Printable View
I am looking to pick up a lens with good quality bokeh for portraits (indoor and out) on my Rebel XT, without spending an arm and a leg. I'm not terribly concerned with low light, as I have two speedlites. My main concerns are image quality and bokeh.
Any suggestions between theses two?
I loved my 70-200 f/4 (so much so that I later bought a 70-200 f/2.8 IS and then the mark ii). But if you only care about IQ and bokeh, I would suggest the the 85 f/1.8, unless you think you'll be stopping down for DOF (head & shoulder shots of children may well require stopping down from f/1.8). If you need to stop down to f/4 anyway (or even close), the longer focal length will give you more blur.
I highly recommend the EF 85mm f/1.8. Excellent IQ, wide aperture for good OOF blur, and the bokeh (quality) is very nice.
How sharp is the 85mm at f/1.8 when in the field? According to the lens comparison of TDP (and judging my from 50mm f/1.8, assuming they'd be similiar), the 85mm is rather soft until f/4, whereas the 70-200 starts off sharp at f/4. If I'm going to be stopping down the the 85mm to f/4 to get sharp shots, why not get more versitility from the 70-200 at f/4?
also, does the 70-200 give good OOF blur at f/4?
I am looking for both sharp shots, and pleasing bokeh, not just one or the other. Would either of these lenses give me both?
I purchased the 85mm 1.8 a few years back and loved that lens. At the time I had a Rebel XTI and pretty much left the 85 on it for a lot of my shots. I loved the amount of bokeh, had to get used to the razer sharp DOF at 1.8, but loved that lens. The only reason I do not currently use it is because I bought a 40d a few years back and threw on a 24-70
Quote:
Originally Posted by realityinabox
I think it does, I could give you a few example photos if I have some at f4.
To be honest your choice would be easier if you had a more versatile use for your lens. The fact that you want to do portraiture as a maingoal I instantly thought 85mm 1.8, but I also like the 70-200 f4 for it's versatility and it's immediate sharpness at f4.
You should ask yourself a few questions.
Would you use the versatility of the zoom or could you live with a prime?
Remember that you need a faster shutterspeed when shooting handheld with the 70-200. Especially when using the longer end of the lens. This also applies inside [:P]
And you're limited to f4, which could be meaning that you'd have to bump up the iso to higher values and thus losing the sharp at f4 advantage.
It's a white lens and some people find that distracting. (Important point if you have to photograph shy people occasionally?? Family-portraits etc)
I have never used the 85mm 1.8 so I can't really tell you more on that part than you could read around here, but the 70-200 CAN be used as a portrait lens, that's for sure. If it's a good tool, that's up to you. What lenses do you have anyways?
Good luck,
Jan
I have a Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 (which is pretty soft most of the time) and a 50mm f/1.8.
I've also been thinking about upgrading the Sigma. It is a question of more range versus solidifying my general purpose range.
solidifying my general purpose range will be more expensive. I've thought about the 17-55, the 24-70 and the 24-105, all of which are over a grand.
- 17-55, I hear good things about this lens, but my Rebel XT is getting rather old and the possibility of going full frame on my next body upgrade is quite likely.
- 24-70, more expensive (the wife is already tense about me thinking about spending a grand, so $1400 wouldn't help my case)
- 24-105, the f/4 might be too slow to get good OOF isolation, and I hear (and see) that the bokeh isn't all that pleasing.
So really, ideally, I'd have about an extra $1,000 to spend, I'd get a 5D1 and a 24-70L and be a happy camper. Problem is, I'm over $1,000 short.
Which is why I'm considering sticking with my sub-par Sigma and solidifying the long end with the 85mm f/1.8 or the 70-200 f/4L.
Thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by realityinabox
Hihi....I know how that feels [A]
Well yeah now I remember your other post. I suggested to get a great basic gear and was voting for the 17-55. But if you're so serious about going full-frame, this wouldn't be the best option. By the way that lens has increased in price enormously the last 6 months...wow... It is even higher priced than the 24-105 in BULK[:O] and you wouldn't even get a lens-hood with it [:@]
Quote:
Originally Posted by realityinabox
I personally like it a lot and I've seen great shots made by it (by other people). I still remain with my advice by getting your basic gear right. If your sigma isn't performing you'll probably use it even less when buying any of the lenses you mention. I would just sell it.
If it still wouldn't fit your budget, the 70-200 starts to look better. I assumed you'd mainly use it for portraiture, but since your sigma isn't such a high-performer, you could also find yourself using a 70-200 for more general purposes. With great image quality. And you'd keep the Sigma for the times you need a wider field of view.
Anaother thought: With the 85mm you would find yourself wanting the same quality out of your general-purpose lens, but you can't get that and the 85mm would be to static to use as a proper general-purpose-lens. In that case you'd be better off with a zoom lens.
I hope I puzzeled you a bit [:P]
Quote:
Originally Posted by realityinabox
Depends on the situation and what you mean by "good OOF blur"
Keep in mind that subject distance and background distance matter a *lot*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
I mean both quantity and quality. Good isolation of the subject, as well as smooth blurring of the background.