70-200f/4L not cutting it?

[Austin Greene]

200mm at f/2.5 on APS-C Nikon, half-body magnification:

[ _DSC7158_crop_1200.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

85mm f/1.8 AT f/1.8 at 1/1250 second from 1.5 meters on Canon APS-C--very,very little depth of field...


[_MG_2287_Spotted_sRGB.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

85mm at f/4.0 on Nikon Full-Frame from CLOSE range:


[ _D3X9107_ Tanya_85mm 1.4 at f:4.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

last shot, skim-boarder against evening sunlight, Pacific Ocean beach. 85mm f/1.8 lensat f/2.2 at 8.91 meters, Nikon full-frame, 1/10,000 second. Shallow DOF, even at almost 9 meters.


[ _D3X8857_1400_screen-2.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

Thank you for these Derrel, it's exactly what I needed to see that the 85 is the best choice given my situation.

Last question, do you think it would be appropriate in a small studio/indoors setting? I'm hoping to do a slew of cheap graduate shoots (cap and gown) for students on campus in my living room (remember the whole blanket as a backdrop topic?) and the shallow DOF would be fantastic with my limited background separation. My only concern would be my distance from the subject. I'll test it when I get home with the 70-200 at 85, but thought I'd ask. I'm at most about 6 ft from my subject, and would like to be doing seated, waist-up shots. DOF calculator says I'll have about .2 ft depth (~2.3 inches), that seems adequate, doesn't it?

 

[Scatterbrained]

200mm at f/2.5 on APS-C Nikon, half-body magnification:

[ _DSC7158_crop_1200.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

85mm f/1.8 AT f/1.8 at 1/1250 second from 1.5 meters on Canon APS-C--very,very little depth of field...


[_MG_2287_Spotted_sRGB.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

85mm at f/4.0 on Nikon Full-Frame from CLOSE range:


[ _D3X9107_ Tanya_85mm 1.4 at f:4.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

last shot, skim-boarder against evening sunlight, Pacific Ocean beach. 85mm f/1.8 lensat f/2.2 at 8.91 meters, Nikon full-frame, 1/10,000 second. Shallow DOF, even at almost 9 meters.


[ _D3X8857_1400_screen-2.jpg photo - Derrel photos at pbase.com ]

Thank you for these Derrel, it's exactly what I needed to see that the 85 is the best choice given my situation.

Last question, do you think it would be appropriate in a small studio/indoors setting? I'm hoping to do a slew of cheap graduate shoots (cap and gown) for students on campus in my living room (remember the whole blanket as a backdrop topic?) and the shallow DOF would be fantastic with my limited background separation. My only concern would be my distance from the subject. I'll test it when I get home with the 70-200 at 85, but thought I'd ask. I'm at most about 6 ft from my subject, and would like to be doing seated, waist-up shots. DOF calculator says I'll have about .2 ft depth (~2.3 inches), that seems adequate, doesn't it?

If you're using an actual background then separation isn't an issue. I normally shoot in my studio at f/8 to f/16. However, with a longer focal length like 135 you can shoot a tight head and shoulders/bust shot at f/6.3 and have just enough DOF for the subject.

 

[Scatterbrained]

To address you issue of space inside, yes you can use 85mm and 135mm inside. You can even use 200mm for a headshot if you want, so long as you have two adjoining rooms.
This was shot at 85mm in my loft/studio:



This was also shot in the loft at 165mm f/6.3. Notice how the hair on her left shoulder is already out of focus:




If you'd like I can measure out the shooting space to give you a better idea of what I'm working with here, but it's not too big a room.

 

[Robin Usagani]

You dont have to buy an L lens. 85 1.8 is a very good lens. If I were you, get 85 1.8 and stop it down to 2.8.

 

[Scatterbrained]

One other thing. . . you say "In my living room". . . are there any adjoining rooms or hallways? You can always stand in the hallway, a doorway, or an adjoining room and shoot into the living room. It's better to do this than shoot too close and get perspective distortion or inadequate DOF.

 

[Scatterbrained]

You dont have to buy an L lens.............

:shock::shock: Blasphemy!!




:lmao:

 

[Austin Greene]

It's a small apartment. I plan on standing in the adjoining kitchen, shooting a model placed in the center of the living room, which is about 6 feet off of the background.

 

[Gavjenks]

Ummm, you are making a big "fundamentals error" when you state: "I find myself putting as much distance between the subject and myself as possible so I can drive the lens up towards 200mm to get more compression and a smoother background."

Unfortunately, that is an issue that's causing the opposite effect...increasing the camera-to-subject distance is the absolute wrong thing to do!!!! The longer the camera-to-subject distance, the greater the depth of field, and the closer you get to hyperfocal distance. By moving the camera "back", you are creating substantially more depth of field.

There's a middle ground, where camera-to-subject distance, aperture size, and focal length create a sweet spot. With an f/4 max aperture COMBINED with longish camera-to-subject distances, you simply CAN NOT ACHIEVE what (I think you want to) you want to get, which would be possible to create using a lens like a 100mm f/2.0 lens shot at f/2.5...or an 85mm lens shot at f/2.5 or so...

Your smallish f/stop is killing you. Then, adding DISTANCE is making it worse. The focal length of 200mm can simply NOT compensate for 1) camera-to-subject distance and 2)focal lengths from 70 to 200mm with f/4 as the largest possible f/stop.

You'd be ahead of the game if you had a fast 85mm f/1.8 lens, or even a CHEAP, yet really quite good, longer tele like the Canon 135mm f/2.8 Soft Focus.

And you all skoffed when I asked for blur circle equations! Here is a perfect example of why they are useful: Deciding whether a new lens will improve the things the OP has a complaint about. In this particular case, two of the three lenses you suggested will NOT in fact, improve his situation, in either of the two dimensions (compression or creamy backgrounds).



200mm @ f/4 will offer both creamier/equally creamy backgrounds and double the compression of a 100mm f/2.5 shot, or a 85mm f/2.5 shot. Thus, both are in fact inferior to the lens he already has, since they match performance in backgrounds and lose in compression (you have to stand much closer with a 100mm or a 85mm to frame the same subject, and the 200mm FL compensates enough for this in background)
And 85mm f/1.8 shot will offer creamier backgrounds, but still less than half the facial feature compression, making it subjective, depending on which attribute the OP cares more about.

None of these outperform the 70-200 f/4 hands-down, like, say, a 70-200 f/2.8 obviously would.

Also note that there is no sweet spot with the 70-200 f/4, it is just the endpoint that is the sweetest. Which will be true of any fixed-aperture zoom. However, variable aperture zooms (like a f/4-5.6 changing with FL) may potentially have a sweet spot in the middle for creamy backgrounds.



Note: the above chart assumes that you want the model is not moving (i.e., the background to subject is the same in all cases, only camera to subject is changing, as would normally be the case outdoors). If, say, you have a studio space, and being closer means you have more room to push the background back further, then that changes things.

 

[Robin Usagani]

If you are going to shoot against a wall + strobe, getting a faster lens will not gain you that much really.

 

[Austin Greene]

I'm also hoping to do a bit more ambient light work outdoors (more impromptu shoots like I've been doing), where I've got less control over my background

 

[Robin Usagani]

I'm also hoping to do a bit more ambient light work outdoors (more impromptu shoots like I've been doing), where I've got less control over my background

Just use that 50mm man. If you are afraid of the distortion, shoot wide and crop.

 

[Gavjenks]

I'm also hoping to do a bit more ambient light work outdoors (more impromptu shoots like I've been doing), where I've got less control over my background

Just use that 50mm man. If you are afraid of the distortion, shoot wide and crop.

The 50 @f/1.8 cropped down 4x from 20 feet would be worse all around than the 200 f/4 uncropped.
* No better compression (equal with the crop)
* 200 f/4 actually will have slightly blurrier backgrounds (by about 14% if all positions remain the same)
* You will lose massive amounts of resolution due to the cropping
* You're still just as inconveniently far away.
* Even if the 50mm is sharper wide open, it certainly won't be anymore at hugely reduced resolution!

The only benefit would be if the 50 has better quality bokeh to the OP's eyes.
(Edit: or of course other factors outside the main point of this thread, such as reduced weight and bulk, shooting in low light i.e. using the aperture for speed not just creamy backgrounds, etc.)

 

[table1349]

The 85 f1.8 will do nicely for now, if you need a shorter focal length (sounds like 85mm is to your liking at this point) then I would suggest the 50 f1.4 over the 1.8. It is a better quality lens all the way around and reasonably priced. At some point later on if you can swing the 85 f1.2L you will not be sorry. I have both and generally use my 1.8 for sports and my 1.2 for portraits.

 

[Derrel]

If you're using an actual background then separation isn't an issue. I normally shoot in my studio at f/8 to f/16. However, with a longer focal length like 135 you can shoot a tight head and shoulders/bust shot at f/6.3 and have just enough DOF for the subject.

I agree with Scatterbrained on this; I prefer f/7.1 for electronic flash portraits and headshots indoors at close range...I do NOT like to see the nose OOF, and the ears wayyyyy OOF, so for me, f/7.1 is my typical, normal "headshot f/stop" indoors with electronic flash. At CLOSE distances, you want to have a little bit of leeway...a little bit of depth of field...when the ears are blown-out focus-wise, it looks, well, gimmicky a lot of times. SO, f/6.3, f/7.1, f/8...ALL good f/stops for close-range, Full-Frame camera headshots.

 

[Robin Usagani]

You lost me. I do shoot a lot with my 35 for weddings. I often shoot it wide to avoid undesired distortion. Most of the time i dont mind the distortion. I am not saying to crop it heavily. Just tiny bit to make 50 more like a 70. Also, I never suggested to shoot it at 1.8. Why do you always go super technical on this forum? I have never seen anyone respond like you. Are you really comparing 50 with 200? You really think I suggested to shoot wide and crop to make it 200mm equivalent?.. Cropping a modern full frame is nothing new and used a lot. It is basically shooting a crop sensor. We have plenty of pixels to do that and still able to make big prints. Heck, even Nikon have the mode to shoot cropped.

I'm also hoping to do a bit more ambient light work outdoors (more impromptu shoots like I've been doing), where I've got less control over my background

Just use that 50mm man. If you are afraid of the distortion, shoot wide and crop.

The 50 @f/1.8 cropped down 4x from 20 feet would be worse all around than the 200 f/4 uncropped.
* No better compression (equal with the crop)
* 200 f/4 actually will have slightly blurrier backgrounds (by about 14% if all positions remain the same)
* You will lose massive amounts of resolution due to the cropping
* You're still just as inconveniently far away.
* Even if the 50mm is sharper wide open, it certainly won't be anymore at hugely reduced resolution!

The only benefit would be if the 50 has better quality bokeh to the OP's eyes.
(Edit: or of course other factors outside the main point of this thread, such as reduced weight and bulk, shooting in low light i.e. using the aperture for speed not just creamy backgrounds, etc.)