Paying $600 extra vs using Photoshop Blur Tool

I am considering both the 70-200MM f4 and also the 2.8 version of the same lens.

Is it really worth it? If I needed that much more blur, wouldn't Photoshop's blur tool do it just as good as the cam would?

Also, let's throw out the other added benefits of a larger aperture. I am referring strictly to the bokeh capabilities of both lens.

Generally, this question is not just for comparing two different lens, but all lens. Is paying top bucks really worth it for the extra blur you get? I am pretty experienced in Photoshop and I haven't seen many blur effects created by the lens that couldn't be easily replicated.

I am just curious on everyone's opinion? Before I get slammed, I am not saying one way of doing things is better than the other, I am simply posing the question: Are both ways as good as each other?

two things...first, no, the photoshop blur tool always makes a photo look manipulated. Even done well there's a different look. Secondly, the 70-200 F4 has a very nice bokeh. I had both the 2.8 & F4IS. I didn't see any difference in the background blur. The 2.8 gives you a faster lens in case you need it in low light or to stop action.

Thanks for your reply. I am probably going with the 2.8 because of sports anyway, I was just curious if the blur was really something that mattered that much with a lens.

I am anxious to question your statement, however, "the photoshop blur tool always makes a photo look manipulated". I disagree with "always".

FMX wrote in post #9492660
Thanks for your reply. I am probably going with the 2.8 because of sports anyway, I was just curious if the blur was really something that mattered that much with a lens.

I am anxious to question your statement, however, "the photoshop blur tool always makes a photo look manipulated". I disagree with "always".

How much do you normally make in an hour? How many hours of mucking with a photoshop blur tool would it take to earn $600?

I rarely see work with the PS blur tool that it is good enough not to show manipulation. If you are that good, go into business doing photo retouching and earn the $600 in an afternoon.

i would say that the difference in blur is not really why you would choose one over the other.. the main difference of why you would benefit from the 2.8 over the 4 is that it is a faster lens.

i was in the same boat about a year ago i went with the 2.8 non is and im happy with it.my advice would be go trough this website find as much info about both lenses and see which one would fit your needs better.

Permagrin wrote in post #9492571
two things...first, no, the photoshop blur tool always makes a photo look manipulated. Even done well there's a different look. Secondly, the 70-200 F4 has a very nice bokeh. I had both the 2.8 & F4IS. I didn't see any difference in the background blur. The 2.8 gives you a faster lens in case you need it in low light or to stop action.

Hmm, maybe F4 and F2.8 version give the same bokeh (which is the quality the blur). F2.8 will definitely give you more (quantity wise) blur background/forground than F4 will give you. In other words, you will be able to isolate your subject better with at F2.8 than at F4.

wrussi wrote in post #9492858
i would say that the difference in blur is not really why you would choose one over the other.. the main difference of why you would benefit from the 2.8 over the 4 is that it is a faster lens.

i was in the same boat about a year ago i went with the 2.8 non is and im happy with it.my advice would be go trough this website find as much info about both lenses and see which one would fit your needs better.

I totally do NOT agree with this. IMHO, the ability to better control DOF is one major reason for me to pick a faster/larger aperture lens. Of course, the ability to stop action is as important.

To OP, the additional money cost to upgrade to F2.8 will bring you more than a background blur. It get you better low light ability, faster/more accurate AF. Plus, photoshop blur will hardly look the same as the blur given by large aperture lens.

I guess the shallower depth of field can be digitally created. I do agree that it usually doesn't look as good and takes a bit of time to do it well.

Where the faster lens will really help is in getting faster shutter speeds (double the speed), brighter viewfinder (especially important if you shoot in dim settings), and faster AF (although the f4 lens is pretty fast anyway), as most canon bodies focus a bit better with an f2.8 or faster lens.

Tough to say if it's worth the price difference or not. It's a personal decision.

Just got an email about this. Anyone use it?

http://www.ononesoftwa​re.com/detail.php?prod​Line_id=35

I do not have the lens you are talking about...but use the niftyfifty. When I started out taking pics (6 months ago) I used the blur tool as my main tool.....as stated earlier though....to much time working and not as good effect as a natural blur.

JeffreyG wrote in post #9492697
I rarely see work with the PS blur tool that it is good enough not to show manipulation. If you are that good, go into business doing photo retouching and earn the $600 in an afternoon.

+1.

I'm confused? Why would I be retouching to make $600 if I already saved $600 by getting the f/4? lol.

But I think everyone has summed it up pretty good: its easier to get the great looking blur with the lens and also more realistic. Thanks.

If you could do a good enough job creating realistic blur in PS, you should be doing it for a living and easily making $600 to get the more expensive lens.

Goodluck in making bokeh.

PMCphotography wrote in post #9494976
If you could do a good enough job creating realistic blur in PS, you should be doing it for a living and easily making $600 to get the more expensive lens.

Please direct me to the nearest Photo Editing job!!

wow... it's not about blur, it's about "pop"... and that dreamy background.