I've shot portraits with a Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR for just that reason, and its light weight is a real blessing. Not as much bokeh at f4, of course, but you can always shoot a bit closer to compensate. I happen to prefer deeper background perspective, so f4 suits my style.
@@CockatooDude 3 months late but.... Yeah, if you sport a big camera+lens people usually stay away and give some space, of course theres always a couple who try to "steal" some angles with their cellphone (dont know really what, but if they dont interfere, im usually neutral).... the bad thing is.... big camera+lens is a bright neon flag for anyone interested in steal those heavy things out of your hand
@@juliojimenez6286 Yeah it does make you more of a target for thieves, although usually I look around periodically when I shoot in shadier places to compensate for it.
this video is super clear science of how to use 70-200 telephoto lens for portrait. I have a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens and it does not have image stabilization and I have to use a tripod for a steady shot. This video has given me ideas to shoot portrait with my 75-300 lens.
This is correct as I use my 70-300 for most of my sporting events/races but sometimes I also use it to shoot some random strangers strolling along some streets/markets and background is so much better than my original lens I use for closed up/portraits
Started using a 70-200 with my 5Dii years back and haven’t gone back. Love these lenses. Used one with my 5Diii and am getting one with the Sony a9 I’m getting myself for Christmas this year. Love the 70-200. Great portraits. And I’ve found that having to step back a little helps compose the pic in an entirely new manner as imo it opens up a whole new composition world. If that makes any sense. Haha.
For me this was a extremely helpful tutorial.... I’m a crocheter and a beginner at photography....today I discovered my telephoto lens.....I’m wanting to photograph my work with a person modeling my cowls,scarves, cardigans,shawls etc....learning how to use telephoto will help me highlight what I want to highlight
I use 70-200mm f/4.0 lenses (both Canon and Sony) on crop sensor and full frame Canon and Son cameras. Yes, this lens doesn't have an f/2.8 aperture but, using a long focal length and placing my subject critically, I can achieve background separation AND the lenses are quantum smaller and lighter in weight. I have Sony and Canon 85mm f/1.8 lenses for a different rendering of my portraits. Wide open, these lenses are almost magical. An 85mm f/1.4 lens might be even more magical.
The shots with the fire hydrant were probably the best visual representation of compression I have seen so far. I am still torn between 85mm 1.2 or the 70-200mm. I think I will have more indoor low light situations than outdoor shots where I can easily work with that 200mm focal length. One day both will be in my kit though for sure.
The 70-200 range is the best portrait range, but the longer end is best for giving a natural but flattering look to the face, with the wider end only for tight spaces. It is surprising how versatile it is in studio. But it is not my favorite. My favorite is the Canon 200 f2. That lens is ridiculously expensive but nothing touches it for portraits. That extra stop over the 2.8 zoom is pure heaven. The fact that it is sharper than the 2.8 zoom is a bonus. Few lenses are truly unique. That one is.
As a fashion photographer with 30 years of experience, I can absolutely assure you that unless you are a somewhat anorexic supermodel who's 5'-10" tall, weighs 110 pounds, and has really long legs, having your portrait shot at a subject-lens distance exceeding 9' will likely make you appear to be broad, short, dumpy, and fat, and your oval face will go roundish or squarish. And generally speaking, 135mm and 200mm lens are commonly used at distances that exceed 9'. Therefore, if you are a typical average woman I would suggest that you request the photographer use a 50mm lens at closer distances if you are a bit over weight or a 70mm lens if you are at a healthy weight, and that they utilize shooting distances between 5' and 8'..... if you want to look your best in your portraits. On the other hand, if you are having gag photos shot and you want to appear really ugly in your photos, then by all means request that the photographer use their 200mm lens at long distances and you should be very satisfied. Chances are extremely high that the photographer who enjoys their 200mm lens for portraits is really more enamored with the appearance of the creamy dreamy blown out background and is less concerned about YOUR appearance in your portrait. Please keep in mind that the background can always be blurrred during the post production and retouching stage, and does not have to be blurred to oblivion at the capture stage. So make sure the photographer understands that you are paying for the portrait, and that you want to look YOUR best. 135mm and 200mm lenses are lenses for sports and wildlife photography, not portrait photography.
Patrick Hall, i am now an official fan, after seeing this video, your explanation for making the best use of 70-200 versus other lenses was classy. Thanks.
Why do women spend hours every month on the stepper or doing squats? It certainly can't be because it's fun and exciting. They do it because it shapes their derriere, and they want a shapely derriere. So now what? A gorgeous woman steps into your portrait studio for a portrait and you proudly take out your 135mm or 200mm lens, and very expediently flatten her beautiful rear end like a pancake, along with her breasts. Is this what you do? Or do you take out your lowly 35mm lens and shape her rear end and breasts like the 3-dimensional masterpieces they are? If you think the 35mm lens is for envirionmental portraits, you just don't grasp the concept of shaping your subject's body with optics and shooting distances. A 200mm lens (and specially the longer shooting distances used with such lenses) turns your gorgeous 3-dimensional subject into a flat and shapeless 2-dimensional rendering. Is this really what you believe portrait photography is all about?
Funny thing is maybe 8 times out of 10 I usually shoot lower than my talent just to give them a bit more of a heroic angle. Being short might actually make that easier haha.
@@FStoppers lower height might be an advantage for a photographer, because if you want to shoot photos of kids or flowers or pets it will be much easier for you to bend your knees than if you are tall. You can also squeeze into tighter places.
What about facial distortion? Faces appear very different as the focal length changes. That’s why most portrait photographers shoot in the 50-90 mm range, because that focal length yields the most accurate and flattering view of the facial structure.
2 years later and I am still learning so much I thought when I first saw these videos they were lame, but after I did my first engagement shoot with soon to be married cousin (I didn't charge for that they're family). I found out how much I thought I knew when actually I didn't. I did watch the engagement shoot video with Patrick hall, but in the end, I only had limited equipment my Nikon D90 and one Lens an 18-70mm nikon lens. In the end, it flopped... I did learn some interesting stuff though... I shoot street photography and soon enough hopefully will learn to do portraits, and other stuff I want to do so much in photography. It comes at a price though (wish it didn't). feel that soon I will make a name for myself I just have to find that one picture to do it. until then I will keep watching your videos. They are serious learning tools not just made up stuff. Loved the Rich Photographer VS Poor Photographer video made me think about how to best do with what I have. PS you just got another subscriber here
Jens Ritchie let me teach you a few other things to help you along. 1) never shoot a wedding or engagement until you’ve assisted on at least 5. I would offer to assist a pro photog in your area to shorten your learning curve. 2) the 17-55mm kit lens might as well be called “the shit lens”. an ideal wedding lens would’ve been the 70-200. 3) Don’t ever shoot for free. Even if it’s family.
Dude great explanation. I was stressing about buying an 85mm 1.4 for portraits. But after seeing this and owning the 70-200 g2 myself I think I'll just get better using the 70-200. On a side note your model is extremely gorgeous.
The model is extremely gorgeous and could be a Playboy model or in Victoria's Secret, but is there a single photo in this lengthy video that truly represents the full potential of this model?
Wow, this video was super helpful. I have been extremely tempted lately to buy an 85mm 1.8 prime lens, but after watching this video I can definitely see the apparent benefits of a 70-200mm telephoto lens. Also, it's nice to find a photographer on RUclips that actually knows what he/she is talking about. Lots of amateur info being spread around by others on RUclips.
@@Ksheer_Sagar_Verma so, in the name of a free youtube tutorial, one can't cover her wound? I hope you keep up with your level of professionalism. I bet Patrick didn't notice that, on-site and off to editing as well.
I’ve watched many of your videos and let me say: You are the best, - I‘m sure you know it. The way you explain photography is amazing. Greetings from Austria( not Australia😉)
Most of the tutorials are over 10 hours. Also if you start measuring content based on how long it is then that's a problem. Quality over quantity. I don't personally like or want super long tutorials, I have things to do lol.
Incredible info and just another reason to justify the purchase. I wanted it for wildlife during camping and hiking but this will stay on for portraits as well over my 35mm prime. Thank you for sharing this!
I've had the Tamron 70-200mm G2 since release...I love the resulting images and performance my only gripe is the switches on the side which move too easily
I always hit the VR button and there have been times when I turned it off and lost shots!!! However gaffers tape will save you from that. The Lens is so Brilliant at such a good price I totally forgive them.
sol s yes I've already put gaffers tape over the switches it's a bit of a nuisance when I go on and off the tripod since I have to continually switch vr on and off and forget where it's set and since there's tape over it you can't quickly tell. Still an awesome lens for the price.
I have the 70 - 200 lens already but I never used it for portraits until now that I have seen your video I have used photoshop but don't like it, because I feel it is like altering the image which I don't think is very artistic. Thank you for making this video.
Great quick tutorial on how to conveniently use the 70-200mm lens. I just bought a 55-200mm lens N I feel that this video helped me to have a better understanding of how to use it for portrait photos. Thank You so much for your tips N for teach us some good techniques.
I actually like using Macro Lenses for Portraits (not joking either) the 40mm f2.8 on DX Nikon camera is nice and sharp and 60mm equivalent. I also have used manual focus 100mm f2.8 D series lens on Full Frame to great effect.
Recently i accompanied a friend fashion photographer to shoot models, he handed me 1dx with 200 mm for additional photos. damm the combo was bloody so heavy even with neck strap that i keep falling on the models @lol full day fashion shoot is a mastery of mind body and soul... respect to all wedding / fashion photographers... PS: Lessons i learned, Take own snacks (for models also), water bottles, hat, a folding high chair, monopod instead of heavy tripod always align all 4 lines > background-model-your eye-camera eye and talk to the model, give her cues when you shoot and give her positive feedback for better shots Many models are so beautiful but pose and expression are not that good... pose and expression are all what sets apart...
Great video, thanks. One suggestion for the future, remember to explain that there will be a significant difference when using these lenses on a crop sensor camera. To get the same angle of view as you show here at 200mm on your ff camera you would be at around 130mm on a typical crop sensor model.
@@brahbrah908 There are a number of videos that explain it really well but how I think of different sensor sizes in cameras is this. All cameras with a lens attached to it are effectively identical regardless of the sensor. The lenses (let's assume for now they are all full frame lenses) all focus at the same distance behind the lens, and they all produce a circular image bigger than the sensor. Depending on the focal length of the lenses the circular image will show more (wider angle, smaller focal length) or less (narrower angle, larger focal length) of the scene it's pointed at. Now think of what size of sensor is at that place. A bigger sensor will have more of the image projected on it than a smaller one. As a result the image you get from a smaller sensor will show less of the scene than a larger sensor even though the lens is the same. The smaller sensor image will look like it is "zoomed in" compared with it's larger brother. In the case of a 200mm lens the image a full frame sensor camera will make will look similar to that of a shorter 130mm lens on a crop sensor model. If we put the 200mm lens on a crop sensor camera the image produced will be similar to a full frame camera with a 350mm lens. I'm sure I've done a poor job explaining this but as I say there are plenty of videos that explain it better but it is really important to understand when you have a crop sensor camera and are trying to duplicate the results of a tutorial where the photographer is using a full frame model. Anyway, hope this helps, good luck and happy snapping.
If one is a hobbyist/ amateur photographer who likes to take portrait photos of family and friends/amateur models the long lens is ideal because the subjects can relax more during the photo shooting, I think if you are really close to them, as you would be with a 50mm prime lens etc they would not be able to follow your posing instructions in a natural manner, that's why I like using a 70 to 210mm lens for portrait photography.
Nice, but I don’t think I would choose 70-200 for portrait while I have in my bag 105 1.4E, not only 70-200 but I don’t think that I would any other lens for portrait other than my trusty 105 1.4E.
When shot at the same working distance, the subject image distortion due to perspective between a wide-angle and telephoto lens will be identical (but you will have to crop down the wide-angle to match the telephoto framing). If you shoot a wide-angle and telephoto while keeping the exact same framing (changing your working distance), you will definitely get different perspective distortion. (this is completely different than individual lens distortions, such as barrel or pincushion distortion). Generally, shooting at longer working distances with a telephoto lens to achieve correct framing is perceived to have less or "more pleasing" perspective distortion than shooting at shorter working distances with a wider lens, but if you have sensor resolution to spare, the exact same effect can be achieved with a wide-angle by simply stepping back and then cropping the image down in post.
Jason thanks for the long explanation so I don't have to say much. Leicanoct - the image will change yes - the main reason being subject separation (change in the depth of field). If shooting a player on the field with a 50mm and a 500mm lens and then cropping in on the 50mm shot, this shot will have a much greater depth of field, giving the image a totally different look, but the "distortion" or composition (neglecting barrel or other kinds of lens distortions) will be the same. Lenses don't change reality, photographers feet do as he moves around.
Jason Osmond just shoot between 70-105 with normal portrait composition and avoid weird face shapes all together. Fill the frame. Use the pixels you paid for.
Thank you for share with us this knowledge and beside I own one 70-200 but I rarely used it been always use 24-70 , now after I been watched ur video then I change my mind. From now on I will use mine 70-200 on my portrait shoot. Thank you Sincerely. Shawn
1:46 Noob question. Can someone explain why he has shot at ISO 320 and not opted for ISO 100 and a slower shutter speed. It looks to me like there is no need to be shooting at 1/1000
Vern Wozza i thinks its to remove the micro shake and jitters which is caused when you use a lens which is as heavy as that 70-200. That's what i think. I use a 70-300 and there's a lot of micro jitter and to compensate with that i need to push the ISO up
Yes if you use 35mm, you don't need but first, it's not THAT important. Dynamic range will be better on ISO 100 however. I think Patrick just set ISO at the beginning to have a shorter shutter speed for 200mm. And 1/1000 is safe to get sharp image. For 200mm without stabilisation (hello from Sony!) it's better to start from 1/400 and shorter.
The reason was I had the camera set for the 200m f/2.8 lens (ISO 320, 1/250th, 2.8) and instead of changing all my settings I just rolled the shutter about 2 stop faster. Don't read too much into it; the difference in quality between ISO 100 and 320 in negligible.
So I'm contemplating getting the tamron 35 1.8 vc for some video work (transferring from the orginal sigma 50mm 1.4) and a 70-200 tamron for portraits and the like. Fantastic video. I have a low attention span but i stayed in for this full one
Although he looks like he's in a hole when standing near her, he could have stepped around to a 7 or 8 o'clock position and turned her slightly to remove the fire hydrant. But, I always like the look of the compressed backgrounds on the longer focal length lenses...
Firstly, why i said Lens compression in short is because 1. It is controlling field of view. Using a telephoto lens means a more narrow field of view and therefore the light hitting your camera sensor is being "expanded" and image appears larger and also the reason why you have to stand further away to fill the subject into frame and this is the lens compression. 2. Not all 70-200 lens is the same. So all this video is talking about is control your background with 70-200 telephoto lens, instead of teaching people to control background, it is better to teach people lens compression and wide angle. To answer your question. yes i have done that before but a simple thing may not be simple to other people. The internet is full of information, just take in the information and use critical thinking.
it's all about choosing what you want the focus of the photo to be. If you want the model to be the focus you use a low f stop so you blurr the background. Otherwise it is going to be distracting.
You did miss the part where the photographer explained exactly why he wanted to get rid of distracting elements. I keep finding comments that are just plain idiotic whenever a photographer outlines his/her preference in lens use. Luca Agati is one of those completely ........s.
The 200 makes her face a lot chubbier tho. Or maybe the 35 slims her down. Idk the way mm effects size and shape is always an interesting factor that all comes down to your own style
You look like you are 3' 8" compared to the model in the street.... Lol! Like a tiny magician or sourcerer or some shit ! Great video, just giving you a hard time, lol.
^ Which honestly she shouldn't have... She's not that short for a female to begin with, so there's no need for the heels. - I find it tends to look a bit ridiculous and I also don't understand the obsession of taller women insisting to wear high heels. (Trust me, I see that a lot on like profiles, claims like "I'm 1.85 and like to wear heels too.". There's a specific group of women who are obsessed with being/feeling tall.) Besides, it kind of complicates things for a photoshoot, especially if you're doing it casually outdoors.
most women I know and shoot wear heels for the posture it promotes and they look much better overall in the picture. carry a step ladder or something if you're short. i'm 6feet tall so i dont have that problem
I only ever use that indoors for portraits but it’s one hell of a lens to use for landscape. Some pros for portrait with that lens is that you can be close. Cons is that you might morph the subjects dimension (like nose being too big and chin or forehead too small. Similar effect for a close up wide angle/fish lens) Key here is distance.
At 3:40, where you compare the photos, I like the 35 mm shot better. Maybe its just because of the pose, but I think its because the body proportions on 35 mm lense. And at 200 mm its looks flat for me. But the background is better at 200 mm ofcourse)
Don't buy this slow, soapy crap :) I had the 70-200 VR II . Brrr......Sold and did buy Nikkor 85mm F1.4G . One week ago did buy the Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART .
Model reminds me of Kate Middleton (princess Kate). Very instructive video for controlling background with focal length. The 200mm focal length is great for just focusing on the model. But then zoomed in you really can't tell where the photo was taken. It could've been taken in Brooklyn or someplace else. In a beautiful location like old town Charleston, I'd also want to incorporate the background for an environmental shot so I'd shoot on the lower zoom range with a speedlight to control light, but then I'd need a lighter lens or a tripod and now it's getting too complicated!
A lot of those seemed out of focus to me... not sure if it's the result of youtube compressing it... or they're just small/low res images... some seemed sharp so I can't really blame it on youtube... maybe the f/2.8 is to blame. On my Nikon 70-200 VR2 I hardly ever shoot portraits at 2.8 because the DoF is too shallow and focus isn't as forgiving. The bokeh is essentially the same stopped down to f/4 ish anyway. Good video though, and one of the main reasons my 70-200 is my main portrait lens
Apparently you can only use photoshop to remove the fire hydrant when shooting with the 70-200! LOL . And you could've positioned her against the wall in the first place, also no distracting sky.... LOL And what’s the point about banging on about a beautiful cobblestone street and then not using it as an element in your shots, why did you bother changing streets? I get the feeling this is less about pro tips and more about selling gear! That’s my humble opinion. 😉
Another great video. Love how seamless yr commentary is, like how aware you are of the image elements after the shpt is just taken. Oh yeah, as for the portrait shot difference, the Rich Man way highlights the whites of the eyes better. Whiter and more limpid.
I really, really hate to use that heavy, bulky barrel to shoot people - 9 times out of 10, people will freeze course that lens appears like a bazooka to average people. No matter what prime lens you tend to use, it will always be a better choice.
telmaq76 that lens is not event good for candid portraits - too big if you shoot from close distance (people can DEFINITELY see you) and too short to escape people's sight. 70-200/2,8 is best for what is made - sports and concerts / events, especially those where you can't move...
Tomislav Miletić well actually im using 70-200 to take candid shots as a second shooter during our events, weddings, debuts etc.. And i love it.. It's just a matter of being flexible and know how to position yourself. In those occasion, People really dont care how big or small with the gears i have, what do they care about is to have their photos to be taken. And sometimes they are fascinated how long and bulky it is, that gives them an initial impression that i will produce good quality pictures.
Well yes for candid shots during events 70-200/2,8 might be a good thing, where everybody's attention is focused on event itself, but I was referring to candid shots on a street, for everything else you are too visible. Aldo in all fairness you are better off with 70-200mm f/4, at least you are less visible and people are not perceiving you as a "professional". Course the moment they do, as I already said, 9 times out of 10 they'll freeze...
I'm a professional fire hydrant photographer and I find this video offensive.
I'm a fire hydrant myself and find this video objectist
My mother was a fire hydrant and a 35mm lens killed her
Juan Quispe lol
i sexually identify myself as a 35mm f1.8mm lens and all the above posts are offensive
Juan Quispe that’s hot
I just bought a 70-200mm lens and this video came out. Thanks a lot!
Fan from India bro
Big fan sir
hi, iam subscribed to your channel and your pics blaze.
keep up the good work
Big fan brother ❤️❤️❤️
This is STILL one of the best imo video tutorials for photography I've ever seen. One of the videos last year that made me buy a camera. Thank you.
Reading this in 2021 and I couldn't agree more. I have learned so much from just this one little video.
He should of brought a ladder.
I love the 70-200, but I HATE how heavy and massive it is. It’s like oh don’t mind me just out here with my bazooka
Nah it's good, people will be like "Oh wouldn't wanna get in the way of the photographer here."
I've shot portraits with a Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR for just that reason, and its light weight is a real blessing. Not as much bokeh at f4, of course, but you can always shoot a bit closer to compensate. I happen to prefer deeper background perspective, so f4 suits my style.
I have the Canon 70-200mm f4 which is a hell of a lot lighter than the 2.8 and takes great portraits wide open. Check it out online..
@@CockatooDude 3 months late but.... Yeah, if you sport a big camera+lens people usually stay away and give some space, of course theres always a couple who try to "steal" some angles with their cellphone (dont know really what, but if they dont interfere, im usually neutral).... the bad thing is.... big camera+lens is a bright neon flag for anyone interested in steal those heavy things out of your hand
@@juliojimenez6286 Yeah it does make you more of a target for thieves, although usually I look around periodically when I shoot in shadier places to compensate for it.
at 8:39 the middle shot is fiiiire
Kyle
Roger Alarcon she got a flat booty
Finally a good video on why to use a 70-200mm for portraits. Glad you added light at the end was about to say just add OCF .
OCF stands for Off Camera Flash, if anyone's wondering. Took me a bit of experimenting in Google to work out what it stands for.
It’s my favorite lens
i've bought the 70-200 gmaster and pretty much take all my portraits in 200mm. I've never looked back ever since :)
this video is super clear science of how to use 70-200 telephoto lens for portrait. I have a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III lens and it does not have image stabilization and I have to use a tripod for a steady shot. This video has given me ideas to shoot portrait with my 75-300 lens.
This is correct as I use my 70-300 for most of my sporting events/races but sometimes I also use it to shoot some random strangers strolling along some streets/markets and background is so much better than my original lens I use for closed up/portraits
Started using a 70-200 with my 5Dii years back and haven’t gone back. Love these lenses. Used one with my 5Diii and am getting one with the Sony a9 I’m getting myself for Christmas this year. Love the 70-200. Great portraits. And I’ve found that having to step back a little helps compose the pic in an entirely new manner as imo it opens up a whole new composition world. If that makes any sense. Haha.
She’s so pretty
not rly. kinda fat
@@zpokie123 shut up dude...
@@zpokie123 she isn't you are
@@zpokie123 ??
For me this was a extremely helpful tutorial.... I’m a crocheter and a beginner at photography....today I discovered my telephoto lens.....I’m wanting to photograph my work with a person modeling my cowls,scarves, cardigans,shawls etc....learning how to use telephoto will help me highlight what I want to highlight
I use 70-200mm f/4.0 lenses (both Canon and Sony) on crop sensor and full frame Canon and Son cameras. Yes, this lens doesn't have an f/2.8 aperture but, using a long focal length and placing my subject critically, I can achieve background separation AND the lenses are quantum smaller and lighter in weight.
I have Sony and Canon 85mm f/1.8 lenses for a different rendering of my portraits. Wide open, these lenses are almost magical. An 85mm f/1.4 lens might be even more magical.
The shots with the fire hydrant were probably the best visual representation of compression I have seen so far. I am still torn between 85mm 1.2 or the 70-200mm. I think I will have more indoor low light situations than outdoor shots where I can easily work with that 200mm focal length. One day both will be in my kit though for sure.
The 70-200 range is the best portrait range, but the longer end is best for giving a natural but flattering look to the face, with the wider end only for tight spaces. It is surprising how versatile it is in studio. But it is not my favorite. My favorite is the Canon 200 f2. That lens is ridiculously expensive but nothing touches it for portraits. That extra stop over the 2.8 zoom is pure heaven. The fact that it is sharper than the 2.8 zoom is a bonus. Few lenses are truly unique. That one is.
As a fashion photographer with 30 years of experience, I can absolutely assure you that unless you are a somewhat anorexic supermodel who's 5'-10" tall, weighs 110 pounds, and has really long legs, having your portrait shot at a subject-lens distance exceeding 9' will likely make you appear to be broad, short, dumpy, and fat, and your oval face will go roundish or squarish. And generally speaking, 135mm and 200mm lens are commonly used at distances that exceed 9'.
Therefore, if you are a typical average woman I would suggest that you request the photographer use a 50mm lens at closer distances if you are a bit over weight or a 70mm lens if you are at a healthy weight, and that they utilize shooting distances between 5' and 8'..... if you want to look your best in your portraits. On the other hand, if you are having gag photos shot and you want to appear really ugly in your photos, then by all means request that the photographer use their 200mm lens at long distances and you should be very satisfied.
Chances are extremely high that the photographer who enjoys their 200mm lens for portraits is really more enamored with the appearance of the creamy dreamy blown out background and is less concerned about YOUR appearance in your portrait. Please keep in mind that the background can always be blurrred during the post production and retouching stage, and does not have to be blurred to oblivion at the capture stage. So make sure the photographer understands that you are paying for the portrait, and that you want to look YOUR best. 135mm and 200mm lenses are lenses for sports and wildlife photography, not portrait photography.
Patrick Hall, i am now an official fan, after seeing this video, your explanation for making the best use of 70-200 versus other lenses was classy. Thanks.
70-200mm always exceeds your highest expectations if you want blurry backgrounds, 35mm has its place for environmental portraits
Why do women spend hours every month on the stepper or doing squats? It certainly can't be because it's fun and exciting. They do it because it shapes their derriere, and they want a shapely derriere.
So now what? A gorgeous woman steps into your portrait studio for a portrait and you proudly take out your 135mm or 200mm lens, and very expediently flatten her beautiful rear end like a pancake, along with her breasts. Is this what you do?
Or do you take out your lowly 35mm lens and shape her rear end and breasts like the 3-dimensional masterpieces they are?
If you think the 35mm lens is for envirionmental portraits, you just don't grasp the concept of shaping your subject's body with optics and shooting distances. A 200mm lens (and specially the longer shooting distances used with such lenses) turns your gorgeous 3-dimensional subject into a flat and shapeless 2-dimensional rendering. Is this really what you believe portrait photography is all about?
70-200 is so good. far and away the most useful lens you can own for any kind of camera work.
+ the 200 mm help when you are 1.55m and your model is 1.80m ;)
Funny thing is maybe 8 times out of 10 I usually shoot lower than my talent just to give them a bit more of a heroic angle. Being short might actually make that easier haha.
@@FStoppers As someone who's 6'3" that's actually a really great tip and certainly shows in the middle shot at 8:43. Loved this review!
@@FStoppers lower height might be an advantage for a photographer, because if you want to shoot photos of kids or flowers or pets it will be much easier for you to bend your knees than if you are tall. You can also squeeze into tighter places.
@@vkaa3k190 like a backpack :P the crew can carry a little person around and throw them biscuits like a stage show. Guaranteed to work!
Wow. The moody shot was amazing. The beige and blues were beautiful!
What about facial distortion? Faces appear very different as the focal length changes. That’s why most portrait photographers shoot in the 50-90 mm range, because that focal length yields the most accurate and flattering view of the facial structure.
That's 135mm to 150mm.
2 years later and I am still learning so much I thought when I first saw these videos they were lame, but after I did my first engagement shoot with soon to be married cousin (I didn't charge for that they're family). I found out how much I thought I knew when actually I didn't. I did watch the engagement shoot video with Patrick hall, but in the end, I only had limited equipment my Nikon D90 and one Lens an 18-70mm nikon lens. In the end, it flopped... I did learn some interesting stuff though... I shoot street photography and soon enough hopefully will learn to do portraits, and other stuff I want to do so much in photography. It comes at a price though (wish it didn't). feel that soon I will make a name for myself I just have to find that one picture to do it. until then I will keep watching your videos. They are serious learning tools not just made up stuff. Loved the Rich Photographer VS Poor Photographer video made me think about how to best do with what I have.
PS you just got another subscriber here
Jens Ritchie let me teach you a few other things to help you along. 1) never shoot a wedding or engagement until you’ve assisted on at least 5. I would offer to assist a pro photog in your area to shorten your learning curve. 2) the 17-55mm kit lens might as well be called “the shit lens”. an ideal wedding lens would’ve been the 70-200. 3) Don’t ever shoot for free. Even if it’s family.
Dude great explanation. I was stressing about buying an 85mm 1.4 for portraits. But after seeing this and owning the 70-200 g2 myself I think I'll just get better using the 70-200. On a side note your model is extremely gorgeous.
The model is extremely gorgeous and could be a Playboy model or in Victoria's Secret, but is there a single photo in this lengthy video that truly represents the full potential of this model?
Wow, this video was super helpful. I have been extremely tempted lately to buy an 85mm 1.8 prime lens, but after watching this video I can definitely see the apparent benefits of a 70-200mm telephoto lens.
Also, it's nice to find a photographer on RUclips that actually knows what he/she is talking about. Lots of amateur info being spread around by others on RUclips.
Thanks, glad to help with our content
Who notices the background when Kirsten is in the foreground?
pablo rages Background??
Love that you’re using a D850 and the Tamron 70-200 G2 which is my exact setup
delicious model ! I use for portraits only 135/2.0 lens, canon on sony A7 III.
135mm f2.5 takumar ftw!
This model is very good. Her movements are so simple yet glorious.
Like for the model :)
I too like attractive females. What a coincidence. We should get coffee sometime.
rofl wtf
@@Ksheer_Sagar_Verma so, in the name of a free youtube tutorial, one can't cover her wound? I hope you keep up with your level of professionalism. I bet Patrick didn't notice that, on-site and off to editing as well.
No, he is just 3 feet "tall".
Can we get an insta of her?
Her legs are So long ... what a gorgeous girl
The model is incredibly beautiful.
I’ve watched many of your videos and let me say: You are the best, - I‘m sure you know it. The way you explain photography is amazing. Greetings from Austria( not Australia😉)
and from Hamburg too. You improved my portrait fotography. Thank you
What is the best Kangaroo park in Austria?
Ur doing very useful explaining thank u sir
Wow, the production on this new video is on par with your tutorials. Looking awesome man, I'm really looking forward to more videos, great work.
For real? Because it is on par as well with a lot of the quality youtube content. And the tutorials are like 299 for a four hour video …
Most of the tutorials are over 10 hours. Also if you start measuring content based on how long it is then that's a problem. Quality over quantity. I don't personally like or want super long tutorials, I have things to do lol.
Incredible info and just another reason to justify the purchase. I wanted it for wildlife during camping and hiking but this will stay on for portraits as well over my 35mm prime. Thank you for sharing this!
Your 35mm prime will be the lens you use if you want to make a woman feel gorgeous. Only use your 200mm if you want revenge.
Really great, simple examples of the effects of focal lengths for shooting. Thanks for taking the time in making this video.
I love my 70-200 Canon 2.8L. it is the workhorse in my bag. Thanks Patrick for the great video.
When height and beauty mix together...
Oh God... 💞
I use the 85mm lens. Its just the right size and weight. But you got great pointers. I always try to even the light by avoiding distracting elements.
I've had the Tamron 70-200mm G2 since release...I love the resulting images and performance my only gripe is the switches on the side which move too easily
I agree with you. I hit the focus button all the time by accident. I'm not sure why they didn't recess those buttons more.
I always hit the VR button and there have been times when I turned it off and lost shots!!! However gaffers tape will save you from that. The Lens is so Brilliant at such a good price I totally forgive them.
sol s yes I've already put gaffers tape over the switches it's a bit of a nuisance when I go on and off the tripod since I have to continually switch vr on and off and forget where it's set and since there's tape over it you can't quickly tell. Still an awesome lens for the price.
Randy Deloviar Photography i had this problem before, but after i switched to Peak Design Slide strap, it doesn't happened again.
I have the 70 - 200 lens already but I never used it for portraits until now that I have seen your video I have used photoshop but don't like it, because I feel it is like altering the image which I don't think is very artistic. Thank you for making this video.
Great video! But I personally think faces look too flat with 200mm.
What's your favorite focal length?
I also use this lens in shooting portraits and it really isolates your subject from the background.
200mm sometimes flattens the subject too much. 105-135 in the range is a fair compromise if you really wanna get picky.
diesel828 my fav for portraits is my samyang 135 f2. It's a monster.
Looks like a go to portrait lens, thank you Patrick, great video!
when i saw the 70mm head fatten compared to the 35mm i thought it was gonna look horrific @ 200mm :)
Great quick tutorial on how to conveniently use the 70-200mm lens. I just bought a 55-200mm lens N I feel that this video helped me to have a better understanding of how to use it for portrait photos. Thank You so much for your tips N for teach us some good techniques.
IDK why but the 35mm shots looked good, maybe it was because of the background
can we get pat to make his own youtube channel and he just drops all his knowledge in it!? he's my favorite fstopper.
MrPwnedo thank man, glad you appreciate what I do. I'll try to do more like this
The 35mm is one of my favorite primes for portraits 👾
Yep.
Of course, it just depends on your objectives....
me too
I actually like using Macro Lenses for Portraits (not joking either) the 40mm f2.8 on DX Nikon camera is nice and sharp and 60mm equivalent. I also have used manual focus 100mm f2.8 D series lens on Full Frame to great effect.
Same, the sigma 35mm f1.4 is my baby
Recently i accompanied a friend fashion photographer to shoot models, he handed me 1dx with 200 mm for additional photos.
damm the combo was bloody so heavy even with neck strap that i keep falling on the models @lol
full day fashion shoot is a mastery of mind body and soul... respect to all wedding / fashion photographers...
PS: Lessons i learned,
Take own snacks (for models also), water bottles, hat, a folding high chair, monopod instead of heavy tripod
always align all 4 lines > background-model-your eye-camera eye
and talk to the model, give her cues when you shoot and give her positive feedback for better shots
Many models are so beautiful but pose and expression are not that good... pose and expression are all what sets apart...
That was a really great video. Keep this style!
In Jan we are aiming to release a video a day...I'm sure all the styles will change drastically!
Great video, thanks. One suggestion for the future, remember to explain that there will be a significant difference when using these lenses on a crop sensor camera. To get the same angle of view as you show here at 200mm on your ff camera you would be at around 130mm on a typical crop sensor model.
What does that mean?
I’m kinda of slow
@@brahbrah908 There are a number of videos that explain it really well but how I think of different sensor sizes in cameras is this. All cameras with a lens attached to it are effectively identical regardless of the sensor. The lenses (let's assume for now they are all full frame lenses) all focus at the same distance behind the lens, and they all produce a circular image bigger than the sensor. Depending on the focal length of the lenses the circular image will show more (wider angle, smaller focal length) or less (narrower angle, larger focal length) of the scene it's pointed at. Now think of what size of sensor is at that place. A bigger sensor will have more of the image projected on it than a smaller one. As a result the image you get from a smaller sensor will show less of the scene than a larger sensor even though the lens is the same. The smaller sensor image will look like it is "zoomed in" compared with it's larger brother. In the case of a 200mm lens the image a full frame sensor camera will make will look similar to that of a shorter 130mm lens on a crop sensor model. If we put the 200mm lens on a crop sensor camera the image produced will be similar to a full frame camera with a 350mm lens. I'm sure I've done a poor job explaining this but as I say there are plenty of videos that explain it better but it is really important to understand when you have a crop sensor camera and are trying to duplicate the results of a tutorial where the photographer is using a full frame model. Anyway, hope this helps, good luck and happy snapping.
*proceeds to order canon 70-200mm after watching this video*
If one is a hobbyist/ amateur photographer who likes to take portrait photos of family and friends/amateur models the long lens is ideal because the subjects can relax more during the photo shooting, I think if you are really close to them, as you would be with a 50mm prime lens etc they would not be able to follow your posing instructions in a natural manner, that's why I like using a 70 to 210mm lens for portrait photography.
Interesting point!
Nice, but I don’t think I would choose 70-200 for portrait while I have in my bag 105 1.4E, not only 70-200 but I don’t think that I would any other lens for portrait other than my trusty 105 1.4E.
ha i thought from even the blurry backgronds it kinda looked like charleston and turns out i was right! nailed it!
Is it just me or does he look and sound like Bighead from Silicon Valley?
You just had to say it now I can't get it out of my head hahaha!
Love the 70-200 Tamron for Portrait. Got this marvelous bokeh in the Pics ....🙏🏼
The problem is that changing the focal length also changes the shape and distorts the face. And the face is more important than the background.
The lens does not distort, the shooting distance that you use distorts subjects.
When shot at the same working distance, the subject image distortion due to perspective between a wide-angle and telephoto lens will be identical (but you will have to crop down the wide-angle to match the telephoto framing). If you shoot a wide-angle and telephoto while keeping the exact same framing (changing your working distance), you will definitely get different perspective distortion. (this is completely different than individual lens distortions, such as barrel or pincushion distortion). Generally, shooting at longer working distances with a telephoto lens to achieve correct framing is perceived to have less or "more pleasing" perspective distortion than shooting at shorter working distances with a wider lens, but if you have sensor resolution to spare, the exact same effect can be achieved with a wide-angle by simply stepping back and then cropping the image down in post.
Jason thanks for the long explanation so I don't have to say much. Leicanoct - the image will change yes - the main reason being subject separation (change in the depth of field). If shooting a player on the field with a 50mm and a 500mm lens and then cropping in on the 50mm shot, this shot will have a much greater depth of field, giving the image a totally different look, but the "distortion" or composition (neglecting barrel or other kinds of lens distortions) will be the same. Lenses don't change reality, photographers feet do as he moves around.
Jason Osmond just shoot between 70-105 with normal portrait composition and avoid weird face shapes all together. Fill the frame. Use the pixels you paid for.
Gavin Hoey shows it in a simple way - ruclips.net/video/GbESqYkodmQ/видео.html
my canon 70-200 was the best investment I ever made outside of my ronin! very versatile
This video discriminated against Fire Hydrants. That behaviour is just unacceptable
Thank you for share with us this knowledge and beside I own one 70-200 but I rarely used it been always use 24-70 , now after I been watched ur video then I change my mind.
From now on I will use mine 70-200 on my portrait shoot.
Thank you
Sincerely. Shawn
1:46 Noob question. Can someone explain why he has shot at ISO 320 and not opted for ISO 100 and a slower shutter speed. It looks to me like there is no need to be shooting at 1/1000
Vern Wozza i thinks its to remove the micro shake and jitters which is caused when you use a lens which is as heavy as that 70-200. That's what i think. I use a 70-300 and there's a lot of micro jitter and to compensate with that i need to push the ISO up
Yes if you use 35mm, you don't need but first, it's not THAT important. Dynamic range will be better on ISO 100 however. I think Patrick just set ISO at the beginning to have a shorter shutter speed for 200mm. And 1/1000 is safe to get sharp image. For 200mm without stabilisation (hello from Sony!) it's better to start from 1/400 and shorter.
Those cameras has nice high ISO without noise... So, he chose 1/1000 to don't have any trepidation/shake and get a perfect sharpe shoot!!! I guess...
The reason was I had the camera set for the 200m f/2.8 lens (ISO 320, 1/250th, 2.8) and instead of changing all my settings I just rolled the shutter about 2 stop faster. Don't read too much into it; the difference in quality between ISO 100 and 320 in negligible.
Yep, wow you reversed engineered that very well :)
So I'm contemplating getting the tamron 35 1.8 vc for some video work (transferring from the orginal sigma 50mm 1.4) and a 70-200 tamron for portraits and the like. Fantastic video. I have a low attention span but i stayed in for this full one
Although he looks like he's in a hole when standing near her, he could have stepped around to a 7 or 8 o'clock position and turned her slightly to remove the fire hydrant. But, I always like the look of the compressed backgrounds on the longer focal length lenses...
85mm or 100mm f1.8 also best choise there.
Moore compact and lightweight
Thumbs up fro the GnR shirt.
One of my favorite albums of all time....locomotive for the win!
Fstoppers Dude. Same. We're best friends now.
I'm a beginner and really understood your explanation! Thank you.
You're like the Howard Wolowitz of photography 😁
Clicked for Kirsten, but learnt heaps, good work.
Lens compression in short.
many people don't know what that means
Kin Ho just search that on youtube or google.
well yes, that's a no brainer but a question to you is, have you ever ask someone something simple that you could've just search on the internet too?
Firstly, why i said Lens compression in short is because 1. It is controlling field of view. Using a telephoto lens means a more narrow field of view and therefore the light hitting your camera sensor is being "expanded" and image appears larger and also the reason why you have to stand further away to fill the subject into frame and this is the lens compression. 2. Not all 70-200 lens is the same. So all this video is talking about is control your background with 70-200 telephoto lens, instead of teaching people to control background, it is better to teach people lens compression and wide angle. To answer your question. yes i have done that before but a simple thing may not be simple to other people. The internet is full of information, just take in the information and use critical thinking.
noobielameo you missed the point I’m trying to make lol I know what Len compression is, I’ve been doin photo and video for a bit now
The model is gorgeous
Holy . She's gorgeous
You need to get out more
Really interesting and informative stuff. Thanks for this video! As I'm a Canon user, I'm wondering if you have thoughts on the f4 vs. f2.8?
"we are in a beautiful location, so in order to make the photo look better i'm going to completely blur the background " -_-
it's all about choosing what you want the focus of the photo to be.
If you want the model to be the focus you use a low f stop so you blurr the background.
Otherwise it is going to be distracting.
You did miss the part where the photographer explained exactly why he wanted to get rid of distracting elements. I keep finding comments that are just plain idiotic whenever a photographer outlines his/her preference in lens use. Luca Agati is one of those completely ........s.
he wants to shoot portrait....not scenery. duh~
kevinr ruiters You are an idiot who did not get the joke. So it is YOU are one of those completely assholes
Very funny. hahah
Thanks Patrick, Really nice demonstration of the differences.
The 200 makes her face a lot chubbier tho. Or maybe the 35 slims her down. Idk the way mm effects size and shape is always an interesting factor that all comes down to your own style
Lee Cason exactly! He's shooting 200 to get a ” more pleasing background” at the expense of the model.
But too wide, and you risk big noses
You have found a good model there . Congrats.
You look like you are 3' 8" compared to the model in the street.... Lol! Like a tiny magician or sourcerer or some shit
! Great video, just giving you a hard time, lol.
Willow?
Shes wearing heels
^ Which honestly she shouldn't have... She's not that short for a female to begin with, so there's no need for the heels. - I find it tends to look a bit ridiculous and I also don't understand the obsession of taller women insisting to wear high heels. (Trust me, I see that a lot on like profiles, claims like "I'm 1.85 and like to wear heels too.". There's a specific group of women who are obsessed with being/feeling tall.)
Besides, it kind of complicates things for a photoshoot, especially if you're doing it casually outdoors.
most women I know and shoot wear heels for the posture it promotes and they look much better overall in the picture. carry a step ladder or something if you're short. i'm 6feet tall so i dont have that problem
^ She doesn't, however.
I love 70-200 vertical straight gold
So much hate on the 35😜
No I love that lens just not for portraits. It's a great photo journalistic lens for sure
Seems like Sean Archer likes the 35mm?
Fstoppers hey i bought a sigma 35mm 1.4 art for portrait...did i just kill myself from buying it? Should i return it and get a canon 70-200 2.8 ii?
I only ever use that indoors for portraits but it’s one hell of a lens to use for landscape.
Some pros for portrait with that lens is that you can be close.
Cons is that you might morph the subjects dimension (like nose being too big and chin or forehead too small. Similar effect for a close up wide angle/fish lens)
Key here is distance.
Love this tutorial. Thanks enormously.
Damn are you short or is the model super tall
You're the best channel and video I ever seen before now... Thanks
"Same composition" - steps a few steps back :D
50mm 1.2 cannon would be great. Also set your exposure for the background first then add flash. flash makes your subject pop off the screen!
HAIR BOBBLE ON THE WRIST
Great info🌸💖 and I love your jean jacket 👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
ok.. so how to be a good photographer: have money
At 3:40, where you compare the photos, I like the 35 mm shot better. Maybe its just because of the pose, but I think its because the body proportions on 35 mm lense. And at 200 mm its looks flat for me. But the background is better at 200 mm ofcourse)
A. Zubareus same
I have no money to buy one :(
Don't buy this slow, soapy crap :) I had the 70-200 VR II . Brrr......Sold and did buy Nikkor 85mm F1.4G . One week ago did buy the Sigma 85mm F1.4 ART .
me too
Older Canon or Nikon 80-200s can be had for a few hundred bucks
Try f/4, not f/2.8.
if you are as poor as me, get the Canon 85mm f1.8.
if you are poorer than me, get the Canon 50mm f1.8.
Great lens, some real cool shots there
70-200 is good if your using Full Frame. :)
You are right dude, on a crop it's not so good in blurrin background. Especially with f/4.
I pretty much use my 70-200 for sports photography. What would you suggest for a lens on a crop sensor for this kind of photography?
@@nighthawk20011 50mm will do the job.
Model reminds me of Kate Middleton (princess Kate). Very instructive video for controlling background with focal length. The 200mm focal length is great for just focusing on the model. But then zoomed in you really can't tell where the photo was taken. It could've been taken in Brooklyn or someplace else. In a beautiful location like old town Charleston, I'd also want to incorporate the background for an environmental shot so I'd shoot on the lower zoom range with a speedlight to control light, but then I'd need a lighter lens or a tripod and now it's getting too complicated!
Isnt that a bit overkill?
What is overkill?
A lot of those seemed out of focus to me... not sure if it's the result of youtube compressing it... or they're just small/low res images... some seemed sharp so I can't really blame it on youtube... maybe the f/2.8 is to blame. On my Nikon 70-200 VR2 I hardly ever shoot portraits at 2.8 because the DoF is too shallow and focus isn't as forgiving. The bokeh is essentially the same stopped down to f/4 ish anyway. Good video though, and one of the main reasons my 70-200 is my main portrait lens
Apparently you can only use photoshop to remove the fire hydrant when shooting with the 70-200! LOL . And you could've positioned her against the wall in the first place, also no distracting sky.... LOL And what’s the point about banging on about a beautiful cobblestone street and then not using it as an element in your shots, why did you bother changing streets? I get the feeling this is less about pro tips and more about selling gear! That’s my humble opinion. 😉
and you could of
Tobias Beer Indeed!
and you could HAVE
Another great video. Love how seamless yr commentary is, like how aware you are of the image elements after the shpt is just taken. Oh yeah, as for the portrait shot difference, the Rich Man way highlights the whites of the eyes better. Whiter and more limpid.
I really, really hate to use that heavy, bulky barrel to shoot people - 9 times out of 10, people will freeze course that lens appears like a bazooka to average people. No matter what prime lens you tend to use, it will always be a better choice.
to shoot models it s the perfect lens. for sure to shoot candid in the street , it s not the best
telemaq76 i agree it depends on what you're shooting.
telmaq76 that lens is not event good for candid portraits - too big if you shoot from close distance (people can DEFINITELY see you) and too short to escape people's sight.
70-200/2,8 is best for what is made - sports and concerts / events, especially those where you can't move...
Tomislav Miletić well actually im using 70-200 to take candid shots as a second shooter during our events, weddings, debuts etc.. And i love it.. It's just a matter of being flexible and know how to position yourself. In those occasion, People really dont care how big or small with the gears i have, what do they care about is to have their photos to be taken. And sometimes they are fascinated how long and bulky it is, that gives them an initial impression that i will produce good quality pictures.
Well yes for candid shots during events 70-200/2,8 might be a good thing, where everybody's attention is focused on event itself, but I was referring to candid shots on a street, for everything else you are too visible. Aldo in all fairness you are better off with 70-200mm f/4, at least you are less visible and people are not perceiving you as a "professional". Course the moment they do, as I already said, 9 times out of 10 they'll freeze...
Those shots are INSANE. Great job