70-200 f/2.8L is a great portrait lens !

[Olegis]

Sharp even at 2.8 :

http://www.pbase.com/image/28383183.jpg

great bokeh :

http://www.pbase.com/image/28383187.jpg

The rest of it can be found here (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/natasha_&page=all).

I love this lens .... 8)

[drisley]

Wow! :shock:
Very Nice! :o

I wonder how well the 70-200mm F4L would be as a portrait lens?
Too much DOF perhpaps?

How do you like your Tamron?

[psk4363]

:D I wouldn't disagree with you Oleg - you just need the space in order to get that lovely diffused background.

Nice photos too!

Cheers,
Barry

[Olegis]

Wow! :shock:
Very Nice! :o

I wonder how well the 70-200mm F4L would be as a portrait lens?
Too much DOF perhpaps?

How do you like your Tamron?

Thanks !

The first 6 photos in that gallery are taked with the Tamron, so you can judge for yourself. Personally I guess that it's nice lens, but not very sharp until stepped down to f/5.6 or so.

[drisley]

It looks like you had some very nice lighting that day!

[Olegis]

You are right, this was a cloudy day and the shooting was in a location placed between two high walls, so the light from above reflected from both sides (walls) of the model.

[ssim]

Very nice shots. This is a great lens.

I have a friend who owns a dance studio and she was getting the dancers photos taken and the guy that was doing this was using this lens for all the individual shots. I was a bit surprised at first until I saw the outcome.

[Tommy2103]

I agree, very nice pictures.

But are you sure, that the pictures are taken with App. 2,8?

In my opinion there is too much DOF for 2,8. Both, the hand with the flower and the face are sharp. I have the same lens, but I'am not able to make such a picture with App. 2,8.

Thomas

[Olegis]

Yes, the apperture was 2.8 on most of the shots there. You can see it for yourself in the EXIF info here (http://www.pbase.com/image/28383187) from the image you're talking about. This shot was made from about 5-6 meters distance.

[martcol]

They really are lovely shots and a beautiful model. The lighting/exposure is spot on.

Martin

[tommykjensen]

I wonder how well the 70-200mm F4L would be as a portrait lens?
Too much DOF perhpaps?


How about this for portrait (posted in seperate thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=31975&highlight=)), this was shot with the 70-200 mm F4L:

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=HarrisHawk.jpg

[drisley]

Wow! Nice too!

"mmmm, creamy bokeh" (in the voice of homer simpson)

[Ballen Photo]

I've heard that the 70-200 2.8 "L" lens is an excellent portrait lens, and now you have proved this fact beyond a shadow of a doubt. :D Tommy, your F/4 version seems to have done very well also.
.........Bruce

[Olegis]

Thank you very much !

[EXA1a]

Oleg,

no doubt, these portraits are very nice. That's a perfect demonstration that lighting is one of the major components which "makes" a good photo. And the lens is very sharp, of course.
However, this is not sufficient proof for a "great" portrait lens.
A face is a 3D object. Perspective flattens the third dimension at long distances, i.e. when using long lenses. Faces therefore become more unnaturally flat. The most "natural" perspective is being created with 85 to 135mm lenses on a 35mm camera. Of course, these "perfect" portrait lenses don't automatically generate great portraits.

To avoid any misunderstandings, I repeat: your portraits are great!

--Jens--

[Olegis]

Hi Jens, thank you for your reply and the compliments.

From what I've read and seen, many photographers prefer the long lenses because of narrow DOF and nice bokeh they produce, while the "face flattening" is minimal or (to my eyes) unnoticable (you can read about it here (http://www.photo.net/portraits/intro) ). Personally I can't distinguish between the 3D reproduction of the human face made with 50mm or 200mm.

[Ballen Photo]

This is not the first time I've heard the 70-200 F/2.8 lens is a good one for portraits, and I've seen these sentiments echoed on at least a few sites, but one of the real "Clinchers" of this deal, is when I can find this lens listed on Canons own site under the catagory of "Portrait Lenses".
Here's a link to that thread on Canons site.
http://www.usa.canon.com/html/eflenses/lens101/application/portrait.html :D
.........Bruce

[Dans_D60]

I found the 70-200 2.8L an excellent lens for portrait work. This lens can even be used for full body shots at the 70-100mm range in the studio using a full frame camera like the 1Ds.

Here is an example of a “BUD-Light” local beverage distribution calendar promotion I shot last weekend. 1Ds 70-200 2.8L full body shot. Notice the resolution in the face cropped up. The distributor printed these up in 20x30 posters and she is tack sharp with no color or resolution loss. Simply amazing camera and lens! :D

http://www.pettusphoto.com/bud-light/bud-light.jpg


http://www.pettusphoto.com/bud-light/close.jpg

[Olegis]

Great quality shot Dan ! Amazing camera and lens indeed !

[Ballen Photo]

I found the 70-200 2.8L an excellent lens for portrait work. This lens can even be used for full body shots at the 70-100mm range in the studio using a full frame camera like the 1Ds.

Here is an example of a “BUD-Light” local beverage distribution calendar promotion I shot last weekend. 1Ds 70-200 2.8L full body shot. Notice the resolution in the face cropped up. The distributor printed these up in 20x30 posters and she is tack sharp with no color or resolution loss. Simply amazing camera and lens! :D



Simply nice work too Dan. :D :shock: :D
........Bruce

[cowman345]

Oleg - You've got a very nice gallery, the last set has a ton of great shots. Keep up the good work!

-dave-

[Tom W]

Nice shots, everyone. The lenses are great, but their application is a craft that not everyone can master.

[msvadi]

Oleg,
I really like #1. The light is simple but very beautiful.
Is there any reason for that lens not to be a good portrait lens? ;)

[Olegis]

Thanks everybody. :)

[drisley]

Olegis, it struck me that the posing in these images is phenomenal!
Very natural and professional looking.

The vast majority of images I see out there where people try to get "models" to pose for them look very stiff, and unnatural.

Is your subject a professional model? She seems very relaxed and comfortable in these shots.
Are there some good pointers you can give to make the subject relaxed and comfortable when you are making them pose?

Great shots!

[Adam Hicks]

I'm seeing you guys talk 70-200 f2.8 L, are we talking with or without IS? I'm looking to pick up the 70-200 f2.8 for my DRebel (currently have the Tamron 28-75 which I actually really like, and need the next logical step.) It seems to me that at 2.8 with the L lens the IS functionality might not be as necessary as on the 100-400 or the 28-125 smaller ap lens. Is this the case? I'd love to have the 70-200 2.8 IS, but for my 90% outdoor shooting (who needs 200mm in the living room?) I don't see the justification for $500+ in cost.

Can someone clarify before I go drop a chunk of dough?

Thanks!
Adam

[Olegis]

Olegis, it struck me that the posing in these images is phenomenal!
Very natural and professional looking.

The vast majority of images I see out there where people try to get "models" to pose for them look very stiff, and unnatural.

Is your subject a professional model? She seems very relaxed and comfortable in these shots.
Are there some good pointers you can give to make the subject relaxed and comfortable when you are making them pose?

Great shots!

Thank you very much ! The model is actually my girlfriend, so I guess that explains the relaxation issue :wink: . Moreover she is such a natural poser, that not being professional model and never posing in front of any sort of camera (except of the "family" P&S) - she can do better than many professional models. It's just natural thing with her, I can't explain how she does it - but the results speak for themselves.

About some "tips" for model shooting - I have shot some portraits (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/portraits) in the past two years (none of the girls there is a professional model) and the main thing in my opinion is to talk to your model in order to make her (or him, doesn't matter) feel comfortable in front of the camera. When I drive to a location, I usually talk with the model about all kinds of stuff - how is she doing, what she likes to do in her "free" time, does she have any hobby or a pet, what kind of a pet (having two cats now and a dog 3 years ago I find it extremely easy talking about pets and all their habits and behaivours - this is one of the major "ice-breakers"). I don't force any kind of special clothes or make-up - the model can show up with anything that makes her comfortable. The locations I try to pick are mostly beautiful and even romantic places. While on location, I try to cooperate with the model by letting her decide on some of the poses, telling jokes, telling stories - everything to keep the atmosphere pleasant and fluid.

These are the most important things in my opinion. Of coarse there are models that nothing of the above works with them, so eventually you can end up with a CF card full of "frozen", stiff and uninteresting photographs after 2-3 hours of shooting. My advice - just don't let these situations affect you, just move on and shoot somebody else. 8)

Sorry for the long post, hope it helped. Feel free to ask further question if any :)

[drisley]

Thanks Olegis for replying.... very informative.
:)
I guess your personality has alot to do with it.
If you are friendly, easy going, perhaps funny, the subject will feel more at ease.
Also, I'm sure that if you are confident in what you are doing, the subject/model will sense that and often give better/more relaxed pictures.

Almost all of your portraits are very natural, relaxed looking. Great job!
I find this very interesting. As I said, a LARGE percentage of portraits I've seen look "stiff". Even when the model is very good looking, the picture just doesnt look right.
This might fall under the category of "either you got it, or you dont".

Thanks again Olegis!

[Olegis]

I'm seeing you guys talk 70-200 f2.8 L, are we talking with or without IS? I'm looking to pick up the 70-200 f2.8 for my DRebel (currently have the Tamron 28-75 which I actually really like, and need the next logical step.) It seems to me that at 2.8 with the L lens the IS functionality might not be as necessary as on the 100-400 or the 28-125 smaller ap lens. Is this the case? I'd love to have the 70-200 2.8 IS, but for my 90% outdoor shooting (who needs 200mm in the living room?) I don't see the justification for $500+ in cost.

Can someone clarify before I go drop a chunk of dough?

Thanks!
Adam

Adam hi. I have the non-IS version of the 70-200 f/2.8L and I love it. You have to choose shutter speeds above 1/320s to avoid blur caused by the camera movement, so you decide whether the IS is for your style of shooting. If you shoot mostly steady subjects with dim light conditions - you'll be happier with IS. If you want to shoot moving subjects (sports for example), then the IS will be useless since the shutter speeds will have to be higher than 1/250 of 1/320s. Of course the IS provides more versatility, but the price difference is also very big.
I decided to go with the non-IS version (since I got it second hand for about 800 $USA - in excellent condition) and I'm very happy with the results (http://www.pbase.com/olegis/wildlife&page=all) so far ...