DSLRUsers.com

Hi all,

I'm looking at getting a sigma or equivilent as I'm tight on the cash. I will mostly be working on studio shots and some outdoor, but nearly all fashion/editorial shoots. This is where I am planning my direction for photography.

I am in the process of deciding on which camera etc (another thread ) but would love some advice on which lense/s I should be looking at for the fashion work I'm considering.

For your information, and to show what I need the lense to work with, this is the kind of work that inspires me and that I am goaling towards:
http://www.virtualhaircare.com/images/AHJ%20Awards%202005/NSWACT/Bava/Bava1.jpg
http://www.virtualhaircare.com/images/AHJ%20Awards%202005/colourist/Herberg-2.jpg
http://www.virtualhaircare.com/images/AHJ%20Awards%202005/NSWACT/Bava/Bava6.jpg
http://virtualhaircare.com/images/HairExpo2006/Hairdresser2006/Joharn%20Cuthbert/2_joharn_cuthbert_cmyk.jpg
http://virtualhaircare.com/images/HairExpo2006/Hairdresser2006/Shane%20Henning/1-Shane_Henning.jpg

i can answer this somewhat

most fashion photographers sill use medium format becuase their work needs to be re-produced big

any 50mm is good because it does not distort
doesn't have to be a wide aperture lens like f1.4
as it's rare in fashion editorial to shoot at shallow depth of field
mostly your shooting at f5 or more to get maximum depth of field for the clothes /body

then some people swear upon the 85mm range for full length editorial work or close up portraiture, canon 85 f1.2 is great so is the nikon equivallent


i use the nikkon 28-70 f2.8 because i'm lazy 28mm distorts slightly but you can get interesting angles and at 70 its almost close to the 85mm range

some of the stryling in fashion editorial is innovative so don't constrict yourself with 2 lens choices
i have seen whacky dramatic perspectives shot in fashion editorial with a wide angle lens, there's no rules

i follow the photographers at DLM

http://www.dlm.com.au

and Jezz Smith at 2C

http://www.2c.com.au/artist.cfm?ArtistID=10

While I'm not exactly in the fashion and press industry (hopefully yet), from what I've seen how advantageous a mid-range zoom (17-36, 17-55, 28-70) lens can be. Go for something that's constant aperture (ie. f2. and you should be sweet

If you consider crop factors as well (on dslr, unless you're a lucky SOB to have a FF dslr), the 28-70 range might be a tad close esp if you're in a tight environment.

Wendell, you're reading my mind

So the concept of the 50mm, or say the 85mm, does that take into account the smaller sensor and the enlarging factor?

Should I be getting an actual 50mm and an 85 (or the zoom you mention) or should I be getting something different to account for the 1.6 zoom change (or whatever the figure is)?

Also, Piro states the F2, which is great for shallow DOF, but then Wendell makes the good point of keeping clothes in focus (and I know how hair needs it too, being in that industry) Both perhaps? Advice?

Thanks again

Rob

Rob, it really depends on the style you're after. Don't forget most of the photos in the fashion mags also have a different style and flair to each one. It's all about the style.

Some lenses with wider apertures let you create the focus more on one element of the model and throw the rest out of focus, etc.

Ermm hope you know what I mean.

Hi Rob

it depends how you shoot
o.k you have to consider crop factor 85mm is like 105 i dont know the math
so you have to shoot far from the model
if your shooting tight 85mm at wide aprture is sweet
but just study images in vogue and most editorial unless the stylists wants a moody shot kind of more for atmospherics or establishing mood wide aperture effects are not used

most full length fashion editorial is sharp all the way from f5 through to f8

sorry piro your point is true too

persoanlly i like the highly stylistic innovative fashion editorial where no rules apply

im sure you will end up getting the 85mm it is the standard fashion lens

and if your serious you will get another prime like 28 or 50mm, this will allow you to get closer to the model

i just use the 28-70 because i have it it's not really used in studio work
i always shoot f4.5 on it too for my lit portraits

so in a crunch all you need right now is the 85 f1.2 since your a canon user but it's darn expensive so good luck

or if your on a budget get the 24-70 f2.8 you got range there

rob

you mentioned hair portraits
in that case a tight shot with a canon 85f1.2 woudl be sweet
even if you used it at 1.4 a t a distance you could get enough dof and great oof rendered areas

in your post you mentioned fashion editorial which is totally different to head shots

either way the 85 is they key lens for both

wendellt wrote:
so in a crunch all you need right now is the 85 f1.2 since your a canon user but it's darn expensive so good luck

or if your on a budget get the 24-70 f2.8 you got range there

So what about a sigma to keep the costs down? (and I'm not on a canon yet, about to decide on the body soon). Would the glass be acceptable? I would like to spend no more than $1000 on the two lenses (or on one good one).

The 24-70 2.8 canon is about $2100 it seems and an 85 1.2 is $3700!!! (gulp).

Further advice?

Rob

robster wrote:

wendellt wrote:
so in a crunch all you need right now is the 85 f1.2 since your a canon user but it's darn expensive so good luck

or if your on a budget get the 24-70 f2.8 you got range there

So what about a sigma to keep the costs down? (and I'm not on a canon yet, about to decide on the body soon). Would the glass be acceptable? I would like to spend no more than $1000 on the two lenses (or on one good one).

The 24-70 2.8 canon is about $2100 it seems and an 85 1.2 is $3700!!! (gulp).

Further advice?

Rob

well if your on a budget get any sigma around the 85mm range
or if you think you will get more bang for your buck get a zoom one like a 24-70

but i must say gettign into fashion photography aint cheap it requires heaps of money and resources
more importantly than a lens is getting studio equipment like lights, backdrops and a studio space
and even keeping contacts in the fashion/beauty industry is very expensive, i was surprised you have a budget

wendellt wrote:but i must say gettign into fashion photography aint cheap
more importantly than a lens is getting studio equipment like lights and backdrops a studio space
and even keepign contacts int he fashion beauty industry is very expensive, i was surprised you have a budget

Yes, we actually know a good deal of people in the industry, my wife has had her work appear in many magazines (as a hair stylist) etc.

In terms of a budget, we have to start somewhere, we're only a small business and need to watch the cashflow. We have studio space and are working towards getting a full studio flash setup second hand at present.

I'll do the hunt on the sigma thing it seems. 85mm prime lense

Thanks again everyone..

Rob

robster wrote:

wendellt wrote:but i must say gettign into fashion photography aint cheap
more importantly than a lens is getting studio equipment like lights and backdrops a studio space
and even keepign contacts int he fashion beauty industry is very expensive, i was surprised you have a budget

Yes, we actually know a good deal of people in the industry, my wife has had her work appear in many magazines (as a hair stylist) etc.

In terms of a budget, we have to start somewhere, we're only a small business and need to watch the cashflow. We have studio space and are working towards getting a full studio flash setup second hand at present.

I'll do the hunt on the sigma thing it seems. 85mm prime lense

Thanks again everyone..

Rob

hi rob

can i work for you? i love hair stuff
i'm also starting out myself and shooting fashion/beauty is a mixed blessing but i'll keep at it till it kills me

wendellt wrote:can i work for you? i love hair stuff
i'm also starting out myself and shooting fashion/beauty is a mixed blessing but i'll keep at it till it kills me

Thanks for the offer Wendell, perhaps in time yes, but for now we're outlaying so we can work towards our own shoots. The problem we've had in the past is say, for example, spend between $2k-$6k on a shoot, it's beautiful, the photographer is a master, but they don't 'get it'. They don't get our vision and often we don't end up with what we want.

At least doing it ourselves, whilst at first might not be so great, in a year or two, they will be fanstastic. (and if not, we give up and go back to photographers ).

I think we should keep in touch anyway, we're in the same industry, and I really appreciate your advice too.

Rob

Hi Rob,

A couple of points... if you are doing the photography for hairdressers then they are going to want the images to look as sharp as possible throughout the cut... with this in mind you do not need the fastest piece of glass on the market simply because you will not be after a narrow depth of field but rather a deeper depth of field (f5.6 should be good enough for most hair fashion work).

The other fact is that there was nothing special about the lenses used in the selection of links you had there. The widest appeared to be the equivalent of a 18mm on a digital (27mm effectual) and the remaining images were probably shot on a 28-85mm range lens on a digital.

My advice... if you can afford a second hand 28-70mm 2.8 it will be a good starting point and take things from there. That lens and an 80-200 are what I use for most of my fashion work. Hope this is a help.

Ants

rob your doign well if you have a budget of 6K to test shoot a model

in sydney most established photograhers test shot model for free

if i've learned one thing over the past year it's lots of people may have the gear but thats not not the end of the story
you'll be surprised what sort of results you will get just from getting the art direction right over the technical excellence and quality of a shot produced from certain exquipment im sure the sigma will perform well with gorgoeous subject matter in front of it

that would be this then? http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Sigma-AF-28-70mm ... dZViewItem

(but a canon or nikon equivilent mount)

Hi again Rob,

I am using a similar Sigma lens simply because I think it is not as big, ugly or expensive is the Nikon equivalent. The results out of it are also very good. There have been some warnings about using certain Sigma lenses with the D200 however I am not having any problems. If you were going to buy that lens to use with a D200 I would just try it out first.

Cheers, A

What do you all think of these prices etc?

Sigma AF 28-70mm 28-70 F/2.8 - Ebay - $450.00
Canon - EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - Cameraworld - $729.00
Canon - EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - Cameraworld - $679.00
CANON 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens - Discount Digi - $539.00
CANON 50mm f/1.8 II Lens - Discount Digi - $135.00
CANON 85mm f/1.8 USM Telephoto Lens - Discount Digi - $585.00

I'm getting close to deciding, but always appreciate some final 'glimmer' of knowlege before spending the cash

Rob

robster wrote:What do you all think of these prices etc?

Sigma AF 28-70mm 28-70 F/2.8 - Ebay - $450.00
Canon - EF 85mm f/1.8 USM - Cameraworld - $729.00
Canon - EF 50mm f/1.4 USM - Cameraworld - $679.00
CANON 50mm f/1.4 USM Lens - Discount Digi - $539.00
CANON 50mm f/1.8 II Lens - Discount Digi - $135.00
CANON 85mm f/1.8 USM Telephoto Lens - Discount Digi - $585.00

I'm getting close to deciding, but always appreciate some final 'glimmer' of knowlege before spending the cash

Rob

how about this
http://www.dslrusers.net/viewtopic.php?p=242061#242061

all good prices above for canon lenses especially for the 85 1.8