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 Oct 2014 (Thursday) 14:33
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Questions about 70-200mm & 85mm

 
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,622 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5678
Joined Sep 2007
     
Oct 23, 2014 16:44 |  #31

85 can blur a lot, but the 200 @F2.8 will give you a more pleasing look and probably the same amount of blur. If you aim to blur indoors, 85, outdoors 135L/70-200. If you want budget friendly, the tamron 70-200 F2.8 VC is extremely good.

longer focal length will make the background look closer and larger, which does a better job at isolation, than just pure blur with smaller background subjects (shorter focal lengths).


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
hennie
Goldmember
1,249 posts
Gallery: 25 photos
Likes: 58
Joined Oct 2007
Location: Spijkenisse, The Netherlands
     
Oct 23, 2014 16:59 |  #32

Amount of blur can be calculated using optical laws.
How to objectively determine quality / pleasingness of background blur?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
gonzogolf
dumb remark memorialized
29,106 posts
Gallery: 7 photos
Likes: 1124
Joined Dec 2006
     
Oct 23, 2014 17:26 |  #33

hennie wrote in post #17229721 (external link)
Amount of blur can be calculated using optical laws.
How to objectively determine quality / pleasingness of background blur?

Pleasing is subjective but certain lenses have the aperture blades designed to create a smoother creamier blur which most people would call pleasing.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,622 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5678
Joined Sep 2007
     
Oct 23, 2014 17:41 |  #34

hennie wrote in post #17229721 (external link)
Amount of blur can be calculated using optical laws.
How to objectively determine quality / pleasingness of background blur?

I'll do my best to explain. To keep it simple, we'll just focus on 85 and 135 since I have readily available samples.

The 85L blurs more than the 135L with the same subject framing, however, being much wider, it also draws in more of the background, making items in the background smaller, and thus more recognizable.

I tried to frame these images similarly, and the 135 is more focused on the subject with a larger background. As the distant background is drawn closer and closer, it starts becoming a large muslin backdrop effect.

the 135 FOV cuts off all of the pavers on the left side, and less flowers are shown. The longer the lens, the better the isolation effect you can create. Essentially with a wider lens, you can get more blur if it's really wide aperture, but since it's wide, you cant really isolate as well which is relevant in the background blur debate since it has the ability to declutter based on FOV.

Simplest solution is to own them all :p


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,404 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 461
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Oct 23, 2014 17:42 |  #35

hennie wrote in post #17229690 (external link)
A 135/2.0L would beat them all up to distances of 20 m. based on http://howmuchblur.com …f2-on-a-0.9m-wide-subject (external link)

Absolutely, but try adding the 200mm f/1.8L to see why people loved it ;)

hennie wrote in post #17229721 (external link)
Amount of blur can be calculated using optical laws.
How to objectively determine quality / pleasingness of background blur?

Good question. IRC Roger at lensrentals has pointed out that lenses with low astigmatism tend to produce good quality blur. I don't know if there are other optical traits that result in, for instance, onion skinning issues, but it would be interesting if there was a way of objectively determining if a lens was likely to be good.


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aggieoutlaw
Senior Member
Avatar
308 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2007
     
Oct 23, 2014 19:13 |  #36

OP,

Are you unhappy with the non-IS 70-200 F4? If so, why are you unhappy?

The 70-200 F4 non-IS is, for all intents and purposes, a tack sharp lens capable of producing great bokeh. Perhaps you can express what you dislike about it's performance for better advice. Better yet, post a picture and describe what you don't like about the image.

You may get some tips that prevent you from having to spend $2k+ to produce the images you desire.

Edited:
There are AMAZING images taken with this lens and shared on POTN:
https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=14273​9&page=398

Perhaps you can point us to what you are looking for.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdaddyrabbit
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,699 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 6
Joined Mar 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 23, 2014 19:22 |  #37

aggieoutlaw wrote in post #17229860 (external link)
OP,

Are you unhappy with the non-IS 70-200 F4? If so, why are you unhappy?

The 70-200 F4 non-IS is, for all intents and purposes, a tack sharp lens capable of producing great bokeh. Perhaps you can express what you dislike about it's performance for better advice. Better yet, post a picture and describe what you don't like about the image.

You may get some tips that prevent you from having to spend $2k+ to produce the images you desire.

Edited:
There are AMAZING images taken with this lens and shared on POTN:
https://photography-on-the.net …ead.php?t=14273​9&page=398

Perhaps you can point us to what you are looking for.

I like the lens but I only wish it had IS on it.


Website (external link)

CANON

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Myboostedgst
Goldmember
Avatar
1,896 posts
Gallery: 28 photos
Likes: 628
Joined Feb 2011
Location: Milwaukee, WI
     
Oct 23, 2014 21:28 |  #38

mdaddyrabbit wrote in post #17229880 (external link)
I like the lens but I only wish it had IS on it.

The 70-200 F4 IS is much shaper than your non IS version, and is also shaper than the 70-200 f2.8 version I. However it will not create as much background blur as the 85 1.8 or the 70-200 2.8 versions.


Andrew | Facebook (external link) | Flickr (external link) | Instagram (external link)
D750, 24-70, 50 1.4G, 85 1.8G, 70-200 VRII, 300 F2.8 AF
Founder of www.midwestautomotive.​net (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
MFG
Senior Member
Avatar
536 posts
Likes: 7
Joined Sep 2008
Location: South Australia
     
Oct 24, 2014 00:55 |  #39

i have the 70-200 2.8II and 85LII.

times when the 85 comes out is when i have really low light or i want to get 1.2-2.0 range.

the other times, the 70-200 is pretty good. the f/4 is sharp hence its good.


AIPP Accredited (Australia), WPJA
Professional Wedding, Newborn and Family Photographer
https://www.scottgohph​otography.com.au (external link)
https://www.facebook.c​om/ScottGohPhotography (external link)
https://www.scottgohph​otography.com.au/blog (external link)
https://www.scottgohph​otography.com.au/babie​s-and-children/ (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
titi_67207
Senior Member
Avatar
496 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Strasbourg, France
     
Oct 24, 2014 04:30 |  #40

mdaddyrabbit wrote in post #17229880 (external link)
I like the lens but I only wish it had IS on it.

So sell your 70-200 f4 and buy the f4 IS version!

Titi


Canon 5D MkII + Sony A7 + 24x36 & 6x6 B&W film cameras .
CV 15 4.5 III | TS-E 24L II | FE 28 2 | (50+85) 1.4 | 135 2 | 70-200 4.0L | a collection of old Zuikos + FD + Adaptall + AI-s + M42

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
carpenter
Goldmember
2,605 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 293
Joined Jul 2006
Location: Green Bay, WI
     
Oct 24, 2014 10:18 |  #41

mdaddyrabbit wrote in post #17229880 (external link)
I like the lens but I only wish it had IS on it.

I'm a bit confused as to what you are really looking for. Your main issue you stated was that you were looking for more background blur (along side sharpness which I think we are all want) If you like your 70-200, but just wish it had IS, do you feel it was giving you enough background blur? If so then sell for the f4 IS. Should be about a $450 out of pocket upgrade. Otherwise if I were you I'd look into something like the Canon MkII or Tamron VC models.


5D Mk IV | 24-105L | 85 1.8 | 70-200L 2.8 IS MkII | 100-400L MkII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mdaddyrabbit
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,699 posts
Gallery: 3 photos
Likes: 6
Joined Mar 2005
Location: North Carolina
     
Oct 24, 2014 10:28 |  #42

carpenter wrote in post #17230936 (external link)
I'm a bit confused as to what you are really looking for. Your main issue you stated was that you were looking for more background blur (along side sharpness which I think we are all want) If you like your 70-200, but just wish it had IS, do you feel it was giving you enough background blur? If so then sell for the f4 IS. Should be about a $450 out of pocket upgrade. Otherwise if I were you I'd look into something like the Canon MkII or Tamron VC models.

I can't seem to hold the 70-200 steady enough to get tack sharp images. I feel sure the blur would be to my satisfaction but I need the subject to be sharper.


Website (external link)

CANON

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sploo
premature adulation
2,404 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 461
Joined Nov 2011
Location: West Yorkshire, UK
     
Oct 24, 2014 10:52 |  #43

mdaddyrabbit wrote in post #17230953 (external link)
I can't seem to hold the 70-200 steady enough to get tack sharp images. I feel sure the blur would be to my satisfaction but I need the subject to be sharper.

In that case the f/4 IS model would be ideal. From an admittedly small number of samples I've tested the difference in sharpness between the f/4 IS wide open and the f/2.8 II at f/4 isn't so big that I'd be worried about buying the larger model unless I really needed to shoot at f/2.8 (i.e. both the f/4 IS and the f/2.8 II are very good).

With your current lens; try keeping the shutter speed well above the 1/focal length rule (i.e. if at 200mm: 1/200s for a FF body, or 1/320s for a 1.6x APS-C crop body). You may need a higher ISO speed (therefore more noise) to achieve this in lower light conditions, but you'll be able to gauge if the blur is sufficient for your tastes.

One thing I'd note is that unless you're looking for an uber shallow DOF look (e.g. single eye in focus on a headshot with an 85mm f/1.2L wide open) then your background blur can be controlled by keeping the background a good distance away.

I was looking at some shots from a portrait photographer I know - who always seems to manage to get good sharp detail on his subjects, but really nice backgrounds. After spending some time thinking about his shots, it was obvious that he's really careful to choose good, non-distracting, distant backgrounds when he wants that effect. When he can't get sufficient distance, he'll use the background as part of the shot, and not try to risk too shallow DOF for his subject by desperately trying to get the background blurred out. I.e. sometimes just taking a step to one side can result in a much better background!


Camera, some lenses, too little time, too little talent

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
15,622 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 5678
Joined Sep 2007
     
Oct 24, 2014 11:28 |  #44

the 70-200 should be shot with 1/2FL for crisp shots, that's 1/400 on the 200 end!. However, with the stabilized version, you can go as low as 1/80 (for portraits), any focal length without worry. In practice, that could be 2 stops of difference!

I've shot with the 70-200 F4 for years, many years of blurred shots :p

Learned my lesson, never again, a 70-200 unstabilized.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - CV 21/3.5 - FE 35/2.8 - SY 35/1.4 AF - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
aggieoutlaw
Senior Member
Avatar
308 posts
Likes: 2
Joined Dec 2007
     
Nov 02, 2014 10:24 |  #45

Agreed. Non-IS F4 blurry? Bump the shutter speed and ISO. You should shutter at least 2x the focal length without a tripod. That's why I love the 6D high ISO performance!




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

7,217 views & 0 likes for this thread
Questions about 70-200mm & 85mm
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 astrobalcony
753 guests, 238 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.