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?
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?
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." :-)
Unless by "zoom" you only meant "zoom in." :-)
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>
Yep. That's what I meant.
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. . .
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.
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?
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!
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote