Paying $600 extra vs using Photoshop Blur Tool

I'll be blunt...NO the blur tool in photoshop is not as good or even close to what you get from shooting a shallow DOF, and I'm pretty darn experienced in PS as well and you're not coming close to what the lens itself does. Really have to learn what you're doing here because DOF can be determined by a lot of things, not just f/2.8 vs f/4 - which is not that much a difference depending on the situation you're shooting in. As someone who shoots editorial a lot I find the blur tool edit question offensive to photojournalism! (note that's because I know some idiot who tried to do it, saw his horrible edits and busted him on it - and yes it was an editorial situation).

MJPhotos24 wrote in post #9495784
I'll be blunt...NO the blur tool in photoshop is not as good or even close to what you get from shooting a shallow DOF, and I'm pretty darn experienced in PS as well and you're not coming close to what the lens itself does. Really have to learn what you're doing here because DOF can be determined by a lot of things, not just f/2.8 vs f/4 - which is not that much a difference depending on the situation you're shooting in. As someone who shoots editorial a lot I find the blur tool edit question offensive to photojournalism! (note that's because I know some idiot who tried to do it, saw his horrible edits and busted him on it - and yes it was an editorial situation).

Hard to beat this lense... it's seems to grab images out of thin air.

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

eelnoraa wrote in post #9493753
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.

But f4 vs f2.8 is barely noticeably on most shots. F4 vs F2, sure. But one stop rarely makes a whole lot of difference just for bg blur. Side by side, sure you can tell. But otherwise, not really.

Edit: reminds me of a test I did one afternoon:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=761909

There's a 100mm f2.8 vs 90mm f4.5 blur comparison in there, which is probably relevant

OK, newb question. In understanding exposure he has a shot of a flower where the background is completely blown out. Don't know enough about DOF, but is that something that can only be done with a lens that can go 300mm? Does a 300mm lens have more bokeh compared to 200mm?

IUnknown wrote in post #9498091
OK, newb question. In understanding exposure he has a shot of a flower where the background is completely blown out. Don't know enough about DOF, but is that something that can only be done with a lens that can go 300mm? Does a 300mm lens have more bokeh compared to 200mm?

It is easier to do with a longer lens, but easy to do with almost any aperture or focal length in the right conditions.

This was done at 250mm f5.6, but it would not look much different at 200mm f5.6

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png' | Redirected to error image by ZENFOLIO PROTECTED

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

There isn't a significant difference between f/2.8 and f/4 regarding the sheer AMOUNT of defocused background.

If you really want to blur the snot out of everything thicker than an eyelash, buy an 85L and shoot it wide open at MFD all the time.

tkbslc wrote in post #9497845
But f4 vs f2.8 is barely noticeably on most shots. F4 vs F2, sure. But one stop rarely makes a whole lot of difference just for bg blur. Side by side, sure you can tell. But otherwise, not really.

Edit: reminds me of a test I did one afternoon:
https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=761909

There's a 100mm f2.8 vs 90mm f4.5 blur comparison in there, which is probably relevant

The 70-200 f/4 shots are sharp with excellent contrast but never look the same as the f/2.8 version.
This lense was made to be shot wide open and produces a unique image... and it's handles shots into the sun with a surreal flaring that the f/4 version can't do.

That silly little f/stop does matter in low light, and even more so with a teleconverter.

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

blackhawk wrote in post #9498263
That silly little f/stop does matter in low light, and even more so with a teleconverter.

I don't recall low light or TC usage ever being mentioned. It was whether that one stop of BG blur is worth $600. 1 stop is huge for low light. For BG blur? Not in the vast majority of situations - at least not in my opinion.

tkbslc wrote in post #9498302
I don't recall low light or TC usage ever being mentioned. It was whether that one stop of BG blur is worth $600. 1 stop is huge for low light. For BG blur? Not in the vast majority of situations - at least not in my opinion.

Sorry, my bad, wrong thread for that.

One f/stop is a lot of light difference though, almost double the amount. AF needs a f/2.8 lense or faster to fully functional, not to mention the brighter image in the viewfinder.
You pay a price for fast lens in more ways than one, but you gain the latitude to be more creative and productive when shooting.

PSing it seems more like BSing it, to me.:p

blackhawk wrote in post #9498421
PSing it seems more like BSing it, to me.:p

I agree, which Is why I was saying you wouldn't really need to.

What I'm saying is it's more than just background blur; the quality of the background blur as well as the ability to glean come into play.
Trying to compare a fast lense to a slower one is a fool's folly, in my mind.

The only thing I don't like about the now out of production version one 70-200 lense is that Canon will discontinue support in prolly 5-7 years.
So the price just went up to whatever the version two model is going for, or your stuck with a lense that will not be serviceable in a few years. Not good!

For sports f/2.8 could make the difference between a tack sharp shot of an athlete in action or one that has a bit of motion blur.

Persephone wrote in post #9498634
For sports f/2.8 could make the difference between a tack sharp shot of an athlete in action or one that has a bit of motion blur.

Well FMX is looking for blur...