewhat then the wider aperture lenses might be a needless extra cost and weight. If you are not printing large then this is even more pertinent. I used to use a Tokina 28-80 F2.8, then a 17-55 F2.8 on crop and then the 24-70 F2.8 on FX. I miss the 10mm from 70 to 80 but the Tokina cannot cope with internal reflections from the sensor when using a blown white background and the quality isn't there for A2 prints. Variable aperture - only an issue if you are likely to be using the lens wide open at the shorter end and then zoom to the longer end. IS - if your flash units are fast ( short flash duration ) then IS is likely to be inconsequential. However, many flash units are not as fast as some people think. Sep 26 14 11:53 pm Link I strongly prefer to use primes in the studio. They are generally lighter than zooms, and they encourage me to move to seek the best framing. Moving is important. Zooms make it too easy to stay still. I'd use 50mm, 85mm, and sometimes 135mm in the studio. If it's a bit cramped, sometimes 35mm. Probably 90% of my studio work is shot on 50mm or 85mm. Sep 27 14 01:09 am Link Frozen Instant Imagery wrote: I generally prefer to use zooms in the studio. Moving to seek the best framing necessarily alters perspective. Zooms allow me to select perspective (distance from subject) independent of framing without flipping lenses all the time. Sep 27 14 04:03 am Link Marco R wrote: Not sure how IS/VR helps with model movement. IS/VR can help when synch speeds are limited are you're mixing strobe with ambient, but I find that in the studio I am using all flash the vast majority of the time and the flash duration freezes the motion of the model as well as my camera movement. Sep 27 14 04:11 am Link I use a 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 a lot in studio and outdoors. The 85mm f/1.4 is expensive but the 50mm is pretty cheap and an 85mm f/1.8 would probably do just as well in most cases for a lot less. They have constant apertures, don't need VR in studio, especially with shorter focal lengths like that, and, again, they're reasonably cheap. I will say though, I use a D600. If you shoot crop then you'll probably want to go with a 35mm and an 50mm, rather than the 50mm and the 85mm. Sep 27 14 01:28 pm Link Marco R wrote: Huh? movement typically requires higher shutter speeds. IS/VR provides slower shutter speed capabilities. If you are shooting movement, you're at higher shutter speeds, and won't need IS/VR. Sep 27 14 02:36 pm Link The Nikkor 24-70 is the only lens I've been using for almost two years now. Highly recommended. Sep 28 14 12:50 pm Link Marco R wrote: One thing I picked up from a discussion elsewhere a while back is that flash duration is likely to be a bigger factor for sharpness using strobes, if your model is moving around. I think it was a comparison between Bowens and Profoto, with one contributor mentioning that he got motion blur with the Bowens that he didn't get with the Profoto. It makes sense when you consider you can't use a shutter speed above 1/250th unless you have (I believe) leaf shutter lenses. Never used the really good stuff, so can't confirm this. Sep 28 14 01:11 pm Link For shooting people in a studio... Focal length is important for the perspective and working distance you want to achieve. Aperture is important for the depth of field you want to achieve at a particular working distance. Everything beyond those two things is dwarfed by creativity, posing, rapport, lighting, and a myriad of other non-lens things. I've never once looked at a photo of mine I liked and attributed the quality of the lens as its most valuable contribution. I've never once looked at a photo of mine I didn't like and think a higher quality lens would have made it a great photo. Remember, we're talking people shooting in a studio controlled environment, not technical product photography. Sep 28 14 02:13 pm Link Marco R wrote: Your best choice is the lens you know you need. Sep 28 14 08:46 pm Link Grayscale Photo wrote: True... both these images shot in the same white cove studio. BIGTIME difference in perspective AND working distance in the two images. Sep 28 14 11:27 pm Link |
