# Need advice.  Moving from scapes to people



## pab (Jun 5, 2013)

So I have been shooting landscapes for a few good years now and want to move into the money making side of photography,  people!   I don't really have portrait lenses though and this is my issue.   My current lenses are 

14-24mm 2.8
24-70mm 2.8
50 mm 1.4G

I want 
70-200mm 2.8
85mm 1.4G

The real question is what would you do.   I don't want to buy them   I want to make sure this new venture is what I want before dropping thousands of dollars. 

Keep the 50mm (make due instead of the 85?)

What would you trade?    The 24-70 to get the 70-200?

I would then have 14-24 / 50 / 70-200

Or sell the 14-24 and get the 70-200.

If I  ditch the 14-24 and get the 85mm and ditch the 24-70 to get the 70-20 I effectively got rid of and wide shots.  Shortest focal length would be 50 then 70 then 85...

Help please! 


Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## Derrel (Jun 5, 2013)

Keep the 14-24; trade the 24-70, since it is likely to be updated with better optics or VR within 18 months; FORGET the 85mm f/1.4.

As soon as possible, try and obtain a 70-200. Right NOW, as in today, the 70-200 f4/VR Nikkor is about $1,000 with the new rebate. It's a nice lens too.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 5, 2013)

You didn't mention what SORT of people doing what SORT of things you want to shoot.  That makes a lot of difference.

Senior portrait types of things with just head and shoulders?  70-200 is ideal, or maybe even a 70-300 or something.
Clothing models or nudes or (posed) sports or fine art where you want most or all of a sprawled out or active full body, and possibly some context, like a tennis ball about to be hit above them? Or large group shots?  Or dramatic perspectives? Your existing 24-70 would be ideal.


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 5, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> You didn't mention what SORT of people doing what SORT of things you want to shoot.  That makes a lot of difference.
> 
> Senior portrait types of things with just head and shoulders?  70-200 is ideal, or maybe even a 70-300 or something.
> Clothing models or nudes or (posed) sports or fine art where you want most or all of a sprawled out or active full body, and possibly some context, like a tennis ball about to be hit above them? Or large group shots?  Or dramatic perspectives? Your existing 24-70 would be ideal.



Yes, do tell what sort of people you're shooting. Are they tall? Short? Fat? Old? Hispanic? Asian? Eskimos? Hipsters? I mean come on, the type of people totally determines the lens.


----------



## Gavjenks (Jun 5, 2013)

Well technically a taller person does indeed require a shorter focal length to get the same proportional crop 
And slightly more seriously, babies require a significantly longer lens to get the same proportional crops.

But yeah, I meant career.


----------



## pab (Jun 5, 2013)

Thanks for all the fast responses!



Derrel said:


> Keep the 14-24; trade the 24-70, since it is likely to be updated with better optics or VR within 18 months; FORGET the 85mm f/1.4.
> 
> As soon as possible, try and obtain a 70-200. Right NOW, as in today, the 70-200 f4/VR Nikkor is about $1,000 with the new rebate. It's a nice lens too.



Thats a great deal.   Would you have any concern with the f4 being a little less productive in low light situations?



Gavjenks said:


> You didn't mention what SORT of people doing what SORT of things you want to shoot.  That makes a lot of difference.
> 
> Senior portrait types of things with just head and shoulders?  70-200 is ideal, or maybe even a 70-300 or something.
> Clothing models or nudes or (posed) sports or fine art where you want most or all of a sprawled out or active full body, and possibly some context, like a tennis ball about to be hit above them? Or large group shots?  Or dramatic perspectives? Your existing 24-70 would be ideal.



Sorry I did not mention this in the original post.   I plan to do basically as much as I can without venturing into weddings.   So engagement shoots, senior photos, children, family photos, and anything else that falls into that category.   I am not experienced enough yet to take on weddings, so I figured for the most part these photos would include either waste up portraits or at times multiple people in one photo.




o hey tyler said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > You didn't mention what SORT of people doing what SORT of things you want to shoot.  That makes a lot of difference.
> ...



I have a bunch of friends and friends of family that have either newborns or toddlers. That would make up about 30% of what I would want to do.  I would like 50% of it to be things like engagement shoots, events, or individual portraits and the other 20% can be anything from senior photos and anything that falls into that category.


----------



## pixmedic (Jun 5, 2013)

you have focused a good bit on what LENSES you need, but since you are talking about portrait work, have you considered what LIGHTING you will need?
do you currently have any flashes? stands? diffusers? a way to trigger multiple flashes? flashes/strobes can be just as important for portrait work as the lens choice. 
for basic portrait work your 24-70 (for wider group shots) and 50mm are a good start.  85mm is a great portrait lens, especially on a FX camera, and you could really get away with what you have plus an 85mm lens and some flashes.  a 70-200 would be great, but in my opinion, not entirely necessary unless you want to shoot from far away. (this is based off your statement that you wish to primarily do "portrait" and "family" style shoots and NOT weddings)


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 5, 2013)

pixmedic said:


> you have focused a good bit on what LENSES you need, but since you are talking about portrait work, have you considered what LIGHTING you will need?
> do you currently have any flashes? stands? diffusers? a way to trigger multiple flashes? flashes/strobes can be just as important for portrait work as the lens choice.
> for basic portrait work your 24-70 (for wider group shots) and 50mm are a good start.  85mm is a great portrait lens, especially on a FX camera, and you could really get away with what you have plus an 85mm lens and some flashes.  a 70-200 would be great, but in my opinion, not entirely necessary unless you want to shoot from far away. (this is based off your statement that you wish to primarily do "portrait" and "family" style shoots and NOT weddings)



^This! That was my first thought when I read your title!

Lighting is not something you use when shooting landscapes, but it is all important when you are shooting people, especially if you are trying to get professional results worth paying for. There are a million "Natural Light" photographers out there charging such low prices they are losing money, even though they don't realize that. And the majority of them turn out inferior images... and they don't know enough to realize that either. Surely you don't want to join those ranks? You will need strobes / flashes, various modifiers, reflectors, and various other odds and ends, (like wireless triggers - they make it easier to setup). Obviously you have not been using any of this gear for landscapes.. and probably know nothing to very little about it.. much less how to use it. Spend the next three years practicing with that gear.. and maybe you will be ready to start charging lower end pricing.

On the lenses, if there is room.. yes, I use my 70-200, usually for single head and shoulders portraiture (often in corporate boardrooms where I can't get close). I also use my 24-70 (primary for shoots with 1 to 6 people that is changing up quickly, and my 85 1.4 for single/couple portraiture sometimes... the 14-24 would only be useful for a very large group, and should not be used for portraiture in general because of the possibility of perspective distortion (anything under 50mm should be used with caution here). Perspective Distortion Effects Planned or Accidental


----------



## o hey tyler (Jun 5, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Well technically a taller person does indeed require a shorter focal length to get the same proportional crop
> And slightly more seriously, babies require a significantly longer lens to get the same proportional crops.
> 
> But yeah, I meant career.



Since when do you need identically proportional crops for portraits all the time? You don't.


----------



## amolitor (Jun 5, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Well technically a taller person does indeed require a shorter focal length to get the same proportional crop
> ...




I actually modify the people to fit my studio space. Much cheaper than having a whole fleet of lenses.


----------



## ronlane (Jun 5, 2013)

amolitor said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



Is that an outpatient procedure with a local, or do you have to send them across the street to have that done? Is that factored into your sitting fee, and if so, do you accept insurance cards and help them file it? [This could be very key to writing/re-writing a business plan]


----------



## pab (Jun 5, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> pixmedic said:
> 
> 
> > you have focused a good bit on what LENSES you need, but since you are talking about portrait work, have you considered what LIGHTING you will need?
> ...



Lot of good stuff here, and majority of it is true.   I have in my house 3 soft boxes and an sb700 flash.   I have no wireless triggers or remote flash poles or octagon boxes etc etc.  I primarily planned to do outdoor shoots to get started and attempt to set appointments earlier than 1 and later than 5.   Dont have the diffusers or reflectors either so I really dont want to fight with mid day light.   Buying the peripherals like pocket wizard and battery packs and diffusers are not the big issue here.   Its learning how to use it on my own properly.   I have been teaching myself as I go now for the past few years and dont really expect that to change (no friends or close acquaintances are professional enough to teach me)   I watch a lot of how to videos online and read a lot but the best training is to just practice doing it I have noticed..

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------



## ronlane (Jun 5, 2013)

pab said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > pixmedic said:
> ...



That's a great way to learn. You can pick up a 5-in-1 reflector for under $50 to help with fill light when you are out doors. I have been working on portraits both outdoor with flash and fill and also studio with flash and I have been using a reflector for fill.

The people on this site are really helpful with learning.


----------



## gsgary (Jun 5, 2013)

If you are shooting over size people you might need the 14-24


----------



## cgipson1 (Jun 5, 2013)

gsgary said:


> If you are shooting over size people you might need the 14-24



Got lots of those here in the US! Got a few in the UK too, do you... Gary?  lol!


----------



## gsgary (Jun 9, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> gsgary said:
> 
> 
> > If you are shooting over size people you might need the 14-24
> ...



Yes there are a few not me luckily


----------

