What kind of lens do I need for porn? My friends wants to do some nudes/softcore photos and I'm concerned my 24-70mm f/2.8 wont be wide enough given the small size of the space we'll be shooting in. I'm currently torn between something like a 16-24 zoom at either f/2.8 or f/4 and using a tripod to give me the most compositional flexibility, but I could also go something like a 20mm f/1.8 and get those extra couple stops of light. The lighting situation is going to be tough, I plan on bringing a flash, a small static light and reflector, but due to space limitations I can't really get some strobes or anything in there. What is my best bet? Any suggestions? I can find a specific lens later, I just want general direction.
I need to see a pic of her to be able to give u an accurate rec
>>4374461>wont be wide enoughyou should be more concerned about length
>>4374463>>4374465please, I am being serious. I want to make some good photos
>24>wont be wide enoughis the room a closet in your parents home, is she a size of an elephant or are you delusional? any of those will prevent you from taking conventionally good nudes
>>4374482I'm just not very familiar with the wide side of my lenses. I rarely use them. I don't really have a good grasp on what 24mm looks like. I also have in mind some ideas for close up shots while still getting some back ground for context.
>>4374461Arent porn shots generally zoomed in? Like usually 35mm+? Unless the video is one of those intentionally wide pov vids.
>>4374484It's not video, it's just stills. But my thought process goes back to threads you might see on /s/ or /b/ where people post their "wives/gfs" and it's just a close up of a pussy and it looks awful, just a solid 3x2 block of flesh. I feel like for close ups like that or just in general getting close you want that wide angle warp to bring some of the environment in. I know I have run into issues with a 28mm lens doing environmental portraits with a friend due to space limitations and that was frustrating. Anyway I did find a solution. I found a 16-28 f/2.8 lens on MPB with malfunctioning autofocus, for $100 and that is cheap enough that I can buy it and try it out without too much worry and it seems like a good balance of flexibility and light gathering.
>>4374483Try this: 1) Attach lens to camera2) Set lens to 24mm3) Turn camera on4) Look at your screen or through the viewfinder, repeat step as many times as you needHope this helps-Ken
>>4374507The shoot is actually of Ken growings his family
>>4374483Use the 24-70 and it will be fine. For reference, 16-24 is what you'd use in real estate photography to take a photo of the entire room. You're not trying to get a photo of the room, you're trying to get a photo of the subject. 35 would typically be for full body plus a bit of environment, but not much isolation given shallow DOF and f2.8. It's also going to distort them if you are too close. Get as far away and use as long a focal length as you can manage. No amount of fancy gear is going to overcome a subpar location. Rather than buy a bunch of lenses tell them to get an adequately sized Airbnb for the day. An investment into their future Onlyfans fame and fortune.
>>4374519The four horseman of a good photo (most people only pick one)>Good Gear (lenses)>Pleasing Lighting>Complementary Background>Thoughtful Composition
>>4374461Shoot it all with a fucking 80. Post 1979 porn looks like shit bc they cheaped out in the video era and just used built-in camcorder lenses, followed by several shit years of shit and shitty shit in the late 90s through 2005, when the fucktards just went “oi I got it, I’ll stick an ultra wide on it and shove the cam up everyone’s crotch & still get some of their spaghetti’d out body out at the edges so you can see it’s not just a 40min shot of disembodied genitals smashing, and we’ll light everything to death so you can see every fucking gob of mascara and disgusting vaginal and anal secretions getting mashed into a paste while our round pumping dipshit here spits in her mouth and slaps our bored & disgusted model for ten minutes. Porn is fucking garbage. Adult films were good. Look at adult films from Russ Meyer & Joe Sarno to see people who actually gave a shit about what they were filming. But that shit almost completely ends by 1980, with a few exceptions that made art into the mid-eighties. After that the women’s fashion was thoroughly fucked anyway, & now it’s just a sewer pipe of commodified trash very little of which anyone even sees. Everything beautiful goes to shit eventually. We all missed the window on this one. I explored marketability & funding to produce some quality content and sure as shit, fir as big as the porn business is, the market won’t support quality, they just want endless quantity. So that is what we get.
>>4374604If I had the working distance I would. But I think you're right. Porn now looks like shit. There was definitely a shift once digital became viable.
>>437446118-35 f 1.8 because you don't need a faster lens in a studio, make sure to use dslr and 4-5 lights.
What level of beta cuckery is this
>>4374625the Sigma 18-35 f/1.8? that's a crop lens.If op has a 24-70 and bought either a tokina or sigma 16-28 it leads me to believe he is shooting full frame.
