hocus_focus

<blockquote>

<p>People that say "forget f/4 zooms, they are slow" are not considering the speed of a full-frame camera. For the OP's specified uses, f/4 is plenty fast for hand held street photography and low-light scenic photography, when used on a 5D2:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>F/4 doesn't give the pleasing background blur of f/2,8 or faster lenses (especially on crop cameras).</p>

<p>If you need a fast shutter like for people shots, IS will do no good. You will need a larger aperture.</p>

<p>If you're paying 1K for a lens, either get it right or save for later.</p>

<p>I'd rather have f/2,8 non-IS than f/4 IS. I have access to 70-200/4 IS, 70-200 non IS and 135/2. Guess which is used the most? 135/2 on full frame. I sold 70-200/4 IS because the other two lenses are superior. The larger the aperture, the more pleasing the background, the faster the shutter and the faster AF. But hey, if you prefer someone else's opinion, that's fine.</p>

<p>- I am an armature and can few thousand dollars for my lovely hobby<br /> - I might go professional in next few years<br /> - I take photos of: Nature, Flowers, Landscapes, Street, Travel and City Scapes<br /> - I do not do sports, wedding or wild life</p>

<p>For what you mention here, you do not need full frame, although if you have money to burn, it's not a bad choice. Full frame is great for low light and shallow depth of field, in particular for portrait, wedding, indoor event etc.</p>

<p>Get a crop camera with a good lens like 17-55/2,8.<br>

Forget f/4 zooms, they are slow. Either get 70-200/2,8 or 85/1,8. Carrying 70-200 is not wise for street and travel. You don't need more than 85mm on a crop camera for general photography. Consider a macro lens for flowers instead or in addition to 85/1,8.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If I place the flash above the lens, I don't need a cord. I can leave the flash in the hot shoe.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.omnifoto.nl/shop_images/Files/Lastolite/Lastolite_2420_Ezybox_Speed_Lite_shooting.jpg">Like this.</a></p>

<p>100mm full frameon 5D2, at 30-50 cm.</p>

<p>Is the flash with minibox mounted above the camera as good as near the camera? I've seen people mount it to the left, perhaps because the flash can get closer to the lens.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm looking into a bracket, short cord and mini-softbox so that I can mount my regular flash to the left of the camera. The flash will be touching the camera, not hanging over the body.</p>

<p>Will this suffice for macro photography? I want to keep things portable and simple.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What do you use the 135/2 with?</p>

<p>I have it too and it makes wonderful portraits. Better than 70-200 imo if you don't need the zoom.</p>

<p>None of this works on windows 7.</p>

<p>I installed wega2 and exposure plot. got very weird focal lengths from 100 to 580 while I'm using 24-135mm full frame. How do correct this?</p>

<p>When using a zoom, how do I melt focal lengths together? For instance I want the 24-70 zoom to be displayed in steps of 24, 28, 35, 50, 70mm.</p>

<p>Same for shutter, aperture and ISO, I want them displayed in full stops.</p>

<p>Thanks</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>>>> If I was pulling out a 70-200 2.8 or a 50 1.4 in public which would more people notice?<br /> I can't speak for you. But as someone who shoots on the street a lot, if it were me, there wouldn't be any difference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When I walked around with 70-200 I got many more comments than with any other lens.</p>

<p>The topic is about an alternative for the 70-200, not about justifying it. You can be happy with the zoom but don't go saying that it doesn't catch any attention. It does, no matter your behavior. Aside from teh color, it's also long, heavy and expensive (f/2,8 IS).<br>

It is a fine lens but there are alternatives, and that's what the topic is about.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>There's no aggression or provocation in my posts. I thanked you a couple of times for your input, no need to get upset. You are a friendly source of information, not a client.</p>

<p>Examples of tight head shots with explanation would be nice indeed.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks William. After reading your breakdown, I think 85mm would suit me better. However, this takes me close to 100mm macro field of view so for now I'll just experiment more with the macro lens.</p>

<p>Sometimes I like going wider than 24mm but not as wide as 16mm. 20mm is nice but I can get around it.</p>

<p>On a dual kit I'd use 16-35/2,8 and 85/1,8 and 135/2.</p>

<p>I prefer to carry one camera though and will keep 24-70/2,8 and 135/2.</p>

<p>Thanks for the elaborate post. Theory and practice are quite different. You CAN get a tight head shot by getting within 3 feet, by using rings and by cropping extensively BUT practice has shown that:</p>

<p>a) the slightest movement of the model takes you closer than the minimum focus distance and many shots will be out of focus. Still, shots taken with my macro lens at 2 feet are stronger than shots from 135/2 at 3 feet.</p>

<p>b) macro rings are very restrictive, I tried them and they were no fun. I'd rather screw on a macro lens and get a really good shot than mess with rings and produce a decent picture at best.</p>

<p>c) while a small crop is OK, cropping extensively doesn't yield good quality prints. It's also less fun than playing around with a special lens. By the same logic, you could use a wide angle lens for portrait and crop.</p>

<p>It's a pity you use your macro lens <em>by accident </em>rather than deliberately. To each his own.</p>

<p>My most used focal lengths are 24mm, 60-70mm, 135mm, 100mm.</p>

<p>60-70mm is neither 50 nor 85 :-/</p>

<p>How precise is Sigma's AF?</p>

<p>Portraits and events mostly, then travel and landscape.</p>

<p>I had a 70-200/4 IS and I didn't like it very much. Either buy 2,8 zoom (with or without IS) or get a decent prime was my impression. Just wondering if others felt the same and wondering what they chose.</p>

<p>I'm using Canon 5D2, RAW and JPG, PS CS5 camera raw. How can I measure focal length use?<br>

Thanks.</p>

<p>Hi Peter,</p>

<p>Is 100mm long enough for you? I have the same lens and for candid portraits it's a bit short. Its field of view is too similar to 70mm on 24-70.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks William. Miscommunication is a pity. That's a trait of online fora.</p>

<p>Do you think sigma 50/1,4 is better than canon 85/1,8?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>> There is MORE differential and greater scope of use, when comparing what can be done with an 85/1.8 and the 24-70/2.8, than the 50/1.4 and the 24–70.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Interesting. Care to elaborate?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>You didn't specify which "70-200". </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Any 70-200. F/4 might be lighter but it's still a long and white lens.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To answer your question: Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM and Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM with their respective lens hoods are my faithful alternatives. Although sharp, the 70-200 is my least used lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>85 and 100mm have similar field of view. Do you use 100mm mainly for macro?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Here are the links to the removed images. I cannot make such shots with my regular tele. Perhaps with 50mm but I haven't tried it.</p>

<p>http://wwwdelivery.superstock.com/WI/223/1566/200804/PreviewComp/SuperStock_1566-419379.jpg</p>

<p>http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/5479/5479,1213387081,376/stock-photo-extreme-closeup-portrait-of-young-businessman-isolated-in-white-background-13722106.jpg</p>

<p>OK thanks guys. I appreciate your comments.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>As an aside, I find using a 135mm lens indoors a bit puzzling: you are either close, for instance in the 24-70mm range, or further away with the need for a tight crop (and that's why I drag a 200mm along.) 135 on a FF rig is neither fish nor fowl IMO.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Strange, my impression is that 100mm on FF is neither fish nor fowl. I find 135mm complements very well with 24-70. The difference between 135 and 200 is not as large as between 135 and 70. Also, f/2 works wonders over f/2.8 and I wouldn't want to sacrifice that stop to get a slightly tighter angle.</p>

<p>As for large aperture, I use them for isolation more than for light capturing. F/2 indoors still needs fill flash if you want to keep ISO and shutter at a reasonable setting.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>By extreme close up I mean a tight head shot where you cut the hair and chin.</p>

<p>Because I respect my clients' privacy, I will withhold from posting personal pictures. Take this example I picked up from the net.</p>

<p>I dial in f/8 and get within 50 - 100 cm to get a similar effect. If your clients pose, it's not a problem to get this close. For candids it's of course a nuisance. I love these shots, if used properly.</p>

<p><strong>Moderator Note:</strong> Hocus, unfortunately, it is against guidelines to post any image not taken by yourself, so I must remove them. You may post a link to an image, though. Sorry.</p>

<p>You guys are missing the point. A macro lens can be used at more comfortable distance and still produce a shot that a regular tele cannot.</p>

<p>If sharpness is a concern then you haven't discovered the clarity slider.</p>

<p>Although I use a regular tele for portraits, my best shots are often made with a macro lens, whether shooting products or people. I was wondering if others have discovered the broader benefits of a macro tele but apparently most limit themselves to shooting flowers and insects. </p>