Portraits at 500mm and 1000mm

Juza_handholding_sigma_200-500_2-8.jpg

:D
 
ldmelsa said:
we've got the big 5 :cool:
the koffiejunkie's got "The Bean" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

LOL - that's a good 8 hours flight from where I live. I was really referring to the "wild" night life. The 10-20 makes for interesting portraits if you hit the right spot...
 
It's only half a stop slower than the Tokina. As for Ken Rockwell's ramblings, I haven't seen any reviews suggesting that the Tokina is "the best ultra wide zoom available" or that it's better than the Nikon 12-24mm. The only significant advantage is the speed.
 
So Bwana, seeing that you have your 500mm and 2x converter... have you tried taking any portraits at 500mm or 1000mm? ;)
 
sigma_200-500-500_2-8.jpg


My estimate is that this image is @ about a 200mm focal range. For a portrait any higher, you just flatten the features, introduce shake blur and generally abandon your presence from the subject.

Yes there's a balance between getting too close and er being to far and I dont testify to there being any focal length being right or wrong. But if you're wondering about the best way to take effective portraits, rather stay safe. and invest in cheap n fast (50,80,135,200) Primes.

Plus, that Sigma looks like it's on special from Hi-Fi Corp, and if it didn't come with a free gym membership, I'd be skeptical.
 
Moklet Kcuf said:
My estimate is that this image is @ about a 200mm focal range.
Click to expand...

It's at 500mm - check the link in my original post. In the dpreview post I linked, there was a link to a portrait at 1000mm too.

Moklet Kcuf said:
and invest in cheap n fast (50,80,135,200) Primes.
Click to expand...

I'd actually argue against the cheap part. I have the cheapy 50mm f/1.8, and while it's a really nice lens, the quality of its out-of-focus blur is not great. I mean, it's not something most people will notice, but compared to what I got from my 24-105L, there really is a difference. Something to be said for rounded aperture blades :)

That said, Canon's Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM is their cheapest prime, so much cheaper than say, the 24mm f/1.4L II USM, it could be considered "cheap" - I want one :D
 
Why should I prove it? I didn't take it. Read the linked post. The point of it is portraits at 500mm and 1000mm. If you don't believe that, why not write to the guy who posted it?
 
Just because you can... doesn't mean you should!

At focal lengths >200mm you loose the interaction with your subject. But I guess this more of a technical - see what i can do - kind of thing. My prime that I would like to get for portraiture is the 135 F2L.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X