Welcome to the forum!
As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.
As an adjunct to the Tangents blog, the intention with this forum is to answer any questions, and allow a diverse discussion of topics related photography. With that, see it as an open invitation to just climb in and start threads and to respond to any threads.
Why DOF difference?
Skipperlange
Member
Thanks for this great tutorial Neil.
http://neilvn.com/tangents/85mm-best-lens-change-portrait-photography/
In the top photo with the streetlights (that so perfectly add abstract accent colors) Elle's eyes are both sharp. In the lower photo with orange safety netting, the slightly farther eye is soft.
The aperture was the same. I thought at first her face was more square to camera in first photo but I do not think so. Why the difference? Was focal length the reason? Focus point?
Thank you.
http://neilvn.com/tangents/85mm-best-lens-change-portrait-photography/
In the top photo with the streetlights (that so perfectly add abstract accent colors) Elle's eyes are both sharp. In the lower photo with orange safety netting, the slightly farther eye is soft.
The aperture was the same. I thought at first her face was more square to camera in first photo but I do not think so. Why the difference? Was focal length the reason? Focus point?
Thank you.
Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
- All Discussions2,016
- home434
- news & discussions193
- technique & style & stuff464
- general photography172
- wedding photography142
- portraits & people103
- the gear309
- Canon86
- Nikon118
- other systems40
- flash & lighting538
- flash & lighting121
- post-production206
- post-processing129
- computer hardware & software47
- business65
- business & marketing50
In this Discussion
All rights reserved Neil van Niekerk © 2006 - 2022
Comments
"Neil, I use a Nikon 70-200, 2.8 lens for portrait work. I can set the focal length to 85 mm and assume get the same effect as a 85 mm lens. So, do I need to purchase a 85 mm lens?"
I was wondering something similar. If you take a 70-200 and shoot at 85mm at, say, f2.8, is that exactly the same as using this lens here (the Nikon 85mm f1.4G) at f2.8?
from: http://neilvn.com/tangents/camera-review-nikon-df/
85mm f/1.4 @ f/1.4
from: http://neilvn.com/tangents/85mm-best-lens-change-portrait-photography/
Without a direct comparison, the effect appears quite similar.
But we have a different background at a different distance.
With the 85mm, you have less control over compressing the perspective, and being selective about exactly what is your background.
But as you can see with those two images, you do get a similar feel (if there is no direct comparison for a scenario.)
Skppierlange, you hit the nail on the head...Its amazing how you can make any background work provided you have the knowledge on how to turn it into something interesting.
Im beginning to look atthings in a different light now....no pun intended!
It has totally replaced the 70-200 f/2.8 for weddings and I don't miss that intrusive, subject-intimidating great heavy monster one single bit, good as it may be.
Highly recommended.
I too love the 85mm 1.4
It's the newest addition to my wedding bag. But I'm not sure how it can replace the 70-200 for a wedding day.
Personally I'm finding the extremely slow focus of the 85mm (in dim lighting) to be a real hindrance.....and shooting wide open is only an option when the subject is near motionless (for sharp images)
Other than the bride getting ready and some romantic portraits of the couple....where do you find this lens "replacing"
your 70-200.
Maybe I'm not using this beautiful lens to it's greatest abilities,
Thanks!
- Will
I've sold my 70-200 and literally the 85 has replaced it 100%. Occasionally I find it's not long enough, but you can always crop. Obviously everyone shoots differently, so the loss of focal length will not be ideal for everyone.
I don't honestly find the focussing particularly slow and it's deadly accurate (the 70-200 is faster than almost anything). It's the G version - the D that I used to have often struggled to lock focus in low light.
To shoot wide open, the trick is to use AF-C.
The difference is that you only get the middle part of the image on an APS relative to FF.
The depth of field difference between the two formats is as a result of the fact that you would normally use a longer focal length lens on FF for any given set of circumstances. Either that or a longer distance from subject to camera when using the same lens to achieve the same composition.