How do you shoot wide open?

I mean, at aperatures of f1.4 to f2.0 or f2.8, your depth of field is razor thin if you're anywhere close. I see gorgeous portraits wide open with beautiful bokeh. How do you take portraits with a 135L at f2.0? At 10 ft away you DOF is 2". Is the trick to stand really far back, relative depending on the lens, and crop in post?

For people photography, f/2.8 and below are best used for full body shots. That way, there is much more depth of field. When you get closer to the subject, stop down to f/5.6 or greater.

timrocks311 wrote in post #16840993
I mean, at aperatures of f1.4 to f2.0 or f2.8, your depth of field is razor thin if you're anywhere close. I see gorgeous portraits wide open with beautiful bokeh. How do you take portraits with a 135L at f2.0? At 10 ft away you DOF is 2". Is the trick to stand really far back, relative depending on the lens, and crop in post?

Yes, with the 135L the only time I shoot wide open is when I am back far enough that I get sufficient DOF to have the entire face sharp. That lens works great for backing up to full body length distance and giving you a nice slice of sharp focus in between a blurred foreground and background. You get an almost 3D effect. For closer half body or less shots you have to be careful not to get the shot where the eyes are infocus but the nose isnt because of shallow DOF.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16841011
Yes, with the 135L the only time I shoot wide open is when I am back far enough that I get sufficient DOF to have the entire face sharp. That lens works great for backing up to full body length distance and giving you a nice slice of sharp focus in between a blurred foreground and background. You get an almost 3D effect. For closer half body or less shots you have to be careful not to get the shot where the eyes are infocus but the nose isnt because of shallow DOF.

based on this response, it seems the DOF should be covering the entire face rather than just the eyes?

Bracetty wrote in post #16841069
based on this response, it seems the DOF should be covering the entire face rather than just the eyes?

Some people might prefer sharp eyes and blurry nose as an artistic statement, but to me its pointless. I admire a blurred background but if your DOF is so shallow that you cant keep both eyes and focus and well as most of the facial features then its probably going to be lacking as a commercial portrait.

I do not usually shoot wide open with my 400 f2.8, not just because of the too-shallow DOF, but also because the overall sharpness of the images is not quite as good as when I stop down a bit. I want to resolve as much fine detail as possible, and wide open apertures seem to work against that objective.

Just depends. Remember that the 1.2, 1.4, etc. lenses all focus wide open, thus in darker light the focus is much better.

timrocks311 wrote in post #16840993
I mean, at aperatures of f1.4 to f2.0 or f2.8, your depth of field is razor thin if you're anywhere close. I see gorgeous portraits wide open with beautiful bokeh. How do you take portraits with a 135L at f2.0? At 10 ft away you DOF is 2". Is the trick to stand really far back, relative depending on the lens, and crop in post?

Here's the process. With a 70-200mm f/2.8 lens, I set the camera to aperture priority, choose f/2.8, point the lens at the subject and then push the shutter button.

Then, images such as these come out of the camera.

Im shooting completely manual, no af on lens. Can you elaborate a bit more, I don't have that luxury

don't focus and recompose

gonzogolf wrote in post #16841078
Some people might prefer sharp eyes and blurry nose as an artistic statement, but to me its pointless. I admire a blurred background but if your DOF is so shallow that you cant keep both eyes and focus and well as most of the facial features then its probably going to be lacking as a commercial portrait.

Yeah, certainly I would want the entire face sharp. At the closer distances I'm usually at, I have to stop down to f4 or f5.6 to get the face sharp, but them loose the nice blurry background. I'll get in the habit of standing back more.

Bracetty wrote in post #16841069
based on this response, it seems the DOF should be covering the entire face rather than just the eyes?

Only you (and your subject, if they're paying you) can decide what needs to be in focus. When *I* see a portrait, or have one taken of myself, I want to see the entire face in focus, maybe back to the ears. If that requires either backing up, or closing down the aperture, so be it.

At f1.2 I use single AF point and place it exactly where focus needs to be.
AI Servo AF mode.

timrocks311 wrote in post #16840993
I mean, at aperatures of f1.4 to f2.0 or f2.8, your depth of field is razor thin if you're anywhere close. I see gorgeous portraits wide open with beautiful bokeh. How do you take portraits with a 135L at f2.0? At 10 ft away you DOF is 2". Is the trick to stand really far back, relative depending on the lens, and crop in post?

The wider the aperture, the more care you want to take, first in analyzing the scene/subject, and determining what output you want with it, then carefully focusing and shooting to get that result.

There is no "magic" to the ultra-wide apertures, but it does take that careful approach.

For subjects at a suitable distance, f/2.8 can give great results, in fact, even a "super" f/1.2 lens can give enough workable depth-of-field, but again that's at a "distance" that you factor in. For a lot of my shooting, though, I'm not trying to maximize "background blur", but I look to get the subject properly focused, whether I'm shooting with f/2.8 or (more commonly) f/4-f/5.6!