 BetterPhoto Member |
Canon 70-200 2.8 IS lens I am considering purchasing this lens. I have the basic 35-80 lens,and a 100mm 2.8 macro. I use them to do black & white portraits that I hand-color.Despite my limited technical knowledge,I have done well enough to acquire some portrait business.(I find that amazing!) I had been planning on buying the 85mm 1.2,but after reading reviews and talking to some pros, I am thinking that this new lens may be a better investment.I prefer natural light to flashes,etc., so speed is important. I need a lens that will allow to me to work reasonably close to the kids , and to have them in focus,while throwing the background out of focus. Would this lens work better for more than one person , as opposed to my 100mm which tends to have a very small focus area? The 100mm is great for hands,feet,etc,but has been disappointing when using it for more than one child. My very technical friend seems to think this new 70-200IS lens would be ideal for me- but since I cannot find one around to look at before I drop the cash, I want as many opinions as I can get!! Any other lens suggestions would be great too.K
|
|
|
|
||
|
Jeff S. Kennedy |
It's a great lens for portrait work. I really like it. It's sharp and fast focussing and the IS is really nice. As an aside, I recently researched the 85mm lens and from what I've found the 85mm f1.8 is a heck of a lot cheaper, still very fast, and just as sharp as the f1.2 (not to mention it's much lighter). So, if you can, do what I did. Buy the 70-200 f2.8 L IS AND get the 85mm f1.8 lens. You won't be sorry.
|
|
|
|
||
|
Mark English |
Karen, The 70-200 IS would indeed be a good choice. Optically it is noticeably superior to the older non IS version, particularly wide open. It also has a re-engineered diaphragm that maintains a nearly circular shape as it is stopped down... this results in a very smooth OOF image quality that I find appealing in the the type of work you are doing. The IS really works! Handholding this lens at 1/60 or 1/125 is NO problem. Others may argue that it can be handheld at speeds like 1/15... in my experience these are acceptable, but not optimal... 1/60 is usually indistinguishable from being on a tripod. It is also a very heavy lens, and you may want to at least find a non-IS version to heft a bit to see if this would be a problem. I don't think you would need the 85/1.8 as well, considering you already have the 100 macro. Why has the 100 been disappointing? At the long end the 70-200 would definately isolate the subjects more by including less of the background, but the 100 would also be a good choice, as would the 35-80 you have as well. Backing away will allow you to include as many kids as you want, but you would obviously lose the intimacy with your subjects that is likely a good part of your success. Background control will become more of a problem as you back away with either of the lenses you currently have. Using a 70-200 at the longer end to create the same image would put you even farther back. If background control is the issue, then you are up against one of the location photographer's biggest problems. Careful location selection is really the best solution to this problem, IF it's an option. Have you seen Vic Orenstein's book, "Creative Techniques for Photographing Children"? She has a wonderful creative style, accomplished with a minimum of equipment, not unlike what you already have. Here's a link to Amazon.com if you're interested...http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1582970289/qid=1019754396/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/104-2949539-1635962 In the studio I usually use a just a 28-85 for this type of work. I guess I'm not convinced you need to spend ~$US2000 to get to where you want to be. Of course the 70-200 has many other uses as well, and would be a superlative addition to what you already have. Hope this helps
|
|
|
|
||
|
This old forum is now archived. Use improved Forum here
Report this Thread |
||