Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
Thread started 23 Sep 2011 (Friday) 06:26
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Do I really need this 70-200 II ?

 
cherrymoon
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
Avatar
533 posts
Joined Mar 2008
     
Sep 23, 2011 11:05 |  #16

That's my dylemne, I don't care extra size and weight. In case if, I can take prime !


5D² 40 pancake | 50/1.4 | 85L II | 135L | 16-35L IS | 24-105L | 70-200 f2.8 L IS II and a TT bike
Complete Gear List

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
Fligi7
Senior Member
968 posts
Likes: 5
Joined Dec 2010
     
Sep 23, 2011 11:45 |  #17

If you're going to be depending on great shots for indoor sports, it's a no-brainer for the 2.8. My 2.8 IS II rarely leaves 2.8 and produces insanely sharp pictures. The times it does leave 2.8 is more often than not by mistake.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
Sep 23, 2011 12:00 |  #18

Doesn't it sort of depend on what the OP is using it for?

I will mainly shoot sports & portraits (indoor and outdoor)

So portraits at 2.8 are great if you only want the tip of the eyelash in focus. Otherwise your stopping down.

And sports. This of course depends on how far away you are. But you might be better off with a prime or a lens longer than 200mm.

Ultimately if you need the 2.8 than that is what you get.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Sep 23, 2011 12:02 |  #19

I bought the F4IS a few years ago because I thought the weight of the 2.8 would be annoying on a long shoot. When the new 2.8 came out I couldn't resist and bought one. You know, it's not bad at all. The only reason I keep my 135L is for travel and not even for the F2.

The MK2 is better than the 135 at 135 imo.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Sep 23, 2011 12:34 |  #20

Kronie wrote in post #13151312 (external link)
Doesn't it sort of depend on what the OP is using it for?


So portraits at 2.8 are great if you only want the tip of the eyelash in focus. Otherwise your stopping down.

And sports. This of course depends on how far away you are. But you might be better off with a prime or a lens longer than 200mm.

Ultimately if you need the 2.8 than that is what you get.

Kronie, I am certain that you know that what you say is simply not true. I would certainly agree that many (myself included at times) shoot their lens wide open, when they should be stopping down for more dof. However, depending on whether you are shooting tight head shots, head and shoulder, or full body portraits your needed f stop varies. Furthermore even for a head shot, f 2.8 can get both eyes in excellent sharp focus, with good focus on the lips and nose as well, as long as the head is square to the camera, although f4-f5.6 would give better overall dof.
I have seen (and shot) sharp full body portraits at f 1.2.


My Flickr (external link)
Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205576

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
Sep 23, 2011 12:58 |  #21

kevindar wrote in post #13151467 (external link)
Kronie, I am certain that you know that what you say is simply not true. I would certainly agree that many (myself included at times) shoot their lens wide open, when they should be stopping down for more dof. However, depending on whether you are shooting tight head shots, head and shoulder, or full body portraits your needed f stop varies. Furthermore even for a head shot, f 2.8 can get both eyes in excellent sharp focus, with good focus on the lips and nose as well, as long as the head is square to the camera, although f4-f5.6 would give better overall dof.
I have seen (and shot) sharp full body portraits at f 1.2.

Maybe on your 7D. It also depends on the FL and distance. At 200mm, 2.8, I find I can just get the eyes in focus and the lips, the nose is mostly OOF. Which I personally like. But if you need to get the whole face in focus, obviously you’re stopping down.

If you’re talking about full body portraits shot at 1.2. I am assuming you’re talking about shorter focal lengths like 85mm. For those you should be able to get your whole subject in focus. You have 6 inches to work with instead if a less than a quarter of an inch.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Sep 23, 2011 13:22 |  #22

Kronie, for the most part, Dof is not dependent on the focal length given the same framing. so a head shot at 70mm f 2.8 filling the frame would have about same dof as 200mm 2.8, filling the frame, again, as a general rule of thumb.
I have to look back and dig out some head and shoulder shots on 5d2, 200mm, 2.8 for you. Of course the dof and circle of confusion also depends on size of the final output, so softness will definitely be seen on a 20x30 inch poster, but I think 200 2.8 is quite usable for a head / head shoulder shot on the 5d2.


My Flickr (external link)
Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205576

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
Sep 23, 2011 13:41 |  #23

kevindar wrote in post #13151706 (external link)
Kronie, for the most part, Dof is not dependent on the focal length given the same framing. so a head shot at 70mm f 2.8 filling the frame would have about same dof as 200mm 2.8, filling the frame, again, as a general rule of thumb.

But DOF IS dependent on distance right? Aren't your distances going to be different therefore changing the DOF?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Sep 23, 2011 13:50 |  #24

Yes and no.
to shoot at 200 mm, you have to walk further away, which has the effect of increasing dof. but you are using a longer lens, which would have the effect of decreasing the dof. so for the most part, the two cancel each other out, again for the same framing. what primarily changes is the perspective of course which is distant dependent. Of course 200mm gives you better isolation from background, b/c your are narrowing the fov compared to 70, hence really decreasing the amount of back ground which is included in the image.
here is a good exercise for you. go this page
dof calculater (external link)
so at 70mm, f 2.8, on 5d2, when you are 10ft from your subject, you have a dof of 1.03 ft
how lets go to 210mm (for sake of simplicity). to get same framing, you have to now stand 30 ft away from your subject, for the same framing of your subject. Guess what the dof is. 1.03 ft.


My Flickr (external link)
Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205576

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
Sep 23, 2011 13:54 |  #25

kevindar wrote in post #13151836 (external link)
Yes and no.
to shoot at 200 mm, you have to walk further away, which has the effect of increasing dof. but you are using a longer lens, which would have the effect of decreasing the dof. so for the most part, the two cancel each other out, again for the same framing. what primarily changes is the perspective of course which is distant dependent. Of course 200mm gives you better isolation from background, b/c your are narrowing the fov compared to 70, hence really decreasing the amount of back ground which is included in the image.

I guess not so much. I just checked and:

200mm at F/2.8 with a distance of 10 feet, (I was thinking tight head shot)
Is the same as 70mm at 2.8 with a distance of 3.3 feet

70 is 0.11 feet
200 is 0.12 feet

http://www.dofmaster.c​om/ (external link)




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Sep 23, 2011 13:58 |  #26

ok. so you found it before I modified my link. lol
the relationship of dof, perspective, focal lenght, distance, and background (and lets throw in the crop factor) is something that many have a hard time grasping, but really is important to the choice of focal length and composition.


My Flickr (external link)
Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205576

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kronie
Goldmember
Avatar
2,183 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Jun 2008
     
Sep 23, 2011 14:15 |  #27

I never sat down and compared the numbers. I always thought that the the shorter FL, same framing, would give you more DOF for some reason. I can completely see how they can cancel each other now.

Thanks for the info....




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bohdank
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
14,060 posts
Likes: 6
Joined Jan 2008
Location: Montreal, Canada
     
Sep 23, 2011 15:13 |  #28

But the rate of going OOF will be different and the background elements will be larger with the longer lens. So, even though the DOF tables are the same, the image will look quite different.


Bohdan - I may be, and probably am, completely wrong.
Gear List

Montreal Concert, Event and Portrait Photographer (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
kevindar
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
5,050 posts
Likes: 38
Joined May 2007
Location: california
     
Sep 23, 2011 15:20 |  #29

bohdank wrote in post #13152199 (external link)
But the rate of going OOF will be different and the background elements will be larger with the longer lens. So, even though the DOF tables are the same, the image will look quite different.

I alluded th background elements being different in my post, and yes it leads to very different images, and the reason behind using the correct focal length hence the correct distance from you main subject, hence the correct perspective for the desired image.


My Flickr (external link)
Gear List
https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1205576

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

5,573 views & 0 likes for this thread
Do I really need this 70-200 II ?
FORUMS Canon Cameras, Lenses & Accessories Canon EF and EF-S Lenses 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is lamacchiacosta
842 guests, 262 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.