• There has been a recent cluster of spammers accessing BARFer accounts and posting spam. To safeguard your account, please consider changing your password. It would be even better to take the additional step of enabling 2 Factor Authentication (2FA) on your BARF account. Read more here.

Digital SLR / DSLR Camera Question / DSLR Thread 2

Man, one quiet afternoon at work poking around at Chase Jarvis, strobist, and Joe McNally and chasing down a few dozen links off of their respective blogs and twitters and the wheels are turning again. I'm all amped up to get some stuff moving here.
 
See, that's why I love you guys. :love

And zypher, I will find a time to take you up on that generous offer. :thumbup

7D and 70-200 2.8 IS is gonna run me another 3k. I guess it won't be happening any time soon. :cry
 
Baptistro said:
See, that's why I love you guys. :love

And zypher, I will find a time to take you up on that generous offer. :thumbup

7D and 70-200 2.8 IS is gonna run me another 3k. I guess it won't be happening any time soon. :cry
Click to expand...


yep yep...hopefully i can get one this december or save up a lil more and get the 1Dmk4...and a 300 2.8 soon...hehehe
 
More questions about lenses I can't afford.

I always thought the big appeal of a 70-200/80-200mm was being able to completely blow out the background. Yeah, there are other reasons--longer reach, perspective/compression--but lets revisit the depth of field topic.

Here are two images that just fascinated me in my early noob stage:

2ir6j44.jpg

16anshw.jpg

Images courtesy of Flickr user Rosiehardy


Wow, just look at that nice, smooth background!

But then, I got to looking at portraits with the 85mm f/1.4...

I even got to play with one at B&H in NYC! That's the kind of lens they throw on their display cameras... :) :wtf I got to thinking, well, if the only thing one was concerned with was DOF:

All things equal, will the DOF or "background blur" be the same/more/less on a 200mm @ f/2.8 versus an 85mm @ f/1.4?

(keeping the subject size the same proportions, ie. moving closer in physically with the 85mm) It looks pretty close after digging through Flickr photos for the last half-hour. Maybe the 85mm @ f1.4 is even more blurry. Yes?

Here are some examples of the 85mm f1.4 wide open, with similar subject sizes and distances to the background:
2uihn5f.jpg


24wrf3p.jpg


2lventh.jpg


iz2j9d.jpg


2vjzqrp.jpg

Flickr user: lickablefly

If anything, they look all pretty close. Not to mention, with the 85mm would be much sharper since it's a prime.

I surmise there's some way to calculate this with that DOF calculator that was posted some time ago, but I haven't figured it out.












.
 
Last edited:
495914604_ndtWN-L.jpg


tired dog

EF55-200? ISO400 f5.6 1/1600 250/400mm

495844976_m2jNa-L.jpg


hey there

same lens ISO 200 f/7.1 1/400 250/400mm

616296656_EMhpq-L.jpg


24-70 f/2.8L ISO 1600 f/2.8 1/40 35/56mm

665367603_UbCge-L.jpg


24-70 f/2.8L ISO 100 f/2.8 1/160 68/108.8mm

665356127_NnoLw-L.jpg


24-70 f/2.8L ISO 1600 f/2.8 1/125 70/112mm

640760402_g5Hgd-L.jpg


24-70f/2.8L ISO 100 f/2.8 1/3200 70/112mm

640772926_MAE6f-L.jpg


24-70f/2.8L ISO 100 f/2.8 1/320 70/112mm

640799730_7uYym-L.jpg


24-70f/2.8L ISO 100 f/2.8 1/1600 46/73.6mm

Out of respect for their privacy, I will not post pics of the bride and groom, but a lot of shots turned out like those two examples above. I happen to like the second one better.

452207098_2BwLY-L.jpg


One of my earlier shots with the new camera. The brass stocking holder was my point of focus.

50mm f/1.8 ISO 1600 f/1.8 1/200 50/80mm

I'm seeing that "good" bokeh is just as much a part of composition as it is in the lens' ability to produce the effect.

I haven't dabbled in post processing, so all of these are jpgs straight from the camera.
 
VeloceMoto -

Depth of Field is a product of four different factors: Size of your imaging plane (sensor), Aperture, Focal length and subject distance.

You're right in noticing that the 70-200's and 85mm primes have similar DOF's. The 85mm prime's aperture is larger, but the 200mm has a greater focal length, and both factors work to achieve a narrower DOF and more out-of-focus background. The 70-200 is a better lens if you can't get as close to your subject or will be working in a more chaotic environment, but the 85mm prime will give your more versatility in poor lighting conditions.

It's all swings & roundabouts. :D
 
TylerW said:
VeloceMoto -

Depth of Field is a product of four different factors: Size of your imaging plane (sensor), Aperture, Focal length and subject distance.

You're right in noticing that the 70-200's and 85mm primes have similar DOF's. The 85mm prime's aperture is larger, but the 200mm has a greater focal length, and both factors work to achieve a narrower DOF and more out-of-focus background. The 70-200 is a better lens if you can't get as close to your subject or will be working in a more chaotic environment, but the 85mm prime will give your more versatility in poor lighting conditions.

It's all swings & roundabouts. :D
Click to expand...

Cool. It sounds like my logic is fine. I guess this was a roundabout way of saying "70-200/80-200's VERSUS the 85 f1.4". Of course, it depends on what your focus is, no pun intended.

It sounds like if we're not shooting indoor sports, maybe the "cream machine" (do they really call it that?) and a $200 55-200 VR for the long stuff would would be an even, or better trade, versus the 70-200mm/80-200 f/2.8. You've got a super sharp portrait lens with excellent bokeh, plenty of DoF for anything and it's excellent in really low light.

Phrased another way: is there anything in the 70-84mm and 86-200mm focal range that regularly demands f/2.8-- where f/3.5-4.5 and VR won't cut it? The only need I can think of is high speed, low light stuff like indoor sports or outdoor night sports, neither of which I'm likely to shoot, if ever.

55-200mm VR and an 85mm f/1.4, who's with me? :toothless
 
VeloceMoto said:
55-200mm VR and an 85mm f/1.4, who's with me? :toothless
Click to expand...

Except for the 55-200 part, I'm right there. :laughing

I've got some shots with my 85 that really show off it's incredible combination of biting sharpness combines with creamy, beautiful defocused areas. Close headshots with this lens at f/4 or so and I can count the baby hairs on a 3yo's face, yet everything looks smooth and soft, and the background is just a lush smear of colors.

Somewhere there's a high-dollar baby/child photographer who shoots kids with only a D200 and 85/1.4. She does incredible work. Lemme see if I can find it.
 
Last edited:
cycle61 said:
Except for the 55-200 part, I'm right there. :laughing
Click to expand...

Oh come on! :laughing

Would you really take a 80-200mm f/2.8 over a 55-200mm VR and the 85 f/1.4?

Does the 55-200 VR suck so much?

God, look at me talk. I think I have graduated to "Equipment Measurbator: Level 1" on the Ken Rockwell scale.





PS. Nice pics Baptistro!




.
 
Last edited:
For my purposes, no. I'd take the 80-200. I need the flexibility, I need the low-light focusing ability, I need the f/2.8, and I don't use my primes enough anyway. Your needs are probably different.

Caution: once you start playing with high end glass, you suddenly realize how much image quality is actually compromised with the consumer lenses. It's a dangerous step.
 
Hmmm!

Btw, I was under the impression the 80-200s were $800-900, I guess in part because Rockwell never updates his old pages. They're $1100 now! Aggh.
 
cycle61 said:
Caution: once you start playing with high end glass, you suddenly realize how much image quality is actually compromised with the consumer lenses. It's a dangerous step.
Click to expand...


Canon shooters call this "L Fever" and there's no known cure.
 
I'll take the same shots tonight with my 50 and with my 24-70L @ 50, for comparison (I'll use a tripod and keep all other settings the same). I'm rather curious as well. Since I'm at it, I'll take some with all of the lenses I have that I can set to 50mm. I think that will be four total.

EF-S 18-55mm IS Lens Kit lens
EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM
EF 50mm f/1.8 II Lens
 
cycle61 said:
slap.gif
Click to expand...

:laughing :laughing :laughing

Yeah, I know. I deserve it.

But don't worry, I hate him now, too. I think that's part of a modern day photographer's rite of passage. It occurred for me about 3 months into this SLR stuff... :)

I was on his blog for some reason earlier in the week and his opinion and writing style was driving me bonkers. I couldn't even finish whatever it was I was reading.
 
Baptistro said:
I'll take the same shots tonight with my 50 and with my 24-70L @ 50, for comparison (I'll use a tripod and keep all other settings the same). I'm rather curious as well. Since I'm at it, I'll take some with all of the lenses I have that I can set to 50mm. I think that will be four or five total.
Click to expand...

Cool!

But isn't the prime going to win every time against a zoom? Still, I'm curious what you come up with!

I would like to see a kit zoom vs. an 'L' zoom or Nikkor zoom. I am digging through Google because I have nothing better to do. :p
 
Okay, so this is a comparo of prime Vs. Zoom, a virginal Sigma 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6 on its first (and last, in my bag) outing, and a rented and heavily used canon 300mm f/2.8 L prime. Same corner, similar lighting conditions, same focal length. Make sure to click on them to see the full res. Barf has resized them to appear on the page.

Sigma 70-300mm f/3.5-5.6:
sigma70-300mm.jpg

And the Canon 300mm f/2.8:
canon300mm.jpg

Granted the subject in the latter is much closer, but otherwise, its about as scientific as I can manage out of my gallery at present.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top