Shooting people with 70-200mm 2.8...what's the endgame?

So this zoom is ideal for portrait range, and maybe I'm answering my own question, however:

What sort of expectation should I have of being sharp if I'm backing up at 70mm and trying to get all or most of a person's standing form in the shot?

Is this just a terrible idea on the face of it and nobody would ever do that, and you/they/I should switch to a 24-70 and....let's say I do...do my expectations of being able to nail a sharp eye go up?

I understand I shouldn't be trying to shoot 2.8 on a person with a zoom lens if I want sharp eye, unless we're doing portraiture, but should I totally be tossing aside all notions of bokeh if I'm using a telephoto on a person for glam/pinup type stuff?

I've got primes on hand, but I really do want to explore the benefit of being able to frame a bit without moving all over the place.

Any insights appreciated.

-Greg

Are you shooting FX or DX? The 70-200mm is great for FX, but 105-300mm equivalent is a little long for DX. The 36-105mm equivalent for DX would indeed make the 24-70mm a better lens for DX.

Shooting at 2.8 is great for a ver short depth of field. Not good if you have a group of people Someone is not going to be in focus.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Greg, depth of field at 35mm f/2.8 isn't the same as the depth of field at 70mm when set at f/2.8. Telephoto lenses have a shallower depth of field than wide angle lengths when using the same aperture.

To summarize, these are the factors that yield bokeh:

• As I just mentioned, the focal length contributes to depth of field especially when using a fast lens. So the longer the lens, the shallower the depth of field.
• The distance between you and your subject is another factor. The closer you are to your subject, the shallower the depth of field.
• And distance between your subject and the background can contribute to bokeh. The further your subject is from the background, the better your chances of yielding bokeh.
• Fast lenses when shot wide open offer more bokeh than when stopped down in the same situation.

I am using full frame D750.

Thanks for the information on Bokeh, but let me rephrase my question, if I may as I feel that I may have caused this to go in the wrong direction:

How on Earth does anyone shoot a person from head-to-toe and still keep the eye in focus? Or is the expectation of tack-sharp eye less when trying to cram a standing model into a frame? Do photographers who specialize in this area just tend to shoot more closed up (with ap.) in order to just let *everything* be in focus?

I'm having a real hard time with *any* lens nailing the eye due to the target being so small in the frame, of course this is considering that I'm trying to keep hold of some bokeh but I wonder if I should even be trying to keep it.

Hope that redefines what I'm asking.

Angelus1 said:

I am using full frame D750.

Thanks for the information on Bokeh, but let me rephrase my question, if I may as I feel that I may have caused this to go in the wrong direction:

How on Earth does anyone shoot a person from head-to-toe and still keep the eye in focus? Or is the expectation of tack-sharp eye less when trying to cram a standing model into a frame? Do photographers who specialize in this area just tend to shoot more closed up (with ap.) in order to just let *everything* be in focus?

I'm having a real hard time with *any* lens nailing the eye due to the target being so small in the frame, of course this is considering that I'm trying to keep hold of some bokeh but I wonder if I should even be trying to keep it.

Hope that redefines what I'm asking.

Click to expand...

Have you used the AF Fine-tuning feature on your D750? That helps if any lens is front or back focusing.

Are you using back button focus?

Angelus1 said:

I am using full frame D750.

Thanks for the information on Bokeh, but let me rephrase my question, if I may as I feel that I may have caused this to go in the wrong direction:

How on Earth does anyone shoot a person from head-to-toe and still keep the eye in focus? Or is the expectation of tack-sharp eye less when trying to cram a standing model into a frame? Do photographers who specialize in this area just tend to shoot more closed up (with ap.) in order to just let *everything* be in focus?

I'm having a real hard time with *any* lens nailing the eye due to the target being so small in the frame, of course this is considering that I'm trying to keep hold of some bokeh but I wonder if I should even be trying to keep it.

Hope that redefines what I'm asking.

Click to expand...

Well I shoot portraits with a 70-200mm f/2.8 on a D750 with some regularity and I don't have trouble keeping the eye in focus when shooting at 70mm. I do that by putting a focus point directly on the face of the subject. If I'm shooting 70mm I need to be roughly ten feet from my subject to get the entire body in the frame and still have some "breathing room" at the top and bottom of the shot (assuming an average, adult male subject). So, if I use an aperture of f/2.8, shoot at 70mm and have a distance-to-subject of ten feet, that yields a depth of field of roughly twelve inches. That's plenty of DoF to keep the entire face in focus. At 70mm I would keep the shutter speed at 1/250 or faster (assuming I'm shooting hand-held) and I do NOT use VR, OS, what have you under typical portrait-shooting circumstances. I create bokeh in outdoor portraits, typically, by increasing subject-to-background distance and choosing as wide an aperture as possible that yields a depth of field sufficient to keep the entire face in focus. That's how I do it, it's certainly not the only way but it works for me.

Based on your posts, I'm wondering if your lenses have front/back focus issues.

Horoscope Fish said:

If I'm shooting 70mm I need to be roughly ten feet from my subject to get the entire body in the frame and still have some "breathing room" at the top and bottom of the shot (assuming an average, adult male subject). So, if I use an aperture of f/2.8, shoot at 70mm and have a distance-to-subject of ten feet, that yields a depth of field of roughly twelve inches. That's plenty of DoF to keep the entire face in focus.

Click to expand...

Greg, you might want to get some type of Depth of Field app so you can calculate and see the range of DoF based on your settings. Using Fish's example of being 10 feet away while using a 70mm lens at f/2.8, here is a screen shot from the Simple DoF Calculator (only available for iOS devices). There are other DoF apps out there that are free (this one is $1.99) that can also be used on Android. This app allows me to save up to 4 different camera bodies. Sensors are different sizes so DoF varies a little between FX, DX, and bodies such as the D500/D7500 that have a different sized DX sensor than other Nikon bodies.

Please note something important in the image below. Although the DoF is 12.41" (aka 1'0.41" as listed in the photo), the DoF isn't exactly the same behind and in front of the focus point. What I mean by that is the DoF isn't 6" in front and 6" behind in this example. That's because there is slightly more DoF behind your focus point than in front no matter what settings you use. Just something to keep in mind.

Simple DoF Calculator: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/simple-dof-calculator/id301222730?mt=8

With Back Button Focus (BBF), focus on eyes, recompose, shoot.

hark said:

Have you used the AF Fine-tuning feature on your D750? That helps if any lens is front or back focusing.

Click to expand...

I just went through it yesterday in a slap-dash sort of way and it seems to be helping.

Andy W said:

Are you using back button focus?

Click to expand...

I believe you are asking me if I've reprogrammed my...can't think of it...button to do af instead of using the shutter button to take the shot and focus. The answer is yes, I'm using that other button by the eyepiece.

hark said:

Greg, you might want to get some type of Depth of Field app so you can calculate and see the range of DoF based on your settings. Using Fish's example of being 10 feet away while using a 70mm lens at f/2.8, here is a screen shot from the Simple DoF Calculator (only available for iOS devices). There are other DoF apps out there that are free (this one is $1.99) that can also be used on Android. This app allows me to save up to 4 different camera bodies. Sensors are different sizes so DoF varies a little between FX, DX, and bodies such as the D500/D7500 that have a different sized DX sensor than other Nikon bodies.

Please note something important in the image below. Although the DoF is 12.41" (aka 1'0.41" as listed in the photo), the DoF isn't exactly the same behind and in front of the focus point. What I mean by that is the DoF isn't 6" in front and 6" behind in this example. That's because there is slightly more DoF behind your focus point than in front no matter what settings you use. Just something to keep in mind.

Simple DoF Calculator: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/simple-dof-calculator/id301222730?mt=8

View attachment 294911

Click to expand...

This....is awesome. Thanks! Just what I need.

When I am shooting like that I shoot with a higher aperture to make sure all is in focus. Why try such a large aperture?

Angelus1 said:

I believe you are asking me if I've reprogrammed my...can't think of it...button to do af instead of using the shutter button to take the shot and focus. The answer is yes, I'm using that other button by the eyepiece.

Click to expand...

As mentioned before, focus on an eye, release the focus button then recompose and shoot. Make sure the shutter button focus is deactivated so it doesn't try to refocus.

Don Kuykendall said:

When I am shooting like that I shoot with a higher aperture to make sure all is in focus. Why try such a large aperture?

Click to expand...

I think, when I'm doing this, it's because I want to increase the shutter speed. I've been outdoors a lot, and I'm trying not to have to use an ND filter. Inside, there's no particular reason out side of blowing out backgrounds when not in a controlled environment. Using speedlight or strobes, I've got to keep the shutter at 250.

I need to figure out HSS. Looks like I've got a plan for this afternoon.

Angelus1 said:

I think, when I'm doing this, it's because I want to increase the shutter speed. I've been outdoors a lot, and I'm trying not to have to use an ND filter. Inside, there's no particular reason out side of blowing out backgrounds when not in a controlled environment. Using speedlight or strobes, I've got to keep the shutter at 250.

I need to figure out HSS. Looks like I've got a plan for this afternoon.

Click to expand...

Then shooting at 2.8 does not make sense. I can see using it when you want a very narrow depth of field but in the instance you are talking about shooting at at higher (4, 5.6 8) would accomplish what you are trying to do better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don Kuykendall said:

Then shooting at 2.8 does not make sense. I can see using it when you want a very narrow depth of field but in the instance you are talking about shooting at at higher (4, 5.6 8) would accomplish what you are trying to do better.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Now that I have my phone app I expect it's going to help get me out of that mode of wanting to take it all the way.

The suggestion of a number of posts back for focusing, and recomposing is not likely to keep what you want in focus. Fields are not planes but arcs so depending on the distance along the arc from the point you locked focus and the same eye's position in relation to the new center of the recomposed focus point, might be far out of focus. It is best to keep the most forward eye under the focus point when both composing and shooting. People shots do not have to be in sharp focus, in fact, most people prefer their own portraits less sharp and our mental processing of scene and the impression of sharpness varies greatly with the subject matter. The main exception is the eye. Humans and other animals evolved to place a great deal of importance on eye discovery and estimation of focus. Ever notice that when you are in a big crowd, you instantly zoom your attention to that one person, out of hundreds or thousands who is focused on you? Or walking in the woods with foliage and broken light, shadows and a million leaves, branches, rocks etc and you sense and spot an animal highly camouflaged looking at you. It was a great survival trait that evolved. When seeing a photo of a person if the eye closest to the camera is focused on the camera(and you as a viewer from the camera's line of sight) will look very sharp and revealing of a connection with the person if that forward eye is sharply in focus. The whole face registers with us as being realistic or attractively sharp but close inspection an show it very out of focus with detail and blemishes erased from our perception until looking very close. That how our brains evolved, to detect other beings and to evaluate based on the nearest eye's sharpness. Generally speaking people like images with a sharp forward eye and everything else blurred. We assume it is sharp when it is not and tend to think the mostly blurred image is more attractive. The brain is confused if the eye nearest is dull from blur and the rearward eye is sharp or some other feature is sharper.
So don't be as concerned with very sharp people images, just make sure the nearest eye is.
In fashion and other work sharpness is important in that the clothing and accessories are what are featured so stopped down apertures are the norm. The blurred background is not needed for subject isolation because the photographer is in full control of the background. Single person portraits however often are environmental so subject isolation is welcome. Lots of techniques have become popular for working with uncontrolled spaces such as High Key and Low Key lighting which either makes the background disappear from blowing out the background or push into the black of low exposure
Working with light and exposure is one of the most versatile and creative aspects of photography that costs almost nothing and can be done anywhere. But is is also a specialty that seems intimidating until one actually does it and discovers it is not as complicated as almost any other specialty.

Nice write-up, Stan, thank you! Good read. I wonder though if current trends are towards a more sharpened face...blemishes and scars and general granola seems to be in? Or are we over it already? Maybe that's a subject for a different thread, I don't know how this forum feels about tangents.