Tristan A wrote:
>
> >>While you can still freeze a subject with fast film and the f4 lens, you
> >>lose that wonderful background blur at f2.8
>
> There is very little difference in the amount of background blur between
> f2.8 and f4. Assuming the same magnification of the subject, the increase in
> dof from f2.8 to f4 is really quite minimum.
I didn't calculate the increase in DOF from f/2.8 to f/4, but in any case, out
of focus highlights are by a factor of 1.4 bigger at f/2.8 and also only half as
bright (if they are small enough to be regarded as a point light source). Both
of these differences are anything but minor in a lot of cases.
> ...
> My point is:--- YOU DON'T NEED A 7-2 F2.8 LENS TO CREATE NICE BACKGROUND
> BLUR.
No, not for nice background blur, but maybe for still nicer background blur ;-)
>
> >>I guess I consider the 70-200 to be something of a pointless lens.
>
> I agree. Not wide enough (70mm) and not long enough (200mm) for most
> application.
>
Hmm, sounds perfect for portraits, although I admit I haven't tried the lens yet
and would have to see the "bokeh" first before I'd use it instead of the 200mm
prime, which is *really* good at that.
Thomas Bantel
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
