John Pattenden wrote:
>
> >Forgive me for asking but is there anything wrong with your
> >70-200? I'd have thought it to be a very suitable portrait lens.
>
> the 70-200 is a very good lense, particularly at 200, but I use it
> primarily outside - inside the f4 can pretty quickly become a bit too slow
> using existing light, nonetheless it will make a nice portrait lense.. But
> I'd like a lense that will open up a little wider and reduce background
> clutter... and hey it seem like a good excuse to think about buying a new
> lense...
>
> Also I do think the 70-200 can be a bit intimidating for the subject..
> there's something about the white lense that really flips people's switch..
Points taken.
For the clutter, I guess it depends on what is acceptable to you.
Personally, I don't find a substantial difference between f4 and
f2.8 . I'm usually reasonably satisfied with the portraits I get
from slower lenses like the 28-135 and the 100-300 f5.6L. Below
2.8, I find the DOF shallowness to become a real problem. Not
enough of the face in focus.
In your case, since you are looking for an excuse :-), I'd go for
the 100mm Macro. Gets you 2 lenses for the price of one.
Jean-Marc
*
****
*******
***********************************************************
* For list instructions, including unsubscribe, see:
* http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/eos_list.htm
***********************************************************
