I am trying to lay out my purchase timeline to get started in portrait photography. I am currently shooting on an APS-C and have in my budget to start purchasing full-frame lenses that will work with it.
Starting with some fast but not high-end lenses. An 85mm f/1.8, a 50mm f/1.4 (this will be my first higher-end lens).
But then I get to the decision point of go for the 70-200mm f/2.8 lens or upgrade to a full-frame body. Costs are distressingly similar.
So my question is: Am I better with a full-frame body and just the 2 lenses (85mm and 50mm) or should I continue shooting on my APS-C, get the zooms and then upgrade the body? Which will have a bigger impact on my success as a fledgling portrait photographer?
I have seen lots of discussions about upgrade glass before the body, but those all seem to be upgrading a full-frame for a newer, slicker full-frame. So far I am happy with my crop sensor, but I haven't tried to sell portraits yet.
Any insights are appreciated.
Please note I have specifically not mentioned a brand, because I have done my research and I know which body I am moving up to (hence able to pre-buy lenses). This question is purely about the trade-off of waiting a few months for the full-frame upgrade and spending on lenses that I can use, just not as fully, in the short term.
Neither I nor anyone else can speak for you or make your decision. I'll just speak for myself.
APS-C is indistinguishable from FF until it isn't.
For what I shoot, I really appreciate the increased dynamic range of a FF camera. I shot with an APS-C for a long time then moved to a FF. For me, it was a huge difference, however for many if not most, they likely couldn't tell the difference when looking at image results. But for taking the photos and for post production, it's a huge difference. For me.
But, again, it really depends on what you shoot and what you want.
For me, my go to lenses at the moment are a 50mm 1.4, an 85mm 1.8, and a 135mm 1.8. The 85 is, by far, used the most. The 50mm is used second most; when I'm in a bit more cramped quarters. The 135 is used least, but I wouldn't give it up for anything.
I'm going to be getting a 24-70mm 2.8. When I do, I suspect that my 50mm 1.4 will get very little use. Keep in mind that most of my work is in the studio.
In my opinion I think glass far outweighs the difference between aps-c and ff. As a filmmaker, I shoot aps-c or 'super 35' on the highest end cameras and at the end of the day what makes the image unique is the glass. Obviously having a solid sensor goes a long way but good fast glass should last you a lot longer than any single photo camera body should. Like the other commentor, Daniel, said, it's a decision you have to make based on what you primarily photograph and what your needs are. If it were me I'd get the glass first then worry about the body upgrade, but again, that's just me personally. There are times I switch from FF in my camera body to aps-c to get a little more "zoom" out of a lens and it works fine. When I first got into photo I chose my system and then bought the dream lenses I wanted for that system. Since then I've been upgrading the body and buying 2nd bodies as I've needed them. I don't plan on buying new lenses for a long time.
I appreciate your reply, Robert.
Better glass. No question.
Thank you, James
It’s interesting why you imagine ‘fast glass’ or a new camera body will magically improve your portrait photography. In my opinion most improvements come from refining ones approach and technique rather than assuming improvements can simply be bought. Imagining that better gear is the answer to becoming a better photographer is an illusion. In the studio my setting are more of less constant at f8 1/125 th. Any improvements have come from the way I plan a shoot and communicate and direct the model/subject during the shoot. I really believe you are mistaken thinking that buying new gear will make you a better photographer.
I understand all that. And I am taking active steps to improve my technical and people skills.
But I cannot get the pictures I want with the lenses I have - A kit 18-55 f3.4-f5.6 and a kit 55-210 f3.6-f6.3. I am not going to get portraits that people will pay for with those lenses. $50 lenses do not a pro make.
I hear what you are saying, we all want the best gear we can afford as it gives both you and your subject confidence of sorts. However I would say good glass is better than fast glass and as far the focal length that is very much dictated by ones style as great portraits can be shot with everything from 35mm to 135mm. I would rather have a great f1.8 rather than some overpriced f1.2 . For someone who only shoots wide open outside in natural light I don’t see f1.2 offering me any real advantages. If you want sharp, do some research on lenses for the body you are set on. Find how how good the auto eye AF is on your chosen body as a good eye AF can help up the hit rate. Think about and develop a style, plan your shoots. I come from a film making background and always go into the studio with a basic shot list and work from that, with the look of the subject determining to a degree the direction of the shoot.The other factor not mentioned is processing. For me that is major and it’s this that can really help to stamp your style on your work. What are your Photoshop skills like? If you shoot digital then you really need to work on them. Forget the obsession with fast glass and look at what factors you can work on to hone your skills and develop your style.
I do appreciate your insights and I know I have many fronts to work on. Excelsior
Hi Daniel,
Clients do not care if you're shooting with a full frame or not. They don't even care what lenses you use. They just expect a result similar to your portfolio.
Most pros are keeping their equipment as long as they can to maximize profits. A successful pro photographer has to be a very good salesman more than anything else and a fantastic portfolio showing what he can do.
I suggest getting lights instead of a new body and or lenses and learn to use them properly.
I hope this helps,
Mark
Well, depending on what the end use is going to be, some clients may very well care that you're using a ff vs a cs, or even a medium format. Ive had a number of clients who wanted full length or 3/4 shots but wanted to be able to crop in to a head and shoulders if need be. That can quickly become problematic on a 24mp cs, or even a 24mp ff.
I don't know that the OP is talking about being a "pro" or not. Possibly.
Although i don't think the average person is going to tell the difference, I certainly can; especially in post production.
I do agree, though, that fully leveraging what you have is almost always a best option. Often times upping your lighting game is the best way to do that.
Some corporate clients might indeed not even look at you if you're not shooting with a medium format but it's less true these days with the new cameras that have a lot of pixels. Worst case, you rent one.
Or best case, own what you need and use most. It really depends on what you shoot and, if professional, who your clients are and what they use the images for.
.... you are correct. Being a good salesman and being able to talk up your work and bullshit to a degree can be a great asset. If you are a shrinking violet then I would think twice about entering an area where the market is super saturated with mediocre photographers with expensive gear..... last think lighting, keep it simple learn to use one light really well with a reflector when required with a nice big modifier and a good beauty dish.
Good luck.
Another thing, a full frame with 36mpx or more with a very sharp lens for portraits takes pictures that will scare your clients because they'll see every pores and skin imperfections, especially women.
When I do portraits or even full body shots I use the least sharp lens I have, either a 24-70, a 70-200 or my 58mm f/1.4. Putting a prime lens like an 85mm (they are amongst the sharpest ones out there) on someone's face gives what I call medical results, I think we could diagnostic some conditions!
Learn how to soften an image if you go that route!
You need to learn how to do skin work with your image editor.
Buy the 70-200. Super fun lens. Great for portraits. No need for full frame unless you need full frame.
I have no need nor want the added expense of full-frame. The extra dough will fund another photographic road trip instead. But if you're looking to put food on the table with photography that's a different story. I don't and will never again do so as I like the freedom to shoot who, what, when and where I want anyhow. I've gotten great 11X14 prints with 14 year-old APS-C cameras equipped with all manual-focus full-frame lenses. Don't need autofocus either. I have 30 year-old Elinchrom lighting that synchs with a Sony RX-10v.1 @ 1/2000 sec. for all my location portraiture when I'm not using my RB67 or P67 gear. I'm still primarily film-based, but that RB or Sony with Elinchrom combo is a real sun-killer! I get the full-value instead of the neutered given on modern HHS.
Glass. It lasts longer than a camera and an upgrade to better glass is apparent on any camera.
That said, we all have different needs regarding glass. For instance, a bokeh fan will want "fast" glass with the widest aperture he or she can find. Others want to shoot only primes. I'm a Canon DSLR shooter and have a bag full of EF "L" zooms. 17-40 f/4, 24-105 f/4, 70-200 f/4 and a 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. I shoot everything from studio and environmental portraits to city/landscapes and from still life to travel. My lens selection covers the waterfront in terms of focal length and provides stunning quality even on the 4' x 6' prints I've made. (Yes, that's feet) I have used these lenses on both crop sensor and full frame and everything else being equal, the IQ from the lens is the same.
Another thing to think about is, that for instance, if you were a Canon shooter and wanted to upgrade to a mirrorless camera, your EF-S lenses wouldn't fit without an adapter. But then, neither would EF lenses. But, if I had EF-S glass and was looking at going from a DSLR to mirrorless system and wanted to go to native glass, I'd do both. In your case, maybe a body along with an RF 24-105 or the equivalent in the system that you're currently looking at while saving to build out your kit. .
It's a lot to think about...and I truly hope you're pleased with the result of your decision.