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

Steve Balcombe wrote:

Press Correspondent wrote:

Too much blur for my taste. I realize there's a cult of background blur in the modern photographic community, but to me the images look unnatural. The subject doesn't look the same as when you look at it while taking a picture. This creates a cartoon effect as if the subject was cut out with scissors and glued on top of a flat cloudy pattern. Most will say, "great subject separation", but I will argue, loss of dimentionality and volume. I prefer less blur with a nice bokeh to retain the depth in the image.

Yeah, yeah, I already hear angry voices. No need to plead your loyalty to he cult. This is my personal opinion. I know you think it's "wrong", cause it's different from yours

When you've finished taking something personally that hasn't even been said yet - this is exactly the point of my post about DoF vs background blur and why it is very unhelpful to confuse them. The cardboard cutout effect doesn't come from using a very large aperture, it comes from using a long lens. That gives you the deadly triumvirate of foreshortening, subject in harsh focus, and background blurred out. OK for specimen shots of birds but not great for portraits. Actually I don't really like it for birds either but normally you have no choice.

No,  I agree with you. This is a good point. This effect is even worse on a longer lens.