70-200f/4L not cutting it?

[Austin Greene]

Hey folks,

I've been stepping up my portraiture recently, and I've noticed two things:

1. I often find myself shying away from full-body shots with the 70-200, even at 70mm. Mostly because I'm not getting enough background compression or bokeh. As a result, I almost exclusively use it for waist up and headshots, which is fine.
2. When I am shooting waist up and headshots, 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. Problem is, there simply isn't enough space for this in a lot of my locations, either for me to separate from the model, or the model from their background. (I'm on a 6D, so yes, this is full-frame)

I love the 70-200, don't get me wrong. It will likely stay in my bag for decades to come. That said, I really have been feeling like one thing missing from my portraits is more defined DOF. As such, I've been eyeing the Canon 85mm f/1.8 USM for the faster aperture and shallower DOF (I'd likely shoot it around f/2 vs my current f/4 on the 70-200). I'm a little nervous about buying a lens that is still within the focal lengths I already have covered, but I'm also thinking I'd get more control over my backgrounds with the shallower DOF for when I want to do full-body portraits, and thusly it would get plenty of use in that department. I also have the 17-40f/4L, but bokeh is non-existent there and I don't tend to use it with portraits because of distortion, even at the 40mm end. It's wonderful for landscapes, but this isn't the place for it.

What do you all think? Is my logic sound with the full-body argument? I'm moving more into portraiture so I can begin doing more paid shoots, but I've been feeling a little stunted between just the 17-40 and the 70-200 and would like to be a bit more flexible when it comes to doing full-body shots and more selective focus. I've also been eyeing the 35mm f/2, but it's just a tad pricey for where I'm at right now. The 85 f/2 is right out in terms of budget.

Thanks again, folks
Austin

 

[runnah]

The 85mm 1.8 is a terrific lens that is a great deal for the performance. I do 99% of my people shots with this lens.

 

[Austin Greene]

The 85mm 1.8 is a terrific lens that is a great deal for the performance. I do 99% of my people shots with this lens.

Just out of curiosity, but do you also shoot with the 70-200?

 

[D-B-J]

While I love my 80-200 2.8D (granted, I'm a Nikon shooter), but since I picked up an 85mm 1.8G, I've found myself using that more for portraiture than I ever have my 80-200. Your logic seems spot on, and I doubt you'd look back after buy the 85--it's a great length for portraits.

Jake

 

[JacaRanda]

Here is just a little video info. Hopefully it's informative for you even though he is using the 70-200 2.8L.

 

[runnah]

The 85mm 1.8 is a terrific lens that is a great deal for the performance. I do 99% of my people shots with this lens.

Just out of curiosity, but do you also shoot with the 70-200?

All the time but mostly candids and not formal poses.

 

[Derrel]

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.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I dont know man. I use 135 f/2 but most of the time I shoot at f/3.2 to f/4. I will find more samples but this photo below was shot with 135 at f/4. I would think you will have a lot better compression with 200mm.

 

[Austin Greene]

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.

That makes sense, and in all honesty, I may have overdone it with my explanation a tad. I'm not always miles from my subject, I usually am trying to find that happy place. I suppose more of what I was referencing was trying to get more of the model in the frame, but having a smoother background, and you read my mind on that despite my poor explanation. Thanks man

At this point I am definitely thinking that the 85mm would be a good move for my portraiture, especially in the subject isolation department. The 70-200 will see plenty of use in variable settings, but with all the shoots I've been doing I think it's been holding me back with the f/4. Now to find one that I can borrow from a friend to give a test run...

 

[Austin Greene]

Thanks for the heads up Robin! I think I would absolutely use the 200mm in a setting like that, considering what I have available. There seems to have been a fair amount of distance between the subjects and the background, and the 70-200 does great when thats the case. Then again, I don't know, I haven't shot an 85 or a 135 prime.

I suppose what I'm a bit more concerned with is when I'm not afforded that subject to background distance, such as more indoor settings, or like my last shoot where I was in a cramped alleyway. I would look more seriously at the 35mm range, but I'm trying to avoid distortion, and I already have my 17-40mm. I guess it comes down to a question of how I can make the best of settings with very little subject-background distance available, and the wider aperture is what I'm lacking. I just hope the 85mm isn't too tight.

Beautiful photo by the way!

 

[astroNikon]

Have you thought of upgrading to a 70-200/2.8 ? (ie, sell your 70-200/4 & buy the f/2.8 version) or is the $$$ the limiting factor.

 

[Scatterbrained]

It's time to just man up and get the 85L and 135L. :mrgreen:

 

[Derrel]

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

[ http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/150477613 ]

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...

[http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/150477615 ]

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

[ http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/150477604 ]

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.

[ http://www.pbase.com/derrel/image/150766989 ]

 

[Austin Greene]

Have you thought of upgrading to a 70-200/2.8 ? (ie, sell your 70-200/4 & buy the f/2.8 version) or is the $$$ the limiting factor.

Ultimately, this is the plan, but right now I can't afford it. I'll be graduating soon and will be majorly strapped until I can find a stable job or make my way into graduate school in a year. Until then, I'm beefing up my portraiture so I can do it as a way to supplement my income. I've been doing good so far, but just want a bit more creative flexibility.

 

[Austin Greene]

It's time to just man up and get the 85L and 135L. :mrgreen:

If only! Financially speaking it's at the point where if I'm picking up a new lens I'll be eating a tad less for awhile to compensate, and I am not a big guy haha. Once I'm out of school and can line up full time work I'd hope that would change, but part time work right now is as far as I can go and keep my grades up for the next 9 weeks until I graduate.