Fast tele or fast prime and slow tele?
Discussion
Hello
I'm trying to decide which lenses to buy.
Should I get a fast tele I.e 80-200 2.8 or for roughly the same cost get a fast prime 80mm 1.8 and a slow tele 70-210 f4-5.6?
The appeal of the 80 - 200 is a shallow depth of field for impromptu portraits where a messy background can be made to look creamy smooth. These lenses aren't exactly light weight though and i suspect the 80 200 would be left at home a lot which does make me wonder about the fast prime and slow tele combo.
How does a 80mm 1.8 stack up for melting backgrounds compared with the zoom?
I'm trying to decide which lenses to buy.
Should I get a fast tele I.e 80-200 2.8 or for roughly the same cost get a fast prime 80mm 1.8 and a slow tele 70-210 f4-5.6?
The appeal of the 80 - 200 is a shallow depth of field for impromptu portraits where a messy background can be made to look creamy smooth. These lenses aren't exactly light weight though and i suspect the 80 200 would be left at home a lot which does make me wonder about the fast prime and slow tele combo.
How does a 80mm 1.8 stack up for melting backgrounds compared with the zoom?
Have a play here: http://howmuchblur.com/#compare-1x-85mm-f1.8-and-1...
Gives a much better indication of background blur than traditional DoF calculators do.
Personally, unless the 80-200 is going to get a lot of use for other purposes I'd go for the prime just for portability. You aren't likely to be lugging a massive telephoto around when the urge for an impromptu portrait strikes.
The other question I'd ask is do you have any interest in macro? A lot of macro lenses double up as very good portrait lenses - possibly an option instead of the 80mm
Gives a much better indication of background blur than traditional DoF calculators do.
Personally, unless the 80-200 is going to get a lot of use for other purposes I'd go for the prime just for portability. You aren't likely to be lugging a massive telephoto around when the urge for an impromptu portrait strikes.
The other question I'd ask is do you have any interest in macro? A lot of macro lenses double up as very good portrait lenses - possibly an option instead of the 80mm
As said above a 70-200 f/2.8 is a very big piece of glass. I have one of those and an 85mm f/1.8. and really love both. I pretty much only use the 70-200 for work though, it's just to heavy to be lugging around on the off chance. An 85mm f/1.8 is a great portrait lens, pretty small DOF at portrait distances and a whole lot more portable. I expect you'd be far more likely to make the effort to take that with you than the fast zoom.
I have a 70-200 f2.8 and my Dad has the 70-200f4 and a 85mm f1.8, I generally prefer to have the faster lens as I mainly use it for sport, but it also works well as a portrait lens. However, if I know I'm going to be shooting portraits I borrow the 85mm lens.
The downside to the 70-200 f2.8 is, as said above, that it is a heavy lens, so I find I don't have it with me that often and I was glad to swap it for the f4 version when I went travelling.
The downside to the 70-200 f2.8 is, as said above, that it is a heavy lens, so I find I don't have it with me that often and I was glad to swap it for the f4 version when I went travelling.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff