Photographers, do you use a long lens ?
 

This past weekend i was out at Malibu, Corral canyon and el matadore beach..if you know your thing and are local to LA, then you have been there..
I was paid by a model to shoot for her site etc so I cannot post any samples..sorry.
I usually use a standard zoom lens something like 28-80 with my D2X but wanted to try using my long glass instead as I am rarely shooting in a location with room enough to bring out this glass.
I know both Rob at FTV and Dean use a long lens for most of their glamour shoots..I am sure there are other glamour shooters who prefer a long zoom..but if you look at traditional photographers such as carl wachter, he use a standard zoom as did Guccione..
One of my issues was camera shake..i used a fill flash on a radio switch so i could max shoot at 1/125 and with the lens fully zoomed, its a bit hard to handhold for a long time. I was conisdering upgrading to the Nikon 80-200 VR..Canon have a similar lens..
Do you use a long lens and if so, how do you use it ? love to hear about your experiences.

bump for the afternoon crowd..

I dont have a long lens. I was born with a short one.


Bump for ya

WE are currenty using Canon EF 24-70mm f/2,8 L USM and have an idea to buy a Canon EF 70-200mm f/2,8 L IM USM - the long range lans with Image Satbilisation.

I have a 1200 mm I use from time to time:
http://bikinivoyeur.com/moon.jpg

I use a shorter lens so that the models can get a close-up view of my nose and ear hair. I can almost braid it together.

IF I had some extra dough I would have 2 cameras each with a different lens.

I use the Canon 70-200mm 2,8 L IS USM for some outdoor stuff. Works just fine as daylight usually is rather bright and the IS takes care of the usual camera shake even if you have to go down to 1/125 or something like that.

Haven't used it much indoors. The only problem I can see is that the minimal distance to get a focus is 1.4 meters. If you have a large location it should work though, but I still prefer my other lenses for indoor work.

I'll second the Canon 70-200 2.8IS L. Fantastic lens if you have enough light. Focus is really slow in low light situations and the IS does help. Ironically I rarely shoot at f2.8 the amount of acceptable focus is just too shallow.

-A

From my pre-digital days I recall that most of the photogs used lenses around 135mm for shooting models as that seemed to be the most flattering for facial features - too low and they looked as if you were taking pictures of their reflection in the back of a spoon, too high and it looked as if someone had hit them with a frying pan...

70-200 is pretty much the standard "hottie on the beach" lens.

Yea.. I use that lens also..

however I do shoot around 2.8.. not all the time.. but sometime when I want to get rid of the background

let me look for a pic..

All of these are shoot with that 70-200 2.8 lens and with in the last month or so

a couple of these are from Allashlee

http://static.flickr.com/195/480640546_07105fe6c0.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/174/480640500_c9e34cc9bc.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/223/480640456_2b9258b658_b.jpg

http://static.flickr.com/172/480651555_ac3ee024d4.jpg

Forget the 80-200 unless you need the 2.8 for sports. Buy a 18 - 200 mm VR f/3.5 - 5.6G DX IF-ED if you can get one. We've said it before, this lens is a miracle. It outperforms lenses three times more exenspensive.

Hubby is considering buying a second one now. No more camera bag, the 18-200 does it all. You also won't need a macro with the 18-200, the 80-200 only focusses 5 ft, that's not enough for macro, and sometimes not enough for portrait/porn.

I have a 70-300 and an 18-55. But im finding im needing the middle range, so im going to go with 18-135 Nikon lens.

Couldn't agree more. Had this lens for about a month now and it has been very versatile. I typically shoot in studio where my shotting bays are 16'x16'. I recently was forced to shoot in a hotel suite and was on top of the model the whole time. From studio to tight corners this lens delivered.

for glamour the longer the better, i have a 70-200 but most places i shoot are too small

Indeed I use the Nikon D2x, mostly with my Nikor 70-200 F2.8 VR lens. Its gives a more 'film' or 'professional' feel to the image, but at the same time can reduce sharpness overall or increased risk of blur. (because even an inch off focus will dramatically ruin the picture).

In controlled lighting and such, its not as much a big deal, but running around shooting someone right in the middle of a busy mall doing public nudity -- well that burns me out.

All these were taken with the D2x/70-200 f2.8 this weekend:
http://www.ftvgirls.com/super/03.jpghttp://www.ftvgirls.com/super/07.jpg
http://www.ftvgirls.com/super/12.jpghttp://www.ftvgirls.com/super/26.jpg
http://www.ftvgirls.com/super/36.jpg
http://www.ftvgirls.com/super/62.jpg
http://www.ftvgirls.com/super/72.jpg

Sorry if I don't photoshop or 'glamorize' these pics though. I don't believe in it.

I like to shoot outdoors and with a long lens. I've used a 600mm to shoot models that I had for surfing photography and my dream lens is a 300 2.8 but the price keeps it out of my hands. Right now I'm using Canon's 70 - 200 2.8

I shoot pretty fast and like to change my angle to get a variety of shots so I rarely use a tripod. The main reason to use a long, fast lens is to blur out the background with a very shallow depth of field. I've always liked this technique and it really makes for an interesting image. The object is to create a background that both enhances and compliments the subject.

Here are three examples. The first one I used the rail to lead the eye to the model and the dark background helps the backlite model stand out. The second one is at the beach and the background lets you know where she's at but doesn't distract you from the model. The third one is of the model dressed in camo in a field. Without the blurred background and the backlight the model would be lost in the setting but with the shallow dept of field the model stands out and is complimented by her surroundings.

http://www.julie-clarke.com/public_h..._clarke_01.jpg

http://www.julie-clarke.com/public_h..._clarke_04.jpg

http://www.julie-clarke.com/public_h...larke_camo.jpg

I have the canon 70-200 2.8 but hardly use it unless I am shooting at a horse show or something else outdoors, I use the canon 24-70 for models.

the 70-200 is a great lense and can reach out to get some good photos
here is one of an air ambulance, it was shot in automatic because the helo was hauling ass and I only had a few seconds to get the shot
http://www.landofvenus.com/accident/accident6.jpg
and one from a horse show of my horse
http://www.avalanchefriesians.com/he...g/IMG_8440.JPG

the helo was the farthest away but the horse was a ways also, on the far side of the arena

wow...that is one nice pic:thumbsup

This is the shits i am talking about.. nice. And yeah me no believe in chopping either..
So do you hand hold it ? Do you feel the VR helps you out on that ?

don't just talk about the lens being the end all.....

a 70-200 isn't "heavy"... it really isn't.. I shoot with it all the time.. but also with my 24-70. Now my 300mm, that has a little bulk to it. Used a guy's 600 once... DAMN!!!.

But.. to avoid blur and shake.. you have so many options to assist you.. one being your ISO (another is an IS lens).... kick it up if you need some more shutter speed (a shot at f3.5, ISO 100 and 1/30, is very similar to one at f3.5, ISO 200 and 1/125). Remember that photographic triangle that affects your proper exposure (f-stop, shutter speed, ISO)

Unless FTV-Rob (or anyone else for that matter) is handing you the RAW data on his pics, you never know how they were shot. And as he uses a lot of natural light, and even indoors at that.. that translates to higher ISOs (say 200, 400, 800 perhaps???).. unless of course he is handholding at ISO100 with a 200mm lens racked in at f2.8 and 1/15 (now there's a chance for blur).

A lens is about depth of field and the clarity of the glass. I use my "L" lenses because they provide for cleaner images, and yes, you can tell against non "L" lenses. Also, at 2.8, I have the ability to soften an image even more with a shallow depth of field. Hell, we even have a f1.2 lens... it's like focusing on a mosquito and it's ass is blurred when you are at the shallowest focus point. Can make for cool effects.

I don't believe photographers that say they don't edit their shots at all.. its just BS. You might not do the lovely Gaussian Blur that so many people love (I hate it... I don't use it.. much better tools out there), but can't convince me that you don't do anything. What's the point of shooting digitally if you can't use the tools at hand? Come on.. you can tell me.... it will be our little secret! :thumbsup

sorry... make that ISO 400, not 200.... I can't type for a myriad of reasons.

I'm happy for now with my Nikkor 18-70 lens on the D80. We tend to work in relatively smaller studio areas...so the 18-70 is adequate.

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

I agree with you ,when people talk about photoshop like its a weakness. Its a tool nothing more. Finding models with flawless skin is near impossible on a consistent basis.

Nice job Rob.:thumbsup

The 18-200 is a great lens. It hasnt left my D80 since got it. I find it takes nicer model pictures then my 28-70 2.8.
And the VR is great, dont know how I did without it, lol

Very nice work, I see these and I kick myself I didnt go with nikon and canon instead.

It's never to late. :winkwink:

who do you know that has flawless skin, not a single stretch mark, white teeth and white eyes, perfect hair, eyes that pop and a body that is perfect????? Never met her personally.... When I shoot for our site... I am very minimalistic.... For my commercial work.. sometimes we have to create Robo-Hottie.... That's what they pay for.. that's what they get. Photoshop is a great tool. Just like my Canon cameras.

ummmmm, you are shooting with canon, or wish you had a canon or nikon?

They both produce great shots... as do many other cameras... I actually can't wait until I get my Hasselblad fully set-up.... Love those cameras... LOVE EM

Canon or Nikon... I think they are complete equals. The brand in this case will make no difference in photography. About photoshopping, just a hint to you guys... I don't even own photoshop or know how to use it. I use an ancient program called Microsoft Photodraw 2000 for all my graphics & editing work.

All my pics are as you see it, with some batch sharpening, and batch watermarking. Just go here:
http://www.ftvgirls.com/super.html
for examples of non-edited work. And that is before I started shooting 'raw'.

Because I am forced to use natural light so often, I am shooting anywhere between 100-500 ISO. I do not go over 500.. it gets too grainy then.

Here's a 'browser buster' image of the original for example... no modifications here. I didn't even watermark it yet ** Take note that its shot at 400 ISO. Click on the image to see the full size.

Someone said no girl is perfect, and needs to be touched up. Well I find that if you get 'clean', natural 18-21 year olds, they usually don't need any touchups. So I can get away with it.

Natural textures, instead of 'over airbrushing' feels less plastic, more natural, and far more erotic in my opinion. You could almost kiss this face.

http://www.205mph.com/DSC_0013.jpg

I have always been a fan of your work.. good stuff rob..

I love being referred to as 'someone' LOL. I also didn't say it the way you phrased it above. And I do agree with you that by the nature of booking girls in that age and quality, yes, you don't need to do anything more (because I avoid it with most of my models). It's an easier workflow if you get the great model in the first place.

"Over airbrushing" as you indicated is exactly right... as is over sharpening (which many people do as well). But, it's hard to deny that anything which brings a picture to a more pleasing state, is a bad thing. Even you have had models in the past with stretch marks, or blemishes, etc, which could have benefited from selective help (no need to make them Barbie, just a little touch up).... if that's against your religion, no worries... Photoshop, and or your Photodraw are just tools. You use it to sharpen, which, by it's very nature is a manipulation of the original image.. viz a viz... re-touching. BTW... read your post at AlisonAngel the other day... welcome to the RAW world. If you want some easy workflow tips in Photoshop, happy to help.

Actually my last photo class,my teacher and I was talking.I was telling him that I missed my olympus e-10 the lens quality was amazing and nothing I have for my canon comes close. He told me in terms of lens quality and he was a canon user. Its Olympus,Nikon and then Canon.

If Rob doesnt do alot of PS , I would recommend lightroom.Its a quarter of the price and will meet his needs and then some.

He said this was the level of lens quality??? Olympus first then Nikon then Canon???? LMAO... Not to pimp for my canon gear (cause I know everyone has their tastes...) but I know a lot of people would argue this one forever.

Not sure I would personally choose an Olympus first... but to each their own. BTW.. it also depends on the level of lens you are buying. I personally don't like my basic Canon lenses (have two of them). My "L" series lenses... another story... You can match them against the best out there.

This is not about gear and brand names.. If you have any kind of experience, you know that any craftsman knows how to use his tools no matter the name of the tool. This could turn into a canon vs nikon debate into the abyss and nobody give a shit.. if you have a camers, use that and dont worry which one others are using.
Also, my 80-200 is heavy.. i have the 2.8 but not the VR version. And if you read my initial post, I mentioned that i was using a flash on a radio trigger as fill and therfore could not go over 1/125, ISO on this is at 100. So the issue for me was to hold the fucker still at 1/125 shooting fully zoomed at 200 mm.

Rob: Nice work absolutely..and its not just an issue of photoshopping.. look at the photos. its the setting, the make up (not too much, not too little), its the styling, outfit etc etc.. some of the models Rob shoots are not that great, but he pulls them off looking kinda girl next door glam, and with some naughty play as well..