70-200 f4 not enough for full body photos?

Paul Liukas · Apr 26, 2014

Hi friends,

I want your advice on people photography as I am not really good on this topic.

Today was first day out with Laura ( 4 weeks). I took some photos with my lenses, they are great, but just lacking something.. some more more blur?

I want to have a nice blur for full body + some background. As seen here Nikon 70-200 f4 (200 @ f4) is not the best? Or maybe this is not bad as background can be recognized, not blurred away?

If I had:

Nikon 70-200 2.8
Nikon 85 1.4 or Sigma 85 1.4

Could I get much better photos? or I need to go 135, 200 f2, 300 2.8 or similar way? (too expensive?)

I tried with my 50 1.8. Not the best solution for such object.

For images with close object, 70-200 f4 is perfect. But for such scenes is not the best.

Please advice how to get full body portraits at really nice bokeh. Which lenses you recommend?

Thanks. Paul

--
I still don't believe that my new 70-200 f4 beats Zeiss 100 f2. But this is true!

http://500px.com/pauliukas

http://photo.foodphotography.lt

YRUNVS · Apr 26, 2014

You can get some rough equivalencies playing with the online DoF calculators. Looking at this picture, I am not sure an additional stop would have made a ton of difference (noticeable perhaps, but I don't think it would be night and day). I think manipulating camera to subject distance, and subject to background difference would make a bigger difference in this case. I think the photo works relatively well for environmental portraiture where you want the background to be recognizable, but de-emphasized by defocus. If you wanted the background obliterated, getting in closer, and leveraging the rule of thirds with a much tighter crop would likely achieve that goal.

Carsten Pauer 2 · Apr 26, 2014

Paul Liukas said:
Please advice how to get full body portraits at really nice bokeh.

Search for Brenizer Method if You want really thin DOF.
For Your Photo, You need around 18 Photos to stitch.

Better Example..

calson · Apr 26, 2014

The problem is not with the lens but rather with your choice of a background. Very common mistake by the way even with experienced shooters. Before you take the shot select the background and alter your position to get what you need. That can mean moving laterally but it can also be done by getting higher or lower than your subject(s) as all approaches change the background.

A bright object in the background is a visual distraction regardless of how blurred it is by the lens. Same applies to a tree or post coming out of someone's head. Once you learn to see the background your images will improve dramatically.

The other aspect is DOF for your subjects. Check the DOF at f2.8 with a 135mm focal length at 10, 15, 20 feet and compare it to that at f4. With my f1.4 primes the autofocus benefited in low light but I seldom shot at f1.4 as the DOF was too shallow and this made for lack of perceived sharpness in the pictures. Often I read comments faulting the lack of sharpness of a 24mm f1.4 lens when in fact the problem is with their use of the lens and failure to appreciate how shallow the DOF is even with a ultra wide angle lens.

TQGroup · Apr 26, 2014

The lens you already own is more than good enough for your needs.

Believe me, many friends and I have this lens and we all find it perfect for this type of photo.

There is something missing and that is "photographic skill". Unfortunately, this cannot be solved by buying another lens... no matter how "sharp" it is or how great its "bokeh" or what other lenses it beats... ;-)

IMHO, perhaps you could study the "rules of composition" to better compose and frame your pictures. A deeper understanding of "perspective" would also help. There are many good videos on these subjects on You Tube and great illustrated tutorials can be Googled.

Enjoy your tutorials and happy snapping.

chris102 · Apr 26, 2014

Paul Liukas said:
Hi friends,

I want your advice on people photography as I am not really good on this topic.

Today was first day out with Laura ( 4 weeks). I took some photos with my lenses, they are great, but just lacking something.. some more more blur?

I want to have a nice blur for full body + some background. As seen here Nikon 70-200 f4 (200 @ f4) is not the best? Or maybe this is not bad as background can be recognized, not blurred away?

If I had:

Nikon 70-200 2.8
Nikon 85 1.4 or Sigma 85 1.4

Could I get much better photos? or I need to go 135, 200 f2, 300 2.8 or similar way? (too expensive?)

I tried with my 50 1.8. Not the best solution for such object.

For images with close object, 70-200 f4 is perfect. But for such scenes is not the best.

Please advice how to get full body portraits at really nice bokeh. Which lenses you recommend?

Thanks. Paul

--
I still don't believe that my new 70-200 f4 beats Zeiss 100 f2. But this is true!

http://500px.com/pauliukas
http://photo.foodphotography.lt

Get closer to your subject, and keep the background simple and darker than it is here.

--

http://101-365.com/

Hasa · Apr 27, 2014

Hi,

Thank you for posting the example photo and your equipment list - please understand I am trying to lend a helping hand here

The photo tries to do too many things - both a picture of a beautiful building and your family. Your (unhappy) family is on its way out of the picture and we are left with a blurred building :-(

I think that could be the reason you are not happy with this picture. If I wanted to play with the bokeh colours of the building I woul get twice as close. I would move around until I did not have lines in the background crossing her head. I would try to get a nice pattern of diffuse colours that would not distract from the subject.

And I would make her smile.

Snap.

I think it is model interaction technique that you will have to develop judging from your photo.

I fail to interact if there are many people - I dont want to disturb them!

But I never fail to ask my wife for a smile before photographing her - she would make me delete "sourpus" photos anyway.

Be careful if you consider upgrading from the 70-200mm F4 to the 70-200mm F2.8 VRII.

I guess your distance in the photo is more than 13 feet.

Until 13 feet's distance the focus breathing on the F2.8 lens means the F4 lens has the upper hand in subject isolation - more so at closer distances than 13 feet where you have observed quite good subject isolation and so have I with the F4. So move closer - you can get much sloser and have a full body shot @ 70mm. Or use your 24-70 mm @ F2.8 or your 50 mm @ F1.8

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f4g-vr/2

Since you already have a 24-70 mm F2.8 I would not recommend the 85 mm F1.8 since it wont make a big difference.

Since you are not happy with your 50 mm F1.8 I will not recommend the Sigma 50 mm F1.4 - the diff in DOF is negligible.

Lots of luck with your fine equipment and beautiful family ( where is the baby? ).

--

Smile and the world smiles back!

Nexu1 · Apr 27, 2014

The type of photo you are trying to take is amongst my very favorite types of portraits. That said, I don't have many good/great examples myself. I do think the f2.8 would help but even moreso than the lens you really need to work the background- either a different background or something that is further in the distance. Lastly, some of the best that shoot this way that I'm aware of also post process their backgrounds for increased "blur"... I think...

JayDreamer · Apr 28, 2014

200 mm can definitely used for full body portraits. Look at the 200mm f2 flicker group (https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon200mm/). While it is true that techniques can make it better, like get close to the subject, place the subject away from background, choose a better background etc, there is a difference in lens (aperture and rendering) too. If you are after the creamy bokeh background pictures

You may never get the same of 200 f2 with even 70-200 f2.8

You may get close to 85 1.4 with 70-200 f2.8 but not same

You may get close to 135 f/2 with 70-200 f2.8 but not the same

70-200 f/4 will fall behind all the above

I am sure 70-200 f/4 is sharper, but from my experience there is a difference in rendering, bokeh and character of a lens for specific purposes.

Hasa · Apr 30, 2014

JayDreamer said:
200 mm can definitely used for full body portraits. Look at the 200mm f2 flicker group (https://www.flickr.com/groups/nikon200mm/). While it is true that techniques can make it better, like get close to the subject, place the subject away from background, choose a better background etc, there is a difference in lens (aperture and rendering) too. If you are after the creamy bokeh background pictures

You may never get the same of 200 f2 with even 70-200 f2.8

You may get close to 85 1.4 with 70-200 f2.8 but not same

You may get close to 135 f/2 with 70-200 f2.8 but not the same

70-200 f/4 will fall behind all the above

Did you have an opportunity to test the 70-200 F2.8 VRII vs. the 70-200 F4?

Because you are right on the basis of conventional wisdom, that a F2.8 renders a more diffuse bakground under a similar setup compared to a F4. However there is focus breathing in some zooms.

I found the review on photographylife concluding that the F4 zoom is actually better bokeh-wise @ distances somewhat closer than 13 feet due to focus breathing:

http://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-200mm-f4g-vr/2

Focus breathing means that at close distances, the effective focal length range contracts, the 70-200mm F2.8 VRII effectively becomes a 65-135mm lens at 5 feet (1.5m). (ref. Ken Rockwell). The 70-200mm F4 has no focus breathing. This is theoretical - I don't know how it would work in practise with portraits.

Additionally Ken Rockwell has comparison shots of F2.8 vs. F4 that shows only a small difference in the rendering of OOF areas.

To get something significantly better than the 70-200mm F4 I conclude from Ken's test that the jump "has to me made" - where is the money? :-( - to a 135mm F2 lens or a 200 mm F2 - as you propose.

JayDreamer said:
I am sure 70-200 f/4 is sharper, but from my experience there is a difference in rendering, bokeh and character of a lens for specific purposes.

Nexu1 · Apr 30, 2014

Hasa - focus breathing is pretty much irrelevant in a conversation about full body portraits as you'd be standing pretty far back to get the entire body in the frame, especially at 200mm.

Not to get on a soap box but like so many conversations in photography this is an example of "diminishing returns". The difference in a full body portrait, shot from a distance, at f4 with the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 VRII shot at f2.8 will be noticeable. Will it blow you away? Probably not. Will it be noticeable... yes. If you just look a the dollars, it's a lot of money to take the same photo at f2.8 vs. f4. But if you really, really want that f2.8 look then you have to pay. Is it worth double the price? Depends how badly you want that f2.8 photo. Kind of simple as that IMO.

edit: Same thing with the Nikon 200 f2 prime. Look at the price on that monster. Is it worth that much more money than the 70-200 f2.8 VRII? Obviously to some it is worth it.

JayDreamer · Apr 30, 2014

Nexu1 said:
Hasa - focus breathing is pretty much irrelevant in a conversation about full body portraits as you'd be standing pretty far back to get the entire body in the frame, especially at 200mm.

Not to get on a soap box but like so many conversations in photography this is an example of "diminishing returns". The difference in a full body portrait, shot from a distance, at f4 with the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 VRII shot at f2.8 will be noticeable. Will it blow you away? Probably not. Will it be noticeable... yes. If you just look a the dollars, it's a lot of money to take the same photo at f2.8 vs. f4. But if you really, really want that f2.8 look then you have to pay. Is it worth double the price? Depends how badly you want that f2.8 photo. Kind of simple as that IMO.

edit: Same thing with the Nikon 200 f2 prime. Look at the price on that monster. Is it worth that much more money than the 70-200 f2.8 VRII? Obviously to some it is worth it.

+1, better said. I dont have 70-200 f4, but had Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 before. Now I have only primes in that range, 85 1.4 and 180 2.8. And the next two lenses in my wish list are 135mm f2 and 200mm f2. For me, my taste it makes a difference. I am not sure whether I mis-understood OP or not. But if someone is after that creamy melting bokeh look then the lens matters. But otherwise I am sure the 70-200 f4 is a very good lens.

holyindian · Apr 30, 2014

No offence, but why it that people who have brought the 70-200 f4 come out so fiercly about comparing and defending their actions of buying the f4 lens instead the f2.8 and keep saying in almost every thread, "i am happy to get the f4 instead of the f2.8". Just in this first page i see multiple members coming out in defence without even geting provocated... is it buyers remorse to convince yourself that you have better than what was offered for a higher price.. where as we all know the real fact that the f2.8 is the best lens out there for this category, and a real bread earner for a lot of photographers. Not cos i have the f2.8 i am trying to justify that this is the real deal, but any thread thats posted about 70-200, the owners themselves get defensive without any reason. Is this insecurity?

Dont mean to start a flame war over this, just wanting to know.

turnschuh · Apr 30, 2014

holyindian said:
No office, but why it that people who have brought the 70-200 f4 come out so fiercly about comparing and defending their actions of buying the f4 lens instead the f2.8 and keep saying in almost every thread, "i am happy to get the f4 instead of the f2.8". Just in this first page i see multiple members coming out in defence without even geting provocated... is it buyers remorse to convince yourself that you have better than what was offered for a higher price.. where as we all know the real fact that the f2.8 is the best lens out there for this category, and a real bread earner for a lot of photographers. Not cos i have the f2.8 i am trying to justify that this is the real deal, but any thread thats posted about 70-200, the owners themselves get defensive without any reason. Is this insecurity?

Dont mean to start a flame war over this, just wanting to know.

I got the f4 because of better mfd and real 200mm at close range. Its not always about f numbers.

myseventhlife · Apr 30, 2014

I took this picture of my wife showing off her latest sewing project yesterday with the VRII at 200mm/f2.8 . I can't really say how differently the background would have been rendered with your lens at its maximum aperture setting. You have intrigued me though to take a couple of identical test shots at f2.8 and f4 with mine in order to make the comparison. I am sure others have already done that and could contribute to the conversation.

Regards

Hasa · Apr 30, 2014

Nexu1 said:
Hasa - focus breathing is pretty much irrelevant in a conversation about full body portraits as you'd be standing pretty far back to get the entire body in the frame, especially at 200mm.

Not to get on a soap box but like so many conversations in photography this is an example of "diminishing returns". The difference in a full body portrait, shot from a distance, at f4 with the 70-200 f4 and the 70-200 f2.8 VRII shot at f2.8 will be noticeable. Will it blow you away? Probably not.

Well - the OP is seeking advice - we all know that a smaller F no. blurs the background more

What is more interesting than generalizations is: specifically: If I buy this lens - what will the pictures look like?

Are there any downsides to using a 200mm for a full-body photo ( with lots of space around? ) - possibly yes - as witnessed by the fact that there was no connection between the photographer and the subject in the OP's example. Choice of full-body or any portrait lens is a complicated matter and up to the choice of what portrait shooting style the OP may want as Klaus stated in this post: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53313756

As to the diff in BOKEH I think it is better to SHOW the OP what to expect BOKEH-wise from each lens than to duel on words - that will surely not help the OP but - granted - give him a good laugh.

First to Ken R. and this is maybe not the best example - and shot with a canon lens to boot:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/70-200mm-f4.htm#perf

Nikon 200mm f/2:

https://flic.kr/p/5aLftx

https://flic.kr/p/5aLbD4

Zeiss (Sony) 135mm F1.8 (first three) the rest 85 mm F1.4:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/50467084

Zeiss (sony) 135mm:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39509310

Nikon 135mm f/2:

https://flic.kr/p/8xmM5c

https://flic.kr/p/9V1fdx

https://flic.kr/p/ab2Cph

Nexu1 said:
Will it be noticeable... yes. If you just look a the dollars, it's a lot of money to take the same photo at f2.8 vs. f4. But if you really, really want that f2.8 look then you have to pay. Is it worth double the price? Depends how badly you want that f2.8 photo. Kind of simple as that IMO.

It is simple IF somebody can show us the actual diff - instead of just words, please?

Nexu1 said:
edit: Same thing with the Nikon 200 f2 prime. Look at the price on that monster. Is it worth that much more money than the 70-200 f2.8 VRII? Obviously to some it is worth it.

And the winner is...(to me) Nikon 135mm F2 - because it has AF it will get more keepers of "family moving about" shots than the Zeiss 135 mm F2. Because it is lighter than the 200 mm F2 & the 70-200mm F2.8 it will be in the field, not gathering dust @ home

It was designed specifically for BOKEH adjustment but acc. to Ken there is a learning curve for this feature.

Kens words on BOKEH (really odd @ F5.6) http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/bokeh-comparison.htm

This one @ 85 mm includes wide open shots: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/85mm-bokeh.htm

--

Smile and the world smiles back!

Hasa · May 1, 2014

holyindian said:
No offence, but why it that people who have brought the 70-200 f4 come out so fiercly about comparing and defending their actions of buying the f4 lens instead the f2.8 and keep saying in almost every thread, "i am happy to get the f4 instead of the f2.8". Just in this first page i see multiple members coming out in defence without even geting provocated... is it buyers remorse to convince yourself that you have better than what was offered for a higher price.. where as we all know the real fact that the f2.8 is the best lens out there for this category, and a real bread earner for a lot of photographers.

"buyers remorse?" nope. I have tried both a Nikon 70-200mm F2.8 on the D800 and 70-200 F2.8 & 200mm F2 Canon on d1x. You admit yourself that the 70-200mm F2.8 is heavy in your other post - but you do not need to transport it long distances. Weight is a deal breaker for me for the 2.8 zooms or the 200mm F2 (and price!!!).

If I find it second hand - it is my dream to get the Nikon 135mm DC F2 for portraits. Because the 135 is designed as a FF portrait lens - it is good ref. the links I have referenced elsewhere in this thread.

holyindian said:
Not cos i have the f2.8 i am trying to justify that this is the real deal, but any thread thats posted about 70-200, the owners themselves get defensive without any reason. Is this insecurity?

Dont mean to start a flame war over this, just wanting to know.

No. Now you know so you will never have to ask again.

Here is a full body shot the way I like them - waist like a wasp

(sure some hair in her face - so what? )

70-200mm as close as it gets - no tubes - no TC

-

Smile and the world smiles back!

holyindian · May 1, 2014

Thanks for that, someday i will get the 70-200 f4 as well, and use it for vacation trips etc. But the f2.8 will remain for portraits, nearby outings. I am not a pro, so i dont need to be lugging it everywhere, just once in a while i dont mind that weight. I guess starting next year we will begin a world tour and thats the time i will want to get the f4. But i still am not convinced that the advantages of f2.8 with low light shots indoor sports and action and/or portrait shoots can be matched with f4. i believe both have a different purpose and audience.

Nexu1 · May 1, 2014

Your rant and reply to me seems a fair bit out of place.

The OP posted the type of picture he wants to take. There is a large distance between the camera and the subject. I made an educated guess based on his photo and the types of great photos I see out there that yes, the 70-200 f2.8 would give him better isolation and probably a little more "wow" effect and I stand by that statement. The 70-200 f4 is a great lens, great value, focuses closer, etc... all of which is relatively irrelevant to someone that wants to shoot at 200mm, from a far distance and get max subject isolation. The photo the OP posted reminds me of the style I see from a couple of my favorite portrait photographers, both of who would tell you that shooting the 70-200 racked out to 200mm and wide open at f2.8 is the best way to get that epic looking full length portrait from long distance:

https://flic.kr/p/kgGoCN

https://flic.kr/p/hupkbB

https://flic.kr/p/he4smD

Feel free to contact these photographers and ask them if the 70-200 f2.8 is a fairly important tool for this type of photography. I already know the answer. I know that it's so important that both went out and bought the ridiculously priced 200mm f2 (one in Nikon, one in Canon).

Again, based on the OP's picture and comments my educated guess is that he/she wants to take portraits somewhat like the one's I linked.

NikonShoot3r · May 1, 2014

I only own the 70-200 F4 and think it's a very nice lens. If I was making a living off my photography, I'd probably would have bought the 2.8 VRII.

There's absolutely no reason to argue over which one is better, they both cater to different kinds of photogs

70-200 f4 not enough for full body photos?

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Carsten Pauer 2

Guest

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Well-known member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts