DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

70-200 2.8 IS II vs. 85 1.2 II for Portraits?

Started Jun 29, 2013 | Discussions thread
Press Correspondent
Press Correspondent Veteran Member • Posts: 3,362
Re: 70-200 2.8 IS II vs. 85 1.2 II for Portraits?

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

DOF (the amount of blur) is the same: 2.8*85/200=1.19 with the same subject framing (different dustance).

That's the calculation for distant background blur, not depth of field.

That's what I said, "the amount of blur". The term DOF is quite often used not in a literal sense

Yes you get about the same background blur if you use the lenses wide open, but you get much less depth of field with the 85/1.2. This can be highly relevant to subject separation, because the hair can blur so much that it tends to blend into the background.

There's no "better" or "worse" here, they're just different. If you want the effect of a sharp head and shoulders against a blurred background, use the longer lens; if you want a sharp face fading into blurred ears/hair, use the shorter lens.

As ok55 pointed out, there is a huge difference in perspective which is equally important to composition.

Good clarification for better understanding. Thanks!:)

 Press Correspondent's gear list:Press Correspondent's gear list
SeaLife DC2000 Panasonic LX100 II Canon EOS 5D Mark III Canon EF 50mm F1.4 USM Canon EF 70-200mm F4L USM +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
fad
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow