I love the 70-200 because especially for wedding or similar secret portraits it's so much better to be far away enough from people so they don't recognize being photographed and look much more natural
70-200 is incredibly versatile for portraits and f/2.8 is plenty of background blur unless you are obsessed with blurry and fuzzy backgrounds.This trend came from CZcams reviewers Im pretty sure, certainly not from professional portrait photographers. Some mistakenly think fast 1.4 and 1.2 lenses are "professional" because blurry backgrounds, which is false. They are used by pros who need to get in as much light as possible shooting golden hour portraits or wedding receptions that may be more dimly lit, not to obliterate backgrounds into a blurry mush. Flip thru any fashion magazine, look at the big modeling agency websites and look thru things like the SI Swimsuit Issue. You will very rarely see blurry and fuzzy background. The vast majority of professional portraits in these magazines and in the online portfolios of the top models in the world are stopped down considerably and are shot nowhere near f/1.2 or even 1.4 I would love to never hear the word "bokeh" again.
You are just revealing your ignorance about photography. We have been obsessing about bokeh since the beginning of photography. We were obsessing over bokeh in the 90's before digital, before CZcams and before the internet was ANYTHING like it is today. Sports Illistrated is not the gold standard. And even then they are still using thin DOF to there advantage. To make a blanket statement they don't use wide apertures is patently false. And much of their work because of the style, does not demand it all the time with every single shot. I can remember specific shots taken with what looks to be 200mm or longer, at f/2.8 or f/4. Which will give you a very specific look. Think model in the ocean with waves crashing on her. VERY compressed look, plenty of DOF to keep the face in focus and the rest still within reason. With plenty of bokeh do the long focal length. I personally use whatever f stop the scene calls for, whether it is f/11 or f/1.2. And anywhere in between.
@@johnrus7661 I’ve been doing this professionally for 17 years and been published all over the globe in dozens of magazines. Everything from Playboy and Maxim to Muscle and Fitness and GQ. But I’ll surely take your advice….
@@michaelbell75 I've been shooting since the 90'a, got serious in it in 2004. I shoot professionally as well. Just shot a super high end corporate event for a multi million dollar company Sat. I know what I'm doing. The fact you have to brag how good you think you are tells me you are not that great or anything close to what you claim. And Playboy?!🤣🤣🤣🤣 That is NOT a compliment to your skills. They hire just about anyone that is willing to use a camera. Regardless of skill. Anyone can lie about how good they are. The fact of the matter thin DOF can be used to great affect and how and when depends on the shot. To say you never want to hear the word bokeh ever again tells me a lot about you. That you know shit about photography. A true good photographer uses what is best for the shot. Not arbitrarily limiting himself just because he has a stupid opinion.
@@johnrus7661 Awesome! where is your work posted? All I see on your YT is a video about windows? Strange someone shooting professionally wouldn't have any of their work posted....
Thanks for this video. 70-200 f/2.8 is a perfect lens. I agree in that 2.8 is very forgiving to keep your subject(s) in focus. I used to own an 85 f/1.2 and rarely shot at 1.2 for the same reasons you showed. An eye (sometimes both) would be in focus, but everything else (top of nose, ears, hair) would all be out of focus. This has never been a desirable effect I’ve wanted! Of course, mist all lenses perform better stopped down, so I think the best use of an 85 1.2 is to put on a CPL and stop down to 1.4.
Bought a 70 - 200mm F2.8 lens for wedding & event photography and lots more. Very versatile. Beautiful bookeh. Amazing light & colour rendering. Can hand hold all day; but get a shoulder strap. Has become #1 lens in double quick time.
No worries indoors. F2.8 can handle pretty awful lot. I also take indoor photos in a badly lit club house like annual prize giving and team photos. I don’t use flash. Always good results with the 70-200mm.
I am believer of using the right lens for the right job. I am a HUGE fan of my EF 85mm f/1.2 II for portraits. But when I want something longer my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is what I grab. Also I find the 1 stop slower aperture at say 100mm/135mm/200mm compared to the primes at that focal length very significant. But less so compared to the f/1.2 at 85mm. Which is 2 1/3rd stops faster! So it is abesolutely dramatically faster. But if your shot is asking for a longer focal length, 1 stop slower is less of a compromise from a DOF standpoint compared to 2 1/3rd stops. And makes it a hell of a good compromise when you need a longer focal length and having the zoom functionality is huge. There are times when the only way to get the shot in a practical way is to use a zoom. I just shot a corporate event while I had both my 85mm and my 70-200mm. I used my zoom dramatically more. The shots that worked well with a prime I used it there. But it was a running and gunning type stuff and I had to be quick and get lots of shot in at different focal lengths and even though I had a primes at my disposal and 3 camera bodies. The zooms were what I reached for most. And partly when you are taking a couples portrait, you need at least f/2.8 to get both their faces in focus. Group shots I was using f/4 with my 16-35mm f/4 IS. Also a FABULOUS lens that I'm loving. Love my primes, use them whenever I can. But sometimes a zoom is the perfect tool for the job. And I consider a 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 A MUST HAVE LENS!!!!!!
I just got a 70-200 to replace my 85… and goddamn I wish I had done it sooner. I like to shoot at like 2.8 when possible anyways, and the versatility along with the long focal lengths is amazing. People look so good
idk I might be in love with your channel. first look- you get straight to the point and your information is clear and concise. im stoked on subscribing rn. your work is phenomenal and im very glad I kept searching for info on this lens and found you! thanks bro! you're making banger vids
Tried my new Sony 70~200 f2.8 for some portraits last weekend and got good results. The only downside was having to yell at the model as she was so far away! Worth doing for sure.
apart from the variable aperture " thing" , kit lenses ROCK . Me thinks the full frame crowd are jealous of the fact that such a versatile lens is generally (only ) used by " amateurs "
Great video! I'm glad to hear someone who understands. I shoot most of my work with f4 Canon L zoom lenses, but if I need that serious blurred background, I reach for the amazing 135 f2 L. I never liked having one eye out of focus with the shallow depth of field.
I love my Sigma 70-200 f 2.8, BUT there is soooooooooooo much glass to lug around , handholding that " baby" for more than a minute or so , is so much effort , and anyway sods law says " the moment you rest your wrists from holding (70-200) lens , is THE moment that you've been waiting for all this time !! "
Spot on...For studio and set pieces I would always use a prime lens 56mm roughly 85mm equivalent on a Fujifilm XT3. But simply for the versatility Fujifilm 50-140mm f2.8 (76-213mm
What has the shallowest DOF... 135 @1.8 or 200 @2.8? I use the 135 GM alot and have often wondered about this. The new tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 is a lens I will absolutely be buying as my walk around lens on either an A7C or A74 if it drops sometime this year lol Nice vid
Dumb question but, Sigma 70-200 + 150-600, or 60-600 as a good all rounder? Keep in mind that sometimes I shoot in low light, and I definitely want to keep it light 😆
Thanx for all your vids. 70-200 compared with 85 mm is often 100mm and up. Would love to know comparison 70-200 2.8 AT 85 mm compared with 85 mm f2. The rest would be extra. Considering to sell my RF 85 f2 and RF 70-200 f4 and buy RF 70-200 2.8 Thank you!
70-200mm Tamron 2.8 G2 + RF 35mm 1.8 Micro For Wedding Prenuptial?? i think i can do lot of Viraty of Photos of Feelings .. than buying a Prime 85mm 1.4 or F2 Right??
Sir I have a question... For a RF 70-200 2.8 on a FF camera. is the Background Blur at 200mm 2.8 greater than the Background blur at 70mm 2.8 ? or is it same or less. (at Same distance between the background and the subject and the camera.)
My 70 - 200 2.8 L IS has been the le s that changed my entire outlook on the world of photography. It took my shots to a whole new level.
I love the 70-200 because especially for wedding or similar secret portraits it's so much better to be far away enough from people so they don't recognize being photographed and look much more natural
70-200 is incredibly versatile for portraits and f/2.8 is plenty of background blur unless you are obsessed with blurry and fuzzy backgrounds.This trend came from CZcams reviewers Im pretty sure, certainly not from professional portrait photographers. Some mistakenly think fast 1.4 and 1.2 lenses are "professional" because blurry backgrounds, which is false. They are used by pros who need to get in as much light as possible shooting golden hour portraits or wedding receptions that may be more dimly lit, not to obliterate backgrounds into a blurry mush. Flip thru any fashion magazine, look at the big modeling agency websites and look thru things like the SI Swimsuit Issue. You will very rarely see blurry and fuzzy background. The vast majority of professional portraits in these magazines and in the online portfolios of the top models in the world are stopped down considerably and are shot nowhere near f/1.2 or even 1.4 I would love to never hear the word "bokeh" again.
Plenty of blurred backgrounds on the covers of Sports Illustrated. It is not f8 on every one of them.
You are just revealing your ignorance about photography.
We have been obsessing about bokeh since the beginning of photography. We were obsessing over bokeh in the 90's before digital, before CZcams and before the internet was ANYTHING like it is today.
Sports Illistrated is not the gold standard. And even then they are still using thin DOF to there advantage. To make a blanket statement they don't use wide apertures is patently false. And much of their work because of the style, does not demand it all the time with every single shot. I can remember specific shots taken with what looks to be 200mm or longer, at f/2.8 or f/4. Which will give you a very specific look. Think model in the ocean with waves crashing on her. VERY compressed look, plenty of DOF to keep the face in focus and the rest still within reason. With plenty of bokeh do the long focal length.
I personally use whatever f stop the scene calls for, whether it is f/11 or f/1.2. And anywhere in between.
@@johnrus7661 I’ve been doing this professionally for 17 years and been published all over the globe in dozens of magazines. Everything from Playboy and Maxim to Muscle and Fitness and GQ. But I’ll surely take your advice….
@@michaelbell75 I've been shooting since the 90'a, got serious in it in 2004. I shoot professionally as well. Just shot a super high end corporate event for a multi million dollar company Sat. I know what I'm doing. The fact you have to brag how good you think you are tells me you are not that great or anything close to what you claim. And Playboy?!🤣🤣🤣🤣 That is NOT a compliment to your skills. They hire just about anyone that is willing to use a camera. Regardless of skill.
Anyone can lie about how good they are. The fact of the matter thin DOF can be used to great affect and how and when depends on the shot. To say you never want to hear the word bokeh ever again tells me a lot about you. That you know shit about photography.
A true good photographer uses what is best for the shot. Not arbitrarily limiting himself just because he has a stupid opinion.
@@johnrus7661 Awesome! where is your work posted? All I see on your YT is a video about windows? Strange someone shooting professionally wouldn't have any of their work posted....
Thanks for this video. 70-200 f/2.8 is a perfect lens. I agree in that 2.8 is very forgiving to keep your subject(s) in focus. I used to own an 85 f/1.2 and rarely shot at 1.2 for the same reasons you showed. An eye (sometimes both) would be in focus, but everything else (top of nose, ears, hair) would all be out of focus. This has never been a desirable effect I’ve wanted! Of course, mist all lenses perform better stopped down, so I think the best use of an 85 1.2 is to put on a CPL and stop down to 1.4.
I love my 70-200! Just recently started using it as a portrait lens. This video just confirms that I need to use it more for portraits! Thank you!
Bought a 70 - 200mm F2.8 lens for wedding & event photography and lots more. Very versatile. Beautiful bookeh. Amazing light & colour rendering. Can hand hold all day; but get a shoulder strap. Has become #1 lens in double quick time.
How’s the indoor capability
No worries indoors.
F2.8 can handle pretty awful lot.
I also take indoor photos in a badly lit club house like annual prize giving and team photos. I don’t use flash. Always good results with the 70-200mm.
@@colmanoneill9598 ty so much
I am believer of using the right lens for the right job.
I am a HUGE fan of my EF 85mm f/1.2 II for portraits. But when I want something longer my 70-200mm f/2.8 IS is what I grab. Also I find the 1 stop slower aperture at say 100mm/135mm/200mm compared to the primes at that focal length very significant. But less so compared to the f/1.2 at 85mm. Which is 2 1/3rd stops faster! So it is abesolutely dramatically faster. But if your shot is asking for a longer focal length, 1 stop slower is less of a compromise from a DOF standpoint compared to 2 1/3rd stops. And makes it a hell of a good compromise when you need a longer focal length and having the zoom functionality is huge. There are times when the only way to get the shot in a practical way is to use a zoom. I just shot a corporate event while I had both my 85mm and my 70-200mm. I used my zoom dramatically more. The shots that worked well with a prime I used it there. But it was a running and gunning type stuff and I had to be quick and get lots of shot in at different focal lengths and even though I had a primes at my disposal and 3 camera bodies. The zooms were what I reached for most. And partly when you are taking a couples portrait, you need at least f/2.8 to get both their faces in focus. Group shots I was using f/4 with my 16-35mm f/4 IS. Also a FABULOUS lens that I'm loving.
Love my primes, use them whenever I can. But sometimes a zoom is the perfect tool for the job. And I consider a 70-200mm f/2.8 or f/4 A MUST HAVE LENS!!!!!!
I use 100mm most for planned portraits and whatever is on the camera for spontaeous/candid!
I just got a 70-200 to replace my 85… and goddamn I wish I had done it sooner. I like to shoot at like 2.8 when possible anyways, and the versatility along with the long focal lengths is amazing. People look so good
idk I might be in love with your channel. first look- you get straight to the point and your information is clear and concise. im stoked on subscribing rn. your work is phenomenal and im very glad I kept searching for info on this lens and found you! thanks bro! you're making banger vids
Tried my new Sony 70~200 f2.8 for some portraits last weekend and got good results. The only downside was having to yell at the model as she was so far away! Worth doing for sure.
I’m using Sony APS-C and my day to day walk around lens is the Sony 18-200. It covers almost everything that I want to shoot outdoors.
apart from the variable aperture " thing" , kit lenses ROCK . Me thinks the full frame crowd are jealous of the fact that such a versatile lens is generally (only ) used by " amateurs "
@@dovidell correct
Great video! I'm glad to hear someone who understands. I shoot most of my work with f4 Canon L zoom lenses, but if I need that serious blurred background, I reach for the amazing 135 f2 L. I never liked having one eye out of focus with the shallow depth of field.
I love my Tamron 70-200 2.8mG2 for portraits.
I love my Sigma 70-200 f 2.8, BUT there is soooooooooooo much glass to lug around , handholding that " baby" for more than a minute or so , is so much effort , and anyway sods law says " the moment you rest your wrists from holding (70-200) lens , is THE moment that you've been waiting for all this time !! "
this was incredible video! thank you it helped me decide to buy a 70-200 and also some tips on shooting with it . Much appreciated 🙏🏼
Spot on...For studio and set pieces I would always use a prime lens 56mm roughly 85mm equivalent on a Fujifilm XT3. But simply for the versatility Fujifilm 50-140mm f2.8 (76-213mm
Cannon 85mm 1.4 and just added the 70-200 4.0 Its much lighter to lug around than the 2.8
Love my 25-200. Very versatile and gets great portrait shots.
Which lens?
I have a 75 to 300, 85 is my favorite. I also use the 35 and 50
I like it for outdoor portraits but indoors in tight spaces it could be a little tricky. :-)
Actually my 100mm is great and it blurs out backgrounds real nice!
Thank you for clear explanation
Great video! Thanks!
That was very useful, Cheers.
What has the shallowest DOF... 135 @1.8 or 200 @2.8? I use the 135 GM alot and have often wondered about this.
The new tamron 35-150 f2-2.8 is a lens I will absolutely be buying as my walk around lens on either an A7C or A74 if it drops sometime this year lol
Nice vid
200mm 2.8 is shallowest than 135 1.8 (PhotoPills).
@@MarceloFernandez1967 thanks for the reply, bought the new 70-200 g master mkii last week funny enough
Many thanks Gareth. A very good video, with interesting info.
Thanks for the tips
Dumb question but, Sigma 70-200 + 150-600, or 60-600 as a good all rounder? Keep in mind that sometimes I shoot in low light, and I definitely want to keep it light 😆
Is the photo at 00:01:13 taken with 70-200 mm or with an 85mm? Thanks, great review!
Thanx for all your vids. 70-200 compared with 85 mm is often 100mm and up. Would love to know comparison 70-200 2.8 AT 85 mm compared with 85 mm f2. The rest would be extra. Considering to sell my RF 85 f2 and RF 70-200 f4 and buy RF 70-200 2.8 Thank you!
This is the explanation which I was searched. Thanks in advance braw ❤️❤️❤️
If I used a 70-200mm on the Canon R10 with a speed booster…would I get vignetting?
Theses are helpful
70-200mm Tamron 2.8 G2 + RF 35mm 1.8 Micro For Wedding Prenuptial?? i think i can do lot of Viraty of Photos of Feelings .. than buying a Prime 85mm 1.4 or F2 Right??
how nice if while you talking at the same time you showed us a proof.
Sir I have a question...
For a RF 70-200 2.8 on a FF camera.
is the Background Blur at 200mm 2.8 greater than the Background blur at 70mm 2.8 ?
or is it same or less.
(at Same distance between the background and the subject and the camera.)
Opportunity to demonstrate was lost to verbal narration
It would be great if you take your lens and get on the ground to teach instead of table talk.
You really need a bigger microphone.
Stop copying Peters intro 😂 if you don't have enough creativity to make your own put the cameras away
Fanboi alert 🤣
@@steve7210 Gayboi alert...
@@SikConVicTioN 9 years old. Ten, tops.