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 Nov 2009 (Monday) 19:27
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

70-200 F4 w/ 5D for portraits?

 
Muskydave22
Goldmember
Avatar
1,716 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Menomonee Falls, WI
     
Nov 23, 2009 19:27 |  #1

I have been thinking of adding another lens for portraits, something longer for outdoor shots and some tight head shots in studio. I like the idea of the zoom, being able to recompose without moving. I know in studio the F4 aperture really doesn't matter, but I was wondering if I going to get good bokeh from the F4 version which I could probably buy now, or should I save up for a few months more and buy the 2.8 version?

Dave


Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
elader
Goldmember
Avatar
2,374 posts
Likes: 1
Joined Nov 2005
Location: Maryland
     
Nov 23, 2009 20:26 |  #2

If you shoot it wide open (and it is sharp enough wide open), it should be fine. You can get a 200mm f/2.8 for $500 or so and it is one stop faster. Do you really think you need the range between 75 and 200? The other fab lens is the 300mm f/4IS, but it may be kind of long..

I would say the 70-200 f/2.8 is big and heavy. I had all 4 of canon's 70-200 lenses. I thought the f/4IS was a waste of money. The lens is so light, I could hold it pretty steady and the f/4 non IS was good enough. I also had the non IS f/2.8 but could never hold it steady enough :-)/ I got the big guy when you could get a great cashback deal and paid $1350 and will NEVER sell it.


Eric
FJR1300 rider
5D mkIII and 1D MkIII

16-35L | 24-105L | 70-200L f/2.8IS | 85 f/1.8 / 50 f.1,4

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikekelley
"Meow! Bark! Honk! Hiss! Grrr! Tweet!"
Avatar
7,317 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Nov 23, 2009 21:48 |  #3

70-200 f4 is stellar in every way for portraits

sharp as hell, light, easy to use. you'll love it


Los Angeles-Based Architectural, Interior, And Luxury Real Estate Photography (external link)
How To Photograph Real Estate and Architecture (external link)
My Fine Art Galleries (external link)
My articles at Fstoppers.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Muskydave22
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,716 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Menomonee Falls, WI
     
Nov 23, 2009 21:57 |  #4

I used to have a 70-200 F4, but that was when I had the 40D so it was a little different FOV. I guess all I am wondering is if I am going to be able to get good background separation and bokeh for outdoor portraits with the F4.

Dave


Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikekelley
"Meow! Bark! Honk! Hiss! Grrr! Tweet!"
Avatar
7,317 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Nov 23, 2009 22:27 |  #5

Absolutely. I use it with both crop and ff cameras and you can get insane seperation if you want.


Los Angeles-Based Architectural, Interior, And Luxury Real Estate Photography (external link)
How To Photograph Real Estate and Architecture (external link)
My Fine Art Galleries (external link)
My articles at Fstoppers.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Nov 23, 2009 22:29 |  #6

Muskydave22 wrote in post #9070812 (external link)
I used to have a 70-200 F4, but that was when I had the 40D so it was a little different FOV. I guess all I am wondering is if I am going to be able to get good background separation and bokeh for outdoor portraits with the F4.

Dave

70-200 F4 on FF would be about like 45-125 f2.5 on a crop. So the range and bg blur should be about perfect. The 70-200s were designed as mid length portrait telephotos for FF/35mm film.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
booja
Goldmember
1,638 posts
Likes: 102
Joined Jan 2008
Location: houston, tx
     
Nov 23, 2009 22:37 |  #7

for portraits i would rather use an 85mm 1.8 or 1.2 if you can afford it. then it would be a 135L. if you dont want a tight portrait then i would say 35L... i can see you have the 85 1.8 already. i would rather use that first rather than a 70-200 f/4. i have the f/4L and i dont think i have used it once.

i have used the 85 1.8 alot, 135L all the time when room permits, i used the 70-200 2.8 alot too when i had it but it is heavy. makes the 70-200 f/4L feel like a toy




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mikekelley
"Meow! Bark! Honk! Hiss! Grrr! Tweet!"
Avatar
7,317 posts
Likes: 15
Joined Feb 2009
Location: Los Angeles, CA
     
Nov 23, 2009 22:56 |  #8

You do not need a fast prime for portraits.

f4 is more than ample at 200mm.

I think I'd rather use a 70-200 over the 85 1.8 that i own. Just as sharp, and I can change the focal length. Since I want the whole face in focus, what's the point of using it at 1.8? Since i also use flash for portraits, why do I need a fast prime again?

Don't be fooled by the need for a fast prime for portraits.


Los Angeles-Based Architectural, Interior, And Luxury Real Estate Photography (external link)
How To Photograph Real Estate and Architecture (external link)
My Fine Art Galleries (external link)
My articles at Fstoppers.com (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
p_jesten
Junior Member
28 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Northern VA
     
Nov 23, 2009 23:04 as a reply to  @ mikekelley's post |  #9

Even if you shoot wide open, you can still get the whole face in focus, just stand further away from your subject... :)

Of course if you are not willing to use your legs as your zoom, and if you are pretty close, yes, the whole image may not be in focus.

And to answer the original poster, the 70-200 f/4 is spozed to be awesome and sharp. I am actually leaning towards that one mainly b/c of the sharpness and the weight - oh how I wish the 2.8 was a lighter lens, I could barely hold it steady when I tried it on - but it might give me motivation to go to the gym...LOL

But I just ordered the 85mm 1.8 - I hope I do not knock over the UPS guy when he comes...LOL


Pat
MY WEBSITE (external link)
50D - 24-70 2.8 - 85mm 1.8 (LOVE IT) Sigma 10-20 - 18-55 IS (rarely used)
"need" 70-200 (not sure which one) and FF camera

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Nov 23, 2009 23:06 |  #10

p_jesten wrote in post #9071177 (external link)
Even if you shoot wide open, you can still get the whole face in focus, just stand further away from your subject... :)

Of course if you are not willing to use your legs as your zoom, and if you are pretty close, yes, the whole image may not be in focus.

You are forgetting this is a Full frame camera we are talking about. F4 will have about the same DOF as f2.5 on a crop camera. Add in the 200mm lenght and you can blur like mad.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
p_jesten
Junior Member
28 posts
Joined Nov 2009
Location: Northern VA
     
Nov 23, 2009 23:16 as a reply to  @ tkbslc's post |  #11

Take a look here (external link) - its a DoF calculator and it shows that distance also effects DoF regardless of the camera used. Of course I have only tested on crop camera, but it only makes sense that it would be the same with FF.


Pat
MY WEBSITE (external link)
50D - 24-70 2.8 - 85mm 1.8 (LOVE IT) Sigma 10-20 - 18-55 IS (rarely used)
"need" 70-200 (not sure which one) and FF camera

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Muskydave22
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,716 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Menomonee Falls, WI
     
Nov 23, 2009 23:17 |  #12

I was thinking that I really don't use my 85 1.8 for anything but portraits, no low light photography or anything like that I can't use a flash, and I am always pretty close to my subjects getting close head shots. Maybe I should sell my 85 1.8, buy the 70-200 F4 and then I can put the extra money I was going to spend by just adding the 70-200 for another alien bee.

Dave


Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
dcran
Member
81 posts
Joined Mar 2009
Location: Atlanta, GA
     
Nov 23, 2009 23:20 |  #13

Here is an example of what this lens can do as far as background separation goes. I took this one last week. It is at 144mm f/4. Going out to 200 will create even more separation. It is a great lens on a 5D.

IMAGE NOT FOUND
IMAGE IS A REDIRECT OR MISSING!
HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

WEBSITE (external link) - BLOG (external link)
5DmkII - A2 - 135 f/2 - 50 f/1.4 - 28 f/1.8 - 580exII

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tkbslc
Cream of the Crop
24,586 posts
Likes: 26
Joined Nov 2008
Location: Utah, USA
     
Nov 23, 2009 23:24 |  #14

p_jesten wrote in post #9071209 (external link)
Take a look here (external link) - its a DoF calculator and it shows that distance also effects DoF regardless of the camera used. Of course I have only tested on crop camera, but it only makes sense that it would be the same with FF.

And with a FF camera you will either be using a longer lens length or standing closer to get the same shot - either of which greatly decreases the DOF at the same aperture.

Even on a crop camera, 200mm f4 creates the same BG blur as 85mm f1.8. Lens length matters for subject seperation. Maybe even more than aperture.


Taylor
Galleries: Flickr (external link)
EOS Rp | iPhone 11 Pro Max

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Muskydave22
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,716 posts
Joined Jan 2009
Location: Menomonee Falls, WI
     
Nov 23, 2009 23:25 |  #15

wow, thats awesome. I think you guys just made my mind up for me haha! Thanks a lot guys!!

Dave


Facebook (external link)
Flickr (external link)

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

2,031 views & 0 likes for this thread
70-200 F4 w/ 5D for portraits?
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 countrygirl67
822 guests, 181 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.