Portraits using 70-200 2.8L vs Canon 35-105 f3.5

[larry_rotta]

I've noticed that using my newly purchased 70-200 2.8L for portraits (at f3.5), it is quite difficult to get the entire face of the subject *razor* sharp due to the seemingly very shallow depth-of-field that this lense provides.

I was previously using the older Canon 35-105 3.5 (with my AE1) and had no problems with getting the entire face *razor* sharp.

 

<p>

 

Should/is there a difference between the f3.5 of the L lense vs my older lense at f3.5?

[pixseal]

You may be confusing sharpness and depth of field...

<P>

The two lenses overlap only in the 70mm-105mm focal length range. In

that range, the maximum aperture of the 28-105 is f/4.5 (not 3.5).

The 28-105 @f/4.5 will yield more depth of field (and maybe the

<I>perception</I> that it is sharper) than the 70-200 @f/3.5, but I

assure you that the 70-200 is sharper, even at f/2.8!

<P>

I recently posted some scans of a test I performed between 3 Canon

mid-range zooms (including the 28-105). I substituted the 70-200/2.8L

for the 28-70/2.8L in the test for focal length greater than 70mm. At

the bottom of the page, click on "close-up details" (frames 1-15): <A

HREF="http://www.kjsl.com/~dave/lenstest/lenstest.html">http://www.kjs

l.com/~dave/lenstest/lenstest.html</A>

<P>

-Dave