Originally Posted by Keith B
You're right on both accounts. I also prefer the 85 1.8. Outstanding portrait lens, much faster, IQ excellent, and it's somewhat in the middle of the range of the 70-200.
We can always zoom with our feet, right?
Originally Posted by Keith B
You're right on both accounts. I also prefer the 85 1.8. Outstanding portrait lens, much faster, IQ excellent, and it's somewhat in the middle of the range of the 70-200.
We can always zoom with our feet, right?
Originally Posted by Alan
Not always. I was in a tight location today and really needed my 10-22's wide end. Unless by "zoom" you only meant "zoom in." :-)
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Yep. That's what I meant.
Originally Posted by Keith B
I'll agree to this. I should have stated in my first post: All those shots are lit with strobes. Does that mean that no ambient light can be seen? Of course not, but it does mean that in all the cases, I was using my strobe(s) as the main light.
It really depends. I think for photosurfer's needs, this lens will do great. I bought this lens with the intention of becoming a "strobist", and using flash in almost all of my portraiture. Therefore, I am finding that I really love the lens.
Keith may not have intended to always be using a flash or may have wished that he could get more ambient. That's totally legit. There are times when I wish I could open the aperture up another stop, but for my purposes, and my highschool budget, this lens is a winner.
-Rodger
Keith, did you end up getting either the 85 1.8 or the 70-200 2.8? Or both?
Now this is the difference between photogs and politicians. . . At least we can work out our differences. At least until it comes to Canon vs. Nikon. . .
Originally Posted by photosurfer
Yes, and it's excellent. Even with just f/4 it's easy to get sufficiently-blurred backgrounds for your standard "deep DOF blurry background" headshot. I do a lot of those, so my 70-200 gets a lot of use. You may find that it's not quite wide enough for some shots.
Originally Posted by Rodger
I bought the grand daddy 70-200 2.8 IS. I do not own the 85 1.8. It is #3 on my list though.
I admittedly sounded harsh on the non IS f/4 version. My personal style for portraits 95% of the time does not involve a tripod. And for every other use I would use the 70-200 it just didn't cut it. Therefore it was a $600 space filler in my kit, and that is why I couldn't wait to sell and put that money toward something that better suited my style.
Keith, totally understandable man! No worries!
Originally Posted by Keith B
You make an interesting point. Not specifically the tripod part, (I can't stand shooting portraits with a tripod either) but that a lens needs to fit the photographer's style to be appreciated. It could be a beast of a lens, but if it doesn't fit the photog's style, they're not going to rave about it.
Good stuff!
-Rodger
Have a view...
http://suprasonic.aminus3.com/image/2009-07-09.html