Max10 wrote:
...I have accidentally discovered that EF 70-200L f/4 (IS or non-IS) is a great lens for shooting pets. ...I will be buying two lenses very soon. EF 70-200L f/2.8 IS for human portraits and EF 70-200L f/4 IS for pets.
galenapass wrote:
Perhaps there is some humor here that I don't get.
First of all, many thanks to everybody for overwhelming response!
Yes! I wrote, “I will be buying two lenses very soon. EF 70-200L f/2.8 IS for human portraits and EF 70-200L f/4 IS for pets.” with a good humour, and didn’t have any other intention. As I wrote in the original post, I got inspired by 70-200 f/2.8 Portrait thread and wanted to see potential of f/4 (small and light weight) version in that regard. After a while, I could see only a few portraits. That gave me a feeling for a moment that only f/2.8 version could make portraits. However, I got pleasure of seeing some nice pet images posted by Jefferson. That lens quality was noticed by chance.
Max10 wrote:
That gave me a feeling for a moment that only f/2.8 version could make portraits.
The only real difference between an f/2.8 lens and f/4 lens will be a difference in background blur (which becomes marginal as you get closer to 200mm) and a full stop difference in shutter speed. At 200mm, the difference between 1/200sec and 1/400sec could mean a lot.
The difference you're seeing between the portraits of the 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8 may be that most professionals (or those that take the art form very seriously) will gravitate toward the f/2.8 version. As such, you will probably see a larger quantity of high quality offerings from the f/2.8 version.
But, otherwise, there's nothing preventing the 70-200 f/4 from taking great portraits.
Hm ... ! The three I tested where razor shap full opened over the whole zoom range. I bought one and was faszinated about that lens. I sold it after 3 years, because I realized, I did not use it more often then 10 % after I bought a 24-105. I wich it back today.
If I would be sure, the body is fine, I would send it back, too.
Ralph Conway wrote:
Hm ... ! The three I tested where razor shap full opened over the whole zoom range. ...If I would be sure, the body is fine, I would send it back, too.
It could be operator error. (First day with a new lens; hand holding in dim light; etc.) I'll do some more shooting with it, under more various conditions, and see what I come up with.
Feb 01, 2012 at 05:19 PM
Lars Johnsson Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
