Question on nikon 80-200 2.8 ED

[sun_p]

<p>Hi everyone,</p>

<p>Just to give you some background. I primarily shoot portraits both indoor and outdoors. I use a D600, sigma 50 1.4 and nikkor 85 1.4 D as my primary lenses. I shoot both kids and adults. I am happy with my setup and have been using it successfully for the whole year with great results. However, I am a sucker for Bokeh and was looking at options for getting the background a little more out of focus than what my 85 1.4 can do. Especially, since sometimes (atleast outdoors, I can't shoot at 1.4 if the light is too much(Unless I put on some sort of a filter etc). So ever since I have started photography I have pretty much been using prime lenses and 85 is the max I have shot (in terms of focal length). Since I am a portrait shooter, I was now thinking of picking up the 80-200 2.8, mainly for outdoors, which will enable me to shoot at longer focal lengths(I know I will have to step back a lot further and I also understand that bokeh depends on other factors like subject background distance, aperture, focal length etc) but also with the understanding that at longer focal lengths, at 2.8 I will be able to</p>

<p>1. Get the background a little more out of focus? (Or is that not true and the difference of shooting with 85 1.4 at say 2.0 and a 200 mm at say 2.8 would not be much(in terms of background bokeh? considering the subject fills the frame)<br /> 2. Get some benefit of longer focal length (which is said to have a better impact on subjects due to compression)?</p>

<p>3. Get in a slightly different perspective since I have been shooting with the 50/85 for a year now.</p>

<p>Was hoping to get some advice from the experts if they see any issue with this. 70-200VRII is out of budget and in my country I don't have the option to rent. Nobody known has either of the two lenses. So as has always been the case, I was hoping to get some advice before planning on getting the lens. Its currently well within my budget. Also, this is not a case of NAS :) I have had this gear for sometime now. The only reason for this has been to bring about maybe some sort of change in style (in terms of perspective, bokeh etc) in my photographs.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br /> Sun</p>

[ShunCheung]

<blockquote>

<p>However, I am a sucker for Bokeh and was looking at options for getting the background a little more out of focus than what my 85 1.4 can do. Especially, since sometimes (atleast outdoors, I can't shoot at 1.4 if the light is too much</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can try using a 105mm lens, but the affordable ones are more like f2.8. If you think the background is not blur enough with the 85mm/f1.4, your lens options is kind of limited.</p>

<p>However, since you are using a DSLR, it is not that hard to blur the background further in post processing.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sun, I do not have any of the 85 f/1.4 lenses, but knowing their reputation for silky-smooth out of focus backgrounds, I can say this: the 80-200 f/2.8 does not have the same qualities. Now, your question is basically about the depth of field (the quantity of it), but the less depth of field you use, the more important the quality of that out-of-focus rendering (bokeh) becomes, as it makes up larger parts of the image.</p>

<p>Longer focal lengths do not give less depth of field by definition; at equal reproduction ratio (=the same framing), the depth of field will be equal at equal apertures. So, simply because you have to take 4 steps back at 200mm, the depth of field basically does not change.<br>

The perspective will change, as the longer lens will make things seem 'flatter', but frankly between 80 and 200 mm I find the difference is not earth-shattering. If you look at it to change style, I think the difference is too subtle - most people would not notice it. Would you still want to try with a longer lens, I'd personally consider a 180mm f/2.8 over the zoom - it's got smoother bokeh, it's better wide open and it's smaller, lighter and cheaper too.<br>

If you really want to give a try at a different approach and style, I'd get a 35mm instead. That will force you properly to different angles, approaches, working distances and so on.</p>

<p>But the easiest way, as Shun suggest, enhance the effect in post processing.</p>

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>1.) No. It is important to understand the DOF will be the same in the following scenario: shoot with 85mm, then step back until the subject is the same size in the frame and shoot at, let's say 200mm - both at the same aperture. Same magnification, same DOF. Not the same will be the perspective - there will be "less" background in the frame and it generally looks smoother. Since there isn't a f/1.4 200mm lens, your DOF will be shallower with the 85, shot wide open. Here's a direct comparison between using a 85 and a 70-200:

2.) more compression - yes. Can be a good or a bad thing in portraiture - too much and the subject appears "flat". Check this out: http://mattgranger.com/tutorials/item/459-telephoto-lens-compression-explained . </p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>I have the 85mm f/1.4D, and have owned the 80-200mm f/2.8 ED. While backgrounds will be be different, as mentioned above, with the zoom the bokeh will be inferior. What you might want to try is one of Nikon's f/2.0 DC lenses, either the 105mm or the 135mm. The bokeh is reported to be superb on both. Moreover, "DC" stands for "defocus control", which allows you to vary the out of focus properties, which may be exactly what you want. You can find the 135 <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/113487-GREY/Nikon_1935_Telephoto_AF_DC_Nikkor.html"><strong>here</strong></a> and the 105 <a href="http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/36858-GREY/Nikon_1932_Telephoto_AF_DC_Nikkor.html"><strong>here</strong></a>. With any alternative, particularly since the 85 f/1.4 is so good, consider renting to see if you like it.</p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>I use a Tamron 70-200 at 200mm on my D610 and get marvelous background bokeh. I think you need to go to a little longer lens, like your 80-200. The Tamron is less expensive.</p>

[steve_bingham]

<p>OK, here is a smaller version . . . and this has been pushed HARD in PP which brings out the worst of bokeh.</p><div></div>

[Rick Helmke]

<p>If you think you can do without autofocus try one of the older 105/2.5 Nikkors, a famous portrait lens. I like the 80-200 ED lenses quite a lot but for portraiture I'd go with the 105. Also look around for a 135/2. I tend to prefer getting my backgrounds right in the camera and not in post processing.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>The question is <i>not</i> about the depth of field. If the subject is the same size in the frame, depth of field is approximately independent of focal length and approximately dependent only on aperture (f-stop). Shoot a full-head shot with an 85 f/1.4 and the long end of an 80-200 f/2.8 both wide open and you'll get blurred ears with the 85mm and not (so much) with the 80-200.<br />

<br />

The question is about losing the background. If the subject is the same size in the frame, a longer lens magnifies the background more. At the same aperture, this means the blurred background is more blurred. When you have a smaller aperture but a longer lens, the result depends on the geometry of the scene - how far you are from the subject and how far the subject is from the background.<br />

<br />

Even at its best (with a background infinitely far away), an 80-200 f/2.8 will not blur the background much more than an 85 f/1.4. Neither will a 135 f/2, although it helps a little (I'm kind of bitter about my 135 f/2 because of all the colour fringes, though the background is indubitably creamy if you can get past that). If you really want to lose the background much more than an 85 f/1.4, the 200 f/2 is a very good start - but it's also very expensive.<br />

<br />

I didn't get on with the 80-200s that I tried (if you're looking at the non-AF-S versions, they're a bit iffy at 200mm and shortish focus distances, though they're very good at range), but the theory that I wanted one - and why I eventually resorted to a 70-200 - is that I wanted <i>some</i> control over perspective along with <i>some</i> control over losing the background.</p>

[User_4754088]

<p>My favorite Nikon portrait lens is the 180mm ED-IF f2.8. The bokeh on that lens, when shot wide open at f2.8, is very nice if you keep the subject far enough away from the background. I also use ND filters on my lenses when the light is too bright to use the lens wide open.</p>

<p>Best,<br>

-Tim</p>

[sun_p]

<p>As always, thanks everyone. After reading all your comments, I think I am not going to go in for the 80-200 for now. Will continue for a while with my existing kit. I was under the impression that the longer lens would have a major difference in background blur, but that is not the case.</p>

<p>thanks!<br>

Sun</p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>I've got the 80-200 f2.8D. It's a big heavy lens thats not perfect wide open and doesn't have the smoothest OOF backgrounds. I just got the 85mm 1.8g for a lighter portrait lens thats a bit easier to handle but the 80-200 is somehow more versatile offering more choice of focal length. Photographers really need to look out for distracting background as the lens can't do everything. Here is one from the 80-200 shot at 145mm @ F4. Hope it is some help for you.<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17589674-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>This is the 80-200 at 80mm and f5.6<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17589704-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

[StuartMoxham]

<p>Here is one more from the 80-200 at 200mm and f6.3.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/17589715-md.jpg" alt="" width="680" height="452" /></p>

[robert_bouknight1]

<p>What Tim said. Moving the subject further away from the background will help.</p>

<p>I had an 80-200/2.8D, found the bokeh adequate but definitely not better than you current lenses. The 70-200VR1 I have now is a little better. It is nice to have a zoom on the camera when shooting people, I find that I can concentrate on the subjects just a little bit more.</p>

<p>Other good alternatives mentioned above. I had both the 135 and 105 f2 DC lenses, found that it was difficult to achieve <em>exact </em>focus on a person's eye at around f/2 with the 135. The 105DC is a little sharper wide open and achieves focus a little more reliably in my experience, so I kept the 105 and sold the 135.</p>

<p>I did like the 135mm prospective on full (FX) sensors, so I bought an inexpensive 135/2.8 AIS. Since you already have an 85, a 135/2.8 might be a little more useful for you than a 105/2.5(also a very good lens). The 105 and 135 manual focus lenses have the advantages of being small and compact.</p>

<p>Although I have a 180/2.8 AFD and it is a good lens, I don't find that I use it or the 105DC much after getting the 70-200/2.8VR. I tried to avoid getting the big expensive zoom, slowly trying all of the lenses mentioned in my blurb before breaking down and upgrading the zoom.</p>

<p>The ultimate bokeh machine is probably the 200/f2VR for big bucks (I want one, but not going there).</p>