# 70-300mm for portraits??



## mdmosta319 (Mar 22, 2018)

First Thing, I am Newbie. I know Prime lens would allow more light (1.8>4.5).
.
What are benifits of Prime lens when I can get same amount of blur with zoom lens (70-300mm)??
.
Photos of same settings would be different, But how much? How much sharness need to be sacrificed?
.
*VR is on.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 22, 2018)

mdmosta319 said:


> I know Prime lens would allow more light (1.8>4.5).



this is only a problem if you're using available light.  also, some/many "portraits" taken at 1.8 won't have sufficient DOF.



> What are benifits of Prime lens when I can get same amount of blur with zoom lens (70-300mm)??



ultimate image sharpness/quality. better rendering. lighter/easier to wield.


> Photos of same settings would be different, But how much? How much sharness need to be sacrificed?



what are we comparing:  a 85mm prime and the 70-300 set to 85mm or 300mm?


----------



## mdmosta319 (Mar 22, 2018)

Braineack said:


> mdmosta319 said:
> 
> 
> > I know Prime lens would allow more light (1.8>4.5).
> ...


May be 85mm with f5.6.
And Thanks for your reply.


----------



## ac12 (Mar 22, 2018)

mdmosta319 said:


> First Thing, I am Newbie. I know Prime lens would allow more light (1.8>4.5).
> .
> What are benifits of Prime lens when I can get same amount of blur with zoom lens (70-300mm)??
> .
> ...



Not quite.
An 85mm lens at f/1.8 will have a shallower DoF than a 70-300 zoom set to 85mm at f/4.5, so the amount of blur will be different.
To get a similar blur, you need to zoom out to a longer focal length, backup from the subject, and experiment to find at what point (focal length+distance) you have a similar out of focus blur.

In LOW light, FAST glass wins.  

For convenience the zoom wins.


----------



## Derrel (Mar 22, 2018)

Sure, the 70-300 zoom lenses offer a huge amount of focal length flexibility, and various working distances for portraiture. The downside is that some of the older designs are cheap and low-performance. Allegedly the NEW* 70-300mm AF-P VR-G* Nikkor lens (the VR models are available in both a low-cost DX version AND a higher-priced FX-compatible model) has really GOOD performance optically, and focuses super-fast. See Thom Hogan's Nikon D3400 review for his high,high praise for this new 70-300 lens in both sharpness,and focusing speed and sureness.

One thing that's really NICE to do, like when shooting a couple or a family, is to start out with them at about 125 feet distance, and have them walk slowly toward the camera, as you shoot at 300mm, then gradually zoom back, shorter and shorter, and frame and shoot different types of portraits, as they approach the camera. This is an old approach I learned in the late 1970's, and is a GREAT way to start a portrait session, especially with a man and wife, or BF/GF, or a small family group. They're not posing so much as being there, and laughing, interacting, etc.. Do three or so runs of this, then get into more-typical types of shooting. This is a great start-up to an outdoor portrait session! I use a 70-200 for this, but a 70-300 can work too.

Primes are limiting, and you need to have three or four: 85,105,135,180 in Nikon, 85/100/135/200 in Canon. With prime lenses, the lens length and angle of view is "not quite right" for some situations. The zoom lens wins for ease of framing, and keeps you shooting without interruption. 70-300 zooms are all "slow and variable maximum aperture, like f/4~5.6, or even f/4.5~5.6, or even f/4.5~6.3, so in poor light, these types of zooms are bad choices!

Backdrop blurring...it's tough to summarize, but one can use the 70-300 at the 200-300mm range at moderate to moderately-long ranges at f/7.1 and get "some" backdrop blurring, but on APS-C sized sensors, at those ranges, there is some recognizable-nature to the background in many situations. At close subject distances,but with the background far behind the subject, the 70-300 can give pretty good blurring to the background at f/7.1.

If I had to choose only _one_ lens in this case (between these two lens types), it would be the zoom 70-300 instead of an 85mm.


----------



## beagle100 (Mar 23, 2018)

mdmosta319 said:


> First Thing, I am Newbie. I know Prime lens would allow more light (1.8>4.5).
> .
> What are benifits of Prime lens when I can get same amount of blur with zoom lens (70-300mm)??
> .
> ...



no 'sacrifice'
a larger aperture allows more background blur for portraits
*www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless*


----------



## Braineack (Mar 23, 2018)

A similarly framed portrait at 300mm vs 85mm... The 300mm _could_ have much larger aperture and a much more blurred background.


----------



## Upadhyay (Mar 27, 2018)

Go for a 70-200 f2.8 instead if budget is not a constrain, it will give you a variable focal length and will also work as a decent portrait lens.


As everyone mentioned you can never get the shallow depth of field produced by 85mm 1.8 from a 70-300 F4-5.6


----------



## jcdeboever (Mar 27, 2018)

A friend of mine has the newer 70-300P lens, and as Derrel pointed out in the review, it is much better than the older versions. I was pleasantly surprised by  the image quality of it on a D3400. Plus the price on them are reasonable compared to a 85 or 70-200 f2.8. Don't buy a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 because the chances of getting a good focusing copy are not good, unless your diligent on its arrival and test it on a focusing chart and have the ability to return it.

On my Fuji system. I love the flexibility of the 50-140 the zoom offers. Granted, it's a f/2.8 but the zoom really is very convenient for framing people.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 27, 2018)

Upadhyay said:


> As everyone mentioned you can never get the shallow depth of field produced by 85mm 1.8 from a 70-300 F4-5.6



well, if you're filling the frame equally and shooting at the same f-stop:














if you're shooting a little tighter, then you certainly can:










that's really THIN DOF.  With an 85mm for portraits I usually like f/8 and that's still letting the ears get slightly OOF.

But trying to shoot a portrait at ~30' away is a bit silly -- but you can technically get the shallow DOF if you do it.


also consider the amount of compression and narrow FOV on the BG when shooting at 300mm, even if the DOF is the same, the BG is going to be MUSH shooting the same subject at 300mm vs 85mm.

example:






skip to 2:35


----------



## mrca (Mar 27, 2018)

Jay Maisel loves the 70-300 for street portraits.  Check out the couple of classes Scott does with Jay.  Shallowness of dof alone isn't all that is important about using a lens this way for portraiture.  The quality of the out of focus background is as well.  Check photos taken with an 85 1.4 or better yet for this purpose, an 85 1.8 then compare with the 135 2.0 dc photos bokeh.   Folks sense harsh bokeh and most can't put their finger on why they like the better bokeh, but they do.  If you listen to the geeks that test lenses, they will tell you the 135 is terrible because at 2.0 it can have CA.  Since they don't shoot in the real world, only test patterns, they don't realize the dof is still shallow at 3.2 or 3.5 where I live,  but actually usable because there you can get both eyes in focus reliably, and CA is either completely gone or corrected in post with one click.  It isn't just amount of blur that should be considered, so should quality of the oof.


----------



## Braineack (Mar 27, 2018)

agreed.


----------



## texxter (Mar 27, 2018)

mdmosta319 said:


> First Thing, I am Newbie. I know Prime lens would allow more light (1.8>4.5).
> .
> What are benifits of Prime lens when I can get same amount of blur with zoom lens (70-300mm)??
> .
> ...



Hello! I use both primes and zooms and want to share my personal view on your question.  

Generally you're going to spend a lot more money to get the same quality from a zoom than a prime lens.  For example, you can get a decent Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 for $475, but a good zoom like the 70-200mm f/2.8 is going to set you back $2,800.  In your posting you're using the example of a low cost 70-300mm zoom... if money is not an issue get a constant aperture zoom like the 80-200mm or the 70-200mm - you'll get a faster lens with better image quality.

If you have a limited budget, like most of us, you'll need to decide what matters most to you.  Ability to shoot in low light is important? Ability to have a more pleasant bokeh? Flexibility and convenience of not having to change lenses and cover a large focal length range?  

An entry level telefoto lens will have f/5.6 at the 300mm end - it'll blur the background for sure, and as you get closer to your subject, the depth of field will shrink.  It's a fine lens to take portraits and it'll isolate your subject well.  The bokeh may not be as refined as that of a higher cost lens, but it'll be nice.  It is also the only affordable way to get a 300mm focal length.  The price you pay is that it's not a low light lens - if that doesn't matter to you, the zoom will be ok.  If you like to shoot in low light conditions, you'll have big ISO to deal with.

I do most of my portrait work with a Nikkor 70-200mm.  It's a great lens that is fast enough, has a good range and is built like a tank.  Certainly it's not cheap or light.    When I don't want to carry the weight I use an 85mm f/1.4 with a 35mm in my pocket in case I need it.   If I were to choose between a 70-30mm f/4.5-5.6 and a prime, I would pick the prime because ultimately speed and image quality are more important to me than flexibility.   But your priorities may be different.


----------



## Designer (Mar 27, 2018)

texxter said:


> If I were to choose between a 70-30mm f/4.5-5.6 and a prime, I would pick the prime because ultimately speed and image quality are more important to me than flexibility.


Speed might be important for candids, but if you are going to adjust/modify/add light, then the speed of the lens isn't as important.  I think portraiture can be done with a 300mm f/4 just as well as with a 2.8 zoom.  Then it boils down to image quality as (my) ultimate objective.


----------



## mrca (Mar 27, 2018)

texxter said:


> 85mm f/1.4 with a 35mm in my pocket in case I need it.


  Since my battery pack hadn't arrived, I used a small camera bag that came with a recent camera purchase.  Camera with 85 1.4 attached, 35 2.0 and a speed light fit in perfectly.  Battery pack just arrived and it doesn't fit as well but for traveling light and grab shots, I can leave it off.  The speed light provides fill or bounced main should the need arise.


----------



## texxter (Mar 27, 2018)

Designer said:


> texxter said:
> 
> 
> > If I were to choose between a 70-30mm f/4.5-5.6 and a prime, I would pick the prime because ultimately speed and image quality are more important to me than flexibility.
> ...



Every photographer is different and I can totally see why someone would add light to every portrait so that they can have full control of exposure.  I was speaking for myself only, and I value speed for two reasons.  One, I have done portraits, not candids, where I wasn't able to adjust/modify/add light... all I could do was use the light I found, and having a faster lens was helpful.  Second, I like to have a shallower depth of field even when I have plenty of light to work with.  But I agree that you don't need a fast lens to do great work!


----------



## mrca (Apr 6, 2018)

Texxter, you are absolutely right, you don't need a fast lens or even a light to do great work.  However, if you want a particular background or direction or light quality, having speedlights, strobes or reflectors can perfect the image to your vision.   Folks do need to know how to find  existing reflectors,  directional light, good contrast ratio.   I do feel that when someone actually MAKES the light, they tend to recognize it existing from ambient  more readily.


----------



## texxter (Apr 6, 2018)

mrca said:


> Texxter, you are absolutely right, you don't need a fast lens or even a light to do great work.  However, if you want a particular background or direction or light quality, having speedlights, strobes or reflectors can perfect the image to your vision.   Folks do need to know how to find  existing reflectors,  directional light, good contrast ratio.   I do feel that when someone actually MAKES the light, they tend to recognize it existing from ambient  more readily.



Very true! Understanding light is critical to become a proficient photographer... as light is our raw material.


----------



## mcap1972 (Apr 12, 2018)

Sure you can but primes are the best for this job.


----------



## keen.observer (May 22, 2018)

You can shoot portraits with almost anything, but they tend to look better when shot using the 85mm, 105mm, and 135mm focal lengths...all of which are contained in a 70-300mm Zoom lens range. Even so, images from Prime (single focal length) lenses tend to be a bit sharper than those from a Zoom lens. Images from Zooms can be sharp enough to suit most people...even pro photographers, and their customers. More than a few pros use nothing but Zooms...specifically 'The Holy Trinity'. Still, the same skilled photographer can get a little more sharpness from Primes. Do you suffer the hassles of carrying more Prime lenses around with you, or opt for the convenience of carrying fewer Zoom lenses covering the same focal lengths? That is up to you. Many pros do it one way, and many do it the other. Most carry some Primes, and some Zooms. It is up to you.


----------



## keen.observer (May 22, 2018)

Prime lenses have one focal length. A Zoom lens has several focal lengths. A 70-300 Zoom lens can offer a 70mm focal length, a 300mm focal length...as well as all points in between....such as a 73.5mm focal length, and 86.7mm focal length, and such. If you take a position, frame, and shoot at one point, and want to re-frame at another focal length without moving, or changing lenses, you can do so with a Zoom lens...by simply pressing a button, or twisting a ring. It is a convenience. To re-frame when using a Prime you either have to change lenses, or move closer to / further away from you subject. Doing so gives you a sharper image, but is less convenient. Primes usually offer wider apertures than do most Zooms, which can be a convenience in another way when shooting in dim light. When you have plenty of light-outside on a sunny day, or in a studio with adequate lights, aperture is less important...except for producing Bokeh (artistic blur). Outdoors, or in a huge studio, you can get better Bokeh even from a smaller apertured lens, by placing your camera closer to your subject, and your subject further away from the background. The Prime vs Zoom lens thing comes down to personal preferences. If you are stronger, and more energetic, and don't mind moving around a lot, you may think the added sharpness Primes offer is worthwhile. If you are lazier, more handicapped,or otherwise inclined to move around less, and less able to / less inclined to want to carry more gear, you may consider Zoom lenses to be more worthwhile.


----------



## mrca (May 22, 2018)

When it comes to hauling a 3 lb 70-200 on camera over my shoulder, now, with 46 mp camera  I can use a 135, stand in one place and not zoom, it's faster, just crop in post.  Can even crop in camera to a 1.5 crop and store fewer mp.  You can use an 85, take a step 0r 2 back to get the 135 perspective then crop.   Having mp to spare does more than just give sharp detail.  For those of us that haul a number of pro FF lenses for hours on a shoot, it can be a nice relief.  Will I forgo the 24-70 workhorse for events and weddings, no, but that beast of a 70-200 is being left home more and more.  The bokeh on the 135 2.0 dc blows it away.


----------

