Just looking and wondering.

[Donald]

Whilst the cycling extravanganza referred to here was going on, I turned my eye away from the action and onto the people who had gathered to watch or, as in some cases, to try and go about their daily business and ignore the whole thing!

I spotted this gentleman walking up the street towards me. After he passed me by, he paused and looked around, seemingly unimpressed by it all. The platform at the finishing line of the race, where various people were gathered, from which music was blaring out and from where the running commentary on the day was coming, particularly attracted his gaze. That was my moment.


40D, 70-200mm f/4L IS USM @ 200mm. ISO100. 1/750@f4

[rpcrowe]

A great character study. What an interesting profile on that guy!

You and your 70-200mm f/4L IS lens have done it again. I love that lens. Like in the old American Express Card television commercials, I "never leave home without it!"

[Wirefox]

You have caught those Gallic features wonderfully. It reminded me of that Gerard Dippydoo fellow. Just goes to show they don't need to have the greatest looks in the world to have the reputation as the greatest lovers in the world...it must be the accent...raa ta ta ta tat.

I agree with Richard. You are certainly mastering that 70-200.

[rob marshall]

Gallic charm, photographed by Gaelic charm.

[arith]

Whilst the cycling extravanganza referred to here was going on, I turned my eye away from the action and onto the people who had gathered to watch or, as in some cases, to try and go about their daily business and ignore the whole thing!

I spotted this gentleman walking up the street towards me. After he passed me by, he paused and looked around, seemingly unimpressed by it all. The platform at the finishing line of the race, where various people were gathered, from which music was blaring out and from where the running commentary on the day was coming, particularly attracted his gaze. That was my moment.


40D, 70-200mm f/4L IS USM @ 200mm. ISO100. 1/750@f4

Fantastic

[Donald]

Gallic charm, photographed by Gaelic charm.

Cheers Rob. I just wished I could have sat down and communicated with this man over a few drinks together. It felt as if he must have fantastic tales to tell.

Fantastic

Thanks, Steve. I felt, as I pressed the button, that I'd got a good one.

[jappe]

Good timing!

This is off the topic but I've been wondering which lens would be better to buy either the 70-200/2.8 or 70-200/4 for wedding and portraits...?

[Donald]

This is off the topic but I've been wondering which lens would be better to buy either the 70-200/2.8 or 70-200/4 for wedding and portraits...?

Jarno

That question could probably spark pages of discussion. I have never used the f2.8. I'm not sure how many members on here have it - I know that Colin (Southern) most certainly does.

Both are, as I understand it, amongst the best quality lenses on the market - of any make (Nikon owners can start the attack now!). The 2.8 obviously gives you an extra stop capability and, with it, the opportunity for shallower depth-of-field. But, as you can see from my image above, at f4 at 200mm, the depth of field is pretty shallow.

At the end of the day, I would suggest it comes down to cost. Both lenses are going to give you the highest quality images

[JohnC]

That is a remarkable photo Donald - what a great capture. Yes, I bet you're right, a chat with him about his life would be riveting.maybe he'd just about recall WW2 too. I wonder what he was thinking.

[JohnC]

Good timing!

This is off the topic but I've been wondering which lens would be better to buy either the 70-200/2.8 or 70-200/4 for wedding and portraits...?

Jarno- I have the f2.8 IS Mark 11. It weighs 1490 grammes. The f4 IS weighs 705- big difference. I rarely use f2.8 and got it for dusk/poor light shots on the Plains of the USA (storms) and in situations where there was no time for a tripod. I never used f2.8. I bought it only in May of last year too. I'm very tempted to sell it and get the f4 There's no question about the quality,it's first class but so is the f4 . The IS on the f4 gives you 4-stops. However,what you have to consider is that you get double the light with the f2.8 which you will need in a church-you can't always use flash which you'd need to with f4. You'll also get a better bokeh with the f2.8 which will be useful for some wedding shots. You don't need to get the Mark 11 either.

Here's a comparison.
http://www.dmcphoto.com/Articles/Can...ISL/index.html

Another review http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...ns-Review.aspx
Note that this review also states that it's not ideal for low light situations.

....and someone asking the same question as you
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/for...d.php?p=316857

As you see from the last two links the f4 is not a low light hand held lens so I'd definitely say 'go for the f2.8. What a pity you live in Finland and not the UK, you could have called at my home .I actually let my neighbour borrow it when he does the odd wedding- he's not a pro. but does a couple of weddings a year and makes a good job, he found it very useful at the reception too and the evening dance when there was low light. He has the f4 and I borrowed his to take with me to the US this year.Hope this helps.

[jimpayne]

Hello,
This is a good photo. I like this style of photography! Thank you!
Jim

[jimpayne]

What I do think that could have been done better is that you got closer to the person or from another angle, so this might meen that you were still not confortable enough with your photography to go and grasp the moment.
Jim

[Donald]

What I do think that could have been done better is that you got closer to the person or from another angle, so this might meen that you were still not confortable enough with your photography to go and grasp the moment.
Jim

Not sure I'm understanding you there, Jim. What would have been better by getting closer in or getting it from another angle? Are you meaning to achieve a tighter crop on the head.

I thought the profile view was the best possible shot.

[Maritimer1]

Donald, you make me happy to be a fellow 40D owner When I come for a forum visit, I like to see what photos you've submitted. This portrait is amazing. He's totally oblivious to your presence, so totally natural.

Jim, getting in this guy's face or changing the angle would have defeated the purpose. This "was" the moment. Nothing to do with being comfortable about photography; more about seizing the moment. What would you have done in the same situation?

Myra

[Donald]

Donald, you make me happy to be a fellow 40D owner

We've got to stick together y'know!

Thanks for the comment Myra. I am very pleased with it, particularly as it's not my usual 'thing'. I'm still not altogether comfortable with the notion of making images of people without them being aware of it and consenting, but that's just me. I couldn't do it on a regular basis.

[jimpayne]

Hello, no I mean , if maybe you could have taken the shot from in front of him and from below alittle, I would have got in front of him a little ways away and then bent down to tie my shoe or something and then I would have snapped off a few shots. But I dont think all that is too important, in the end you are showing your point of view on the subject.
Jim

[jimpayne]

Hello, I see your point AND agree, but when we talk about freezing that moment, we have the choice of doing that by taking a shot of the back of a person or the front or side. In this case I find that the face has so much to add to a photo, especially when the person doesnt know you are shooting them. Thats why I say, in this case I would have bent down like I was tying my shoe or something and then aimed the camara up at him, he would have looked at me and saw that I was tying my shoes and he would go on doing what he was up to. And that is when I would capture the moment.
Jim