Who says you can't get shallow depth of field......

[Mr.Photo]

and a beautifully blown out background using a budget level 70-300 4-5.6 lens?

Taken with a Tamron 70-300 4-5.6 VC on my D7000 at 300mm, f/8.

DSC_4340 by Gary C's Photography, on Flickr

DSC_4330 by Gary C's Photography, on Flickr

DSC_4314 by Gary C's Photography, on Flickr

 

[tirediron]

I don't know, who?



Nicely done; at 300mm, even stoped down, DoF is quite shallow until you get a lot of camera-subject separation distance.

 

[Mr.Photo]

I don't know, who?



Nicely done; at 300mm, even stoped down, DoF is quite shallow until you get a lot of camera-subject separation distance.

I should have titled the post...Who says you need f/2.8 for blurry backgrounds?

I even occasionally get reminded just how shallow a depth of field you can have even with a variable aperture zoom lens like the Tamron/Nikon 70-300's.

 

[KmH]

DoF is about more than just lens aperture.
Many don't have a good understanding of how to control DoF. So many don't understand that point of focus distance is also a major factor factors when it you want a blurred background.
Plus focal length is another factor that has to be considered.

Using a Nikon D90, f/6.3, 500 mm, and a point of focus distance of about 100 feet will produced a DoF that has a total depth of about 3 feet.
Lens: Sigma APO 150-500 mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM
Like this

 

[astroNikon]

Here's my old Nikon AF 75-300/4.5-5.6 .. nice blown out background
@300mm. About 20 feet away @ f/5.6 which gives me 0.15 feet in focus in front and behind the subject.

 

[Braineack]

not me. 300mm and f/6.3 and I only have like an inch of DOF:


Yellow Garden Orb Weaver Feeding on Ciada by The Braineack, on Flickr

 

[jake337]

An oldie Auth the good ol' 18-105mm kit lens @5.6View attachment 90943

 

[xzyragon]

f5.6 at 250mm, with a DOF of a couple inches. On a T3i (crop sensor)

image by christophercoxphoto, on Flickr

 

[astroNikon]

ick. you guys and your spiders !!