Anyone shot portrait with Batis 25 f2?

[AndyWear]

Hi guys,

Today I went to go try out  some more athletic photography, where I was trying to get that wide look using the 16-35 f4.  As I was shooting it, I thought about wanting to try  shooting the Sony 35 1.4 or maybe get the Batis 25f2 for even wider more out of focus look.

 

Question is, have anyone tried these?  Is F2 good enough for a 25 mm focal length to blur out the background? 

 

Thanks!

[Ben]

In order to get a subject isolation comparable to i.e. a 85/1.4 you need to get very close to your subject with a wide angle lens. Getting close to your subject holds many challenges when taking portraits as the perspective stretches everything that is not in the middle of the frame.

 

Here is a video that shows some of the pros of using a wide angle lenses for portraits:

And here is another approach that uses the wide angle from a distance and uses the perspective to give context :

 

So eiher you impose yourself to a lot of limitations in order to keep the portrait flattering and get close, or you need to keep your distance and have only moderate subject isolation. Hope this helps,

 

Ben

[Golem]

Or .... the "portrait" doesn't need to be flattering in

the stereotypical sense of "portraiture". I like to

use the word "portrayal" for non-stereotypical, but

often more revealing, types of "portraiture". And a

wide lens if often well-deployed for "portrayals".

 

Not sure why the thread title says "portrait" but the

OP says "athletic photography". But "portraits" of

athletes in action can be flattering in terms of how

they show athletic prowess of the subjects, yet not

need to be flattering in "cosmetic portraiture" terms.  

  

I don't shoot sports, but I imagine athletic portraits

shot with a wide lens means shooting staged action,

not action during an actual game or meet, cuz with

a wide lens and a subject in action and the need to

get excessively close with that wide lens .... ouch !

 

All of the above leads me to think that, just from a

technical outlook, this is prolly a risky proposition.

But from an aesthetic outlook, the risk may be very

well rewarded !  

  

As I said, I don't shoot sports or athletics, but I do

favor wide angle portrayals. Cosmetically flattering  

results are possible, but you do hafta get used to

seeing a scene directly with your eyes.

  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  

   

`

[AndyWear]

Thank you Ben!

Those 2 links helped a lot. 

 

And Golem, I'm not shooting sports photography.  I'm playing around with shooting athlete portraits or more like fitness photography is what I should have said.  I'm shooting some fighters at AKA (american kick box academy).   I thought I would enjoy shooting them at 85 because of the  nice  background blur, but then eventually felt that the angles aren't dynamic and I want that wide angle look with some distortion to exagerate some of the muscles' stretching.  

[Guest all8]

I took some sports shots with the 25, but not wide open, and found that the angles of the 25 made those images more immersive. The difficulty was getting close enough. For AKA I think the batis 25 would be great.

 

https://500px.com/tim-de/galleries/auensteiner-radsporttage-2016 - all the images, but the following are with the Batis 25

 

https://500px.com/photo/158450545/fisa-mens-u19-stage-3-from-auenstein-by-tim-rule

https://500px.com/photo/158450461/fisa-mens-u19-stage-3-from-auenstein-by-tim-rule

https://500px.com/photo/158450017/fisa-mens-u19-stage-3-from-auenstein-by-tim-rule

https://500px.com/photo/158327547/fisa-womens-stage-3-from-auenstein-by-tim-rule

[AndyWear]

looks great timde!

[Mathias]

I really love portraits at 35mm or sometimes even wider, even though I also shoot the 55 and 90 macro.

The 35/1.4 gives you a very cinematic look and a very different perspective to portraits. I think the Batis 25 can do the same if you take enough caution.

Just don't get in too close! Let the background be a part of the picture.

 

Two portraits with the 35/1.4:

 

Shades by Mathias, auf Flickr

 

Melissa by Mathias, auf Flickr

[AndyWear]

remove

[AndyWear]

I took some with the 16-35 f4.  It made want the 25 f2, but I was just wondering if I would actually pull off a nice shallow depth of field shooting the whole body.  Here some ideas of what I want to shoot wide.  I did these mostly at 19mm at F4 so.....everything was in focus.  I had really bad lighting so a lot of the lighting was fixed in post.

And I would love to shoot those type of portraits you did too Mathias.  It looks soooooo nice.  It made me want that 35 1.4. Its now on my to buy list.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Golem]

You've got a great project there. One of the shots really proves it.

 

Keep working on it. Personally, I think shooting at extremely low  

DoF is gonna hold you back. Yes that has great pictorial potential

but it strikes me as wanting to run before you can walk.

 

Use the the zoom you've already got until the ONLY thing that still

needs work is DoF reduction. Even after you master this stuff with

your current lens, meaning you reliably get great shots from every

session [acoarst NOT every frame] ... after you reach that level of

mastery, you are STILL gonna see your hit ratio noticeably suffer

when you switch to super thin DoF. Considering that, your current

images indicate it is way too soon to switch to a high speed lens.  

  

It is entirely possible that a high speed lens is absolutely wrong

for your project. That is a possibility you don't need in the mix until

that same possibility is the only variable in play, IOW you have all

the other aspects down pat and your results are reliably amazing,

as per the promise shown in one of your images posted above.