Recommend a good addition to 28mm and 85mm?

[robertbody]

<p>For bokeh the f/4 of the zoom is not enough, not even at 200mm f/4 vs 100mm f/2.8<br>

Best bokeh is usually claimed by primes like 85mm f/1.2, 135mm f/2, some others..</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>Natalya,</p>

<p>Does this bokeh seem OK?</p><div></div>

[natalya1]

<p>:-) It does! Is it 70-200?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>It's a 70-200 at f4, even though it is an f2,8 lens the native f4 is virtually identical. Background blur is highly dependant on several factors, most notably, subject to background distance, manipulate the situation to your advantage and slower lenses can be used to very good effect.</p>

[nick roberts]

<p>Sorry, I didn't mean "just OK", but that I'm happy with it.</p>

<p>As to what Robert Brody says, bokeh isn't the degree of background blur, but the quality of it, which is influenced by the lens construction and location of aperture blades - which has little to do with the maximum aperture, unlike the degree of blur, which does.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>"A friend who owns a 100mm and a 70-200 f/4 IS says that when she wants nice and creamy bokeh, she usually reaches for 100mm, not 70-200..."</p>

<p>At f4 and with some separation between the subject and the background, the 70-200 produces very nice bokeh. You can get more blur with a larger aperture on a prime, but you also get much narrower DOF, which is not always desirable for portraits unless you are actually going for the "one eye in focus and one not" look.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>f/5.6 at 188mm on the 70-200mm f/4 L zoom:</p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2825-2/BlueDicksFlowers20090328.jpg" alt="" width="419" height="640" /></p>

<p>100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 L zoom at 400mm and f/5.6</p>

<p><img src="http://gdanmitchell.com/gallery/d/2698-2/GeorgeHincapieWarmup20090214.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="495" /><br>

I have plenty of others...</p>

[natalya1]

<p>I just felt like I owe you all an update, now that I have one, in case someone returns to this thread. I just got my lens today - I ordered the 70-200 f4 IS (deciding against 135 and 200 L-grades, for versatility purposes). I've only done 1 brief test-shoot with it so far, and in pretty great light, so while I cannot speak to its ability to perform in low light, but so far, I'm very impressed with contrast, sharpness and bokeh! I compared it against my 85mm 1.8, and when framed similarly, the bokeh is very very alike (and I LOVE the bokeh on my 85mm). <br>

So, I think I'm keeping this lens! (I figured if I really disliked it, I'd return and get 135mm instead). Although I'd love to hear from anyone who tried both 135mm AND 70-200 f4 IS, just to see if you think I'm missing out. Would 135mm be a head above 70-200? Am I compromising too much by choosing a versatile zoom over a legendary prime? Since this is my first experience with L-grade lenses, I'd say that 70-200 f4 IS definitely compares well to my 85mm, but would it compare equally well to an L-grade prime?</p>

[dcstep]

<p>Your compromise with this zoom, if any, is very small, particularly if you shoot in RAW and use the geometric autocorrection features of Lightroom, DxO Optic Pro and similar programs.</p>

[natalya1]

<p>David, thank you!<br>

And G Dan Mitchell - thanks, those pictures helped convince me!</p>