Wide-aperture 85mm prime lenses are the classic choice for portrait photography, but that does not mean they are right for everyone. This excellent video comparison takes a look at two options, the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 L USM and the RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM, to help you choose the right one for your work.
Coming to you from John Gress, this great video review compares the Canon RF 85mm f/1.2 L USM to the RF 70-200mm f/4 L IS USM for studio portrait photography. Sure, the 85mm f/1.2 has over three stops of an advantage over the 70-200mm f/4, but if you are working in a studio with strobes, it is probably pretty rare that you use such wide apertures; in fact, you are probably around f/8 for most shots. As such, you might appreciate the added versatility of a zoom. And just as importantly, you will also appreciate the fact that the 70-200mm f/4 is $1,000 less than the 85mm f/1.2. That being said, if you love that famous Canon f/1.2 look or if you plan to shoot outside of the studio in low light as well, you might appreciate that wider aperture. If not, though, consider saving yourself some money and take a look at the zoom. Check out the video above for the full rundown from Gress.
As with most of the time, the answer is always: "It depends"
If the photographer is shooting exclusively in studio with stopped-down images. Probably not, but at the same time, for that situation is the 70-200 a good choice? A slower high quality 85mm prime for a fraction of the price is probably the best option. Or personally, I think for exclusive stopped down studio work a 100mm f/2.8 macro is probably the best option for portraiture relative to cost.
However, if a given photographer spends their time in a variety of conditions, the 1.2 becomes much more critical. In studio you might be at 5.6 the whole time, but the next day outside shooting at dusk 1.2 is a lifesaver. For me, zooming with my feet is way easier than trying to make low light work with a f/4.0 lens and thus the prime is more versatile than the zoom.
Yes and no. Like absolutely perspective is a thing which is what you are talking about but I wasn't really talking about optimal perfect creative framing to match your vision.
Often if you are in an extreme situation and just need to get the shot and have it meet the client's need it is totally reasonable to frame a headshot at 85mm then say step back and frame a full body also at 85mm. Maybe in an ideal world you would have shot that full body at say 40mm but its still fine at 85.
My point was that if I have an f/4 zoom in low light. That limitation is a hard limitation. I can't address that without introducing massive degradation in image quality (ISO noise)
In comparison, I can change camera position to adjust framing and still make a great image. (aka zooming with my feet)
At the end of the day, If I'm walking into an uncontrolled situation to take portraits and I'm only allowed to take one lens it is going to be a fast prime over a zoom every single time. (Most likely a 50 or 85)
I would also add that you can effectively make a tele prime wider using the brenizer method if you have to but that comes with its own limitations and challenges, esp in low light.
You can cherry pick the environment to fit any discussion. And, just because you have that 85 f1.2 doesn't mean you have to shoot at f1.2 in the studio. Really, it all comes down to what the photographer prefers to use. If I had a pro studio, I'd probably be shooting with a Fuji medium format and the 110 f2.
Is a zoom in a studio a good idea? That’s the first question that needs asked, forget the aperture difference as who cares if the shooting is taking place at f8, as you say. Is fiddling about with a zoom a good idea? I’ve watched sone photographers faffing about zooming in and out spending more time on the camera than on the subject. Is it not better to find your spot and with the camera on a tripod forget it and spend your time communicating and directing the subject free from 1, having to hold the camera and 2 to be tempted to zoom in and out and faff about!
Is it more about establishing your working method rather than once more being dictated to by gear. Find your working method and then decide on a package that suits it. Dog wagging the tail etc….
Do you actually shoot in a studio?
I do all the time, and my camera is always on a studio camera stand in my own studio or on a tripod elsewhere. "Zooming in and out and faff about" with the camera fixed and viewing the LCD screen (the way John Gless is doing) is nearly a nothing activity, a trifle.
But the benefit--and it can be a great benefit in the studio--is that you don't change your perspective or viewing angle by wandering back and forth from the subject. The relationship between, for instance, the shoulder and the face remains the same as I zoom from a fixed position. Unanticipated perspective changes from shot to shot will make a dramatically greater difference than pixel-peeped differences at 100%.
Much of the time, I don't even stay behind the camera. I will often use a remote shutter release and move away from the camera entirely (especially working with children). I'll always move slightly above the camera and direct my subject, "Look at me." I may even move well to the side and direct the subject, "Look at me!"
Do you actually shoot in a studio.. a bit snippy! I do and you missed the point totally. It’s not about the gear it’s about first and foremost how you work and then finding the best package that allows you to do that! If it’s a zoom and faffing around is your thing fine. You are being driven by how you want to work and not by the equipment. That is the point! The article was coming from the standpoint of camera gear deciding rather than the way the photographer wishes to work.
Whatever gets you through the day is really what it's all about. Just as an aside, back in the day no one shot with zooms because zooms were simply horrible. As far as headshots go, I don't want super high resolution because the clients don't want to see it. They all want to look younger and fresher. I have to retouch out all of the extra resolution. One of the purposes of cosmetics is to obliterate the details of the skin so shooting a professionally made up person with a 150 megapixel camera and a super lens sort of doesn't make sense for headshots. Obviously if you're shooting for editorial or for your private art project it might be a very very different situation. And again, whatever gets you through the day. Cheers all.