Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: f/2.8 to love or hate?

  1. #1
    Abitconfused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    624
    Real Name
    E. James

    f/2.8 to love or hate?

    Do you thing an f/2.8 lens has a suitably narrow depth of field for portrait work?

  2. #2
    pnodrog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Nomadic but not homeless, ex N.Z. now Aust.
    Posts
    4,151
    Real Name
    Paul

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    What format and what focal length lens?

    Provided you have a very plain background or it is far enough away f/2.8 should be fine.

    P.S. I am not a portrait photographer.

  3. #3
    Abitconfused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    624
    Real Name
    E. James

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    I am thinking f/2.8 70-200mm here mostly. I see it used a lot for portraits in a studio but how about an urban scene? The Nikon 105 f/1.4 has beautifully narrow DoF.

  4. #4
    Moderator Manfred M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    22,161
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    The f/2.8 70 - 200mm lens is the most popular portrait lens turned out by all of the major lens manufacturers. It is great for single subject work. When it comes to fixed lenses, anything between around 80 - 135mm is pretty common in portraiture work. The f/1.4 85mm lenses are in many pro kit bags. If you are looking for outdoor portraiture, anything up to 400mm is preferred because these lenses provide a very flat image and can be shot from a further distance than for indoor work.

    Correct answer is; it depends on your own personal preferences. I personal will use a 105 before I go tp an 85. I do a lot of portraiture.

  5. #5
    Stagecoach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    Suva, Fiji
    Posts
    7,076
    Real Name
    Grahame

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    My question would be, do you really want/need the DOF that a f/2.8 lens is going to give for the portrait work you are going to do?

    Disregarding that a f/2.8 lens is going to be slightly sharper stopped down a bit.

    Here's a chart I made up and used a few years back based on one that Bill posted.

    f/2.8 to love or hate?
    Last edited by Stagecoach; 10th July 2021 at 07:13 AM.

  6. #6
    billtils's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    2,877
    Real Name
    Bill

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    Manfred's "Correct answer is; it depends on your own personal preferences" says pretty well all that needs to be said. Add the informatiion in Grahame's chart and there's only the characteristics of the specific lens in regard to sharpness fall-off when wide open.

  7. #7
    DanK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    8,836
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    All depends on what you want. I don't do posed portraits for the most part, but I do a lot of candid images. f/2.8 is too wide (too little DOF) for me, as Grahame's chart shows. If you are more comfortable in the Imperial system, there are 25.4 mm in an inch. So for a 1/4 view, f/2.8 gives you about 1/4 of the head in focus.
    Last edited by DanK; 10th July 2021 at 12:23 PM.

  8. #8
    Moderator Manfred M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    22,161
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    One other comment I should add. When I shoot in a studio and do portraits, then I tend to use f/8 or f/11 apertures simply because I can control the background and there is no real advantage to shooting for a shallow DoF.

    If I am shooting on location, I will make a creative decision when posing my subject. There are times when the background is an important compositional element, for instance for a environmental portrait that needs to be in focus to tell the story about the subject..

    At other times I want to throw the background completely out of focus to ensure that it is not intrusive. Here it is important to note if the selected aperture and resulting DoF are actually working. This is dependent on the background, lens design and aperture. The shallow DoF may not fix a busy background and the photographer has to look for a different place to shoot their subject; at time an out-of-focus background can be more distracting than one that is in focus.

    I find that f/2.8 is usually great for my work and an even shallower DoF can cause other problems. In portraiture, the general rule of thumb is that the eyes or at least the eye that is closest to the camera has to be tack sharp. I have seen images where this is the case, but other parts of the head or face can become too distracting, especially in cases where the noticeable out of focus area is in front of the eye.

  9. #9
    rpcrowe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Southern California, USA
    Posts
    17,402
    Real Name
    Richard

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    IF your subject is close and IF your background is at a distance and IF you are shooting with a long focal length; f/2.8 or even smaller apertures can effectively blur the background. This image was shot using a 300mm f/4L lens on an APSC Canon DSLR. Since the dog was fairly close to the camera and the background was a fair distance away from the dog, an f/5.6 aperture at 300mm (480mm equivalent) totally blurred the background...
    f/2.8 to love or hate?

    Here is an image shot with the Sony 70-200nn f/4 lens on a full frame A7iii... 131mm at f/4.0
    f/2.8 to love or hate?
    Last edited by rpcrowe; 10th July 2021 at 05:24 PM.

  10. #10
    pschlute's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    Surrey, UK
    Posts
    1,998
    Real Name
    Peter Schluter

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abitconfused View Post
    Do you thing an f/2.8 lens has a suitably narrow depth of field for portrait work?
    Depends how long your subject's nose is.

  11. #11
    William W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sraylya
    Posts
    4,944
    Real Name
    William (call me Bill)

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    Quote Originally Posted by Abitconfused View Post
    I am thinking f/2.8 70-200mm here mostly. I see it used a lot for portraits in a studio but how about an urban scene? The Nikon 105 f/1.4 has beautifully narrow DoF.
    Using 135 Format (aka 'Full Frame'), for Portraiture, in "an urban scene", many Photographers would generally prefer to use a shorter Focal Length: a 35mm fast Prime being (historically) and still today a popular choice.

    On a 'full frame' DSLR, a 35/1.4 is often used. I think that the choice of F/1.4 as the maximum aperture is more about light gathering (when necessary if shooting in dark environs) rather than attaining a particularly shallow DoF. The Portraiture Photographers I know, who shoot Urban, Street, Environmental and similar, tend to use their 35/1.4 generally at around F/2.2, if shallow DoF is required.

    On the other hand, if you mean that you want to use the 70 to 200/2.8 for portraiture 'in an urban setting', then I think that the choice of that particular lens, that it being F/2.8, by most Portrait Photographers (thinking Pro Wedding Photographers, as one example) is because the Nikon, Sony and Canon variants (I expect other too) are all very fast and very sharp (especially at F/3.5 ~ F/8) and have a compass which sits smack bang in a useful FL range for General Portraiture ranging generally from Full Length to Tight Head, and a Zoom is exceptionally useful when shooting on the hop, and outdoors: i.e. in an UN-controlled setting, unlike a Studio where (as Manfred correctly points out) - he has control of the background.

    ***

    All that stated, the question "does an F/2.8 lens have a suitably narrow depth of field for portrait work?", is, for me at least, a tad difficult to discuss or advise upon without knowing (especially) the camera format being used and the type and purpose of the Portraiture being done. For one example only, if we required a piercing eye in a Tight Head Shot, and I were using an APS-C camera, I'd tend to want a lens much faster than F/2.8, and a FL much shorter than 70mm.

    WW

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    6,956
    Real Name
    Ted

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    Quote Originally Posted by pschlute View Post
    Depends how long your subject's nose is.
    Ya beat me to it!

    I was brewing up a crack about Cyrano de Bergerac or Pinocchio or even Steve Martin ...
    Last edited by xpatUSA; 11th July 2021 at 03:17 AM.

  13. #13
    William W's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Sraylya
    Posts
    4,944
    Real Name
    William (call me Bill)

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    Quote Originally Posted by pschlute View Post
    Depends how long your subject's nose is.
    . . . not if it's a Profile Shot.

  14. #14
    Abitconfused's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Santa Barbara, CA
    Posts
    624
    Real Name
    E. James

    Re: f/2.8 to love or hate?

    Oops!
    Last edited by Abitconfused; 18th July 2021 at 05:58 AM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •