Just ordered a new lens.

[OdiN]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: fanerman91

Originally posted by: finbarqs
not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

There's nothing better than sweet, sweet bokeh. And you need to have big apertures (like f/2.8, f/1.8, etc) to get it.

No, you don't.

Right.

For those that are unaware - the bokeh is affected by distance of the background as well. If your background is very close to the subject - yes you will need large apertures.

However, you can also create bokeh by standing farther back and zooming in. For example, using the 70-200 at 200mm. Depending on the background distance, you could shoot F/8 and be fine.

 

[foghorn67]

Yeah, I shot a portrait using my 70-200 2.8 at 200mm. It reminded me of those model shots using a 600 f4. The nearest object in the background was 150 yds. away. Too bad, that session didn't have hot models.

back on topic, every time use the 17-55 2.8, I am reminded on how nice it handles what I throw at it. I had to use it yesterday with my portable studio gear (paper seamless backdrops and remote speedlites), and I loved it. Didn't need to switch to primes.

 

[soydios]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: finbarqs
not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

I really don't understand why you'd aviod f/2.8 and try to step down as much as possible when shooting portraits. Have you seen portraits shots of lenses like 85mm f/1.2 or 200mm f/1.8? What's that formula you're talking about?

I think he's talking about the 1/focal length shutter speed guide. I find personally my rule is that+1 stop, especially on the long end. I can't keep steady for the life of me.

Sort of a long-winded explanation of good hand-holding technique, but a lot of the concepts are good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EDsx3-FWfwk
I still haven't been able to find a good explanation of long-lens technique. Anyway, if you're pixel-peeping with the recent uber-high-resolution cameras, expect a tiny bit of blur if you only use the bare minimum 1/focal length rule for shutter speed.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: Deadtrees

Originally posted by: finbarqs
not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

I really don't understand why you'd aviod f/2.8 and try to step down as much as possible when shooting portraits. Have you seen portraits shots of lenses like 85mm f/1.2 or 200mm f/1.8? What's that formula you're talking about?

It depends on the situation. Often if the background is distant I may stop down to get more of the subject perfectly sharp. This may happen with outdoor shots for engagement series, etc. Also, most studio work is not done at wider apertures.

Thanks for pointing out the obvious. It's not that I didn't know why one needs to step down the /f in certain situations, I wondered why he'd 'step down as much as possible when shooting portraits .... without compromising my shutter speed ' following this mysterious fomula.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: OdiN

Originally posted by: punchkin

Originally posted by: fanerman91

Originally posted by: finbarqs
not saying that F/2.8 glass ISN'T better, i'm just saying that it seems that you'd be able to do more with the 24-105mm. obviously with IS, you can stop your hand shakes (for at least a couple of stops) but you can't stop them! I was just thinking that I would try and avoid F/2.8 when shooting portraits as much as possible... I usually would try and stop down as much as I can without compromising my shutter (being below the 1/60th mark) to get as much as I can in focus. I know there's a formula, but I'm too lazy to pull it out.

There's nothing better than sweet, sweet bokeh. And you need to have big apertures (like f/2.8, f/1.8, etc) to get it.

No, you don't.

Right.

For those that are unaware - the bokeh is affected by distance of the background as well. If your background is very close to the subject - yes you will need large apertures.

However, you can also create bokeh by standing farther back and zooming in. For example, using the 70-200 at 200mm. Depending on the background distance, you could shoot F/8 and be fine.

Bokeh is combination of 1. aperture 2. focal length 3. distance 4. size of sensor (FF will get your more bokeh compared to CF as the distance of the shooter and the subject can get shorter in the same frame)
You DO need big apertures to create 'more' bokeh. Sure, f/8 at 200mm would create bokeh but f/2.8 would do it better.