Getting More Comfortable With the 70-200 2.8

Bryce Wilson

Forcing myself to use this lens at least a third of the time in outdoor portrait settings. Starting to get more comfortable with it and certainly becoming more appreciative of its capabilities.

1. 85mm 1/1250 at f 2.8 ISO 100 with a shoot through



2. 200mm 1/500 at f 2.8 ISO 100 with a shoot through. Missed focus a touch on the left side of her face, but it kind of works.

tomnovy

Like the soft light on your first portrait. Good work.

Hackbone

Both nice but #2 is lovely. Love her eyes and how you accented the jaw line. On a heavy person that is difficult to do.

slpollett

I do like the second one also. Very pretty and a lovely portrait.

Sherry

joshhuntnm

both very nice. good work!

Tinstafl

I love my 70-200. I found though the 2.8 all the way out DOF is very shallow so both eyes are not in focus if they are turned to any degree. I just pop I up a stop or two and I goes away yet you get the same look. It is my go to outdoor portrait lens.

skippy77

white lighting did u use in the first shot i like it

divamum

Lovely young lady. Glad you're starting to like your 70-200 - I'll tell you that since I got it mine has become my go-to lens for almost EVERYTHING. I still hate the weight but, having finally caved and bought one, I at last understand why so many people put up with the aching shoulders and wrists to use it.... lol

The first one. Hmm. As a curvy gurl myself, I know I'd be pretty frustrated with that front thigh. As a photographer, I can't decide whether the shadow minimizes the leg, or just makes it look bigger as the actual thigh blends into the shadow. I've been looking at this for a while trying ot figure out how you could pose her on that tree to minimize that effect; the only thing I can think would have been a higher angle (and maybe even a higher angle with a wider lens, to use the distortion to minize her lower half?)

As always, your beautiful lighting, and trademark classic style!

Bryce Wilson

tomnovy wrote: »

Like the soft light on your first portrait. Good work.

Thanks!

Hackbone wrote: »

Both nice but #2 is lovely. Love her eyes and how you accented the jaw line. On a heavy person that is difficult to do.

Thanks Charles. Stretch, lift, turn and light.

slpollett wrote: »

I do like the second one also. Very pretty and a lovely portrait.

Sherry

Thank you Sherry. The softness on the left still bugs me a bit. But that pose makes her look so nice I just can't toss it.

joshhuntnm wrote: »

both very nice. good work!

Thank you sir.

Tinstafl wrote: »

I love my 70-200. I found though the 2.8 all the way out DOF is very shallow so both eyes are not in focus if they are turned to any degree. I just pop I up a stop or two and I goes away yet you get the same look. It is my go to outdoor portrait lens.

Good pointer. I think 4 or 5.6 might be the way to go for the extreme zoom

Bryce Wilson

skippy77 wrote: »

white lighting did u use in the first shot i like it

Rather bright sunlight slightly behind the subject camera right and a SB 800 speedlight into a shoot through umbrella placed close to the subject and above camera left. Feathered to not have light fall on her bottom half.

divamum wrote: »

The first one. Hmm. As a curvy gurl myself, I know I'd be pretty frustrated with that front thigh. As a photographer, I can't decide whether the shadow minimizes the leg, or just makes it look bigger as the actual thigh blends into the shadow. I've been looking at this for a while trying ot figure out how you could pose her on that tree to minimize that effect; the only thing I can think would have been a higher angle (and maybe even a higher angle with a wider lens, to use the distortion to minize her lower half?)

As always, your beautiful lighting, and trademark classic style!

I was waiting to see if someone mentioned that! I took great pains with this pose to make sure her bottom was going to be in a shadow. Like you, I had mixed feelings when I looked at the result and if it accomplished the goal to minimise size.

I'm posting another version (and a couple others designed to "minimise") that used the burn tool to darken the lower half. Would be interested to see if you thought it works better.

Thanks

3.



4.



5.

Marcig

I'm new, and don't critique much...but I think the first one looks great in terms of minimizing the thigh! I love the background as well. I just think the head tilt reminds me of a school portrait a bit. "ok, sit straight, hands on knees, look this way, and tilt your head to the right."

The second one is beautiful. I see what you are saying about the softness, but SO pretty. #4 and 5 are good too. In #5 I'm distracted by the tree stumps behind her. I almost expect her to put her right arm on top of them.

Lastly, one tip i read somewhere, was to (when possible) dress the subject in longer sleeves since the eye is drawn to the arm (because of the bare skin) as opposed to the face.

divamum

I think a higher angle would have fixes most of it, Bryce - skinny minnies look great shot from below, but padded gals, typically not so much.... I find that on this monitor the shadow from the thigh blends in too much with the actual leg and thus makes it bigger; not sure how it would look in a print.

I think #4 is your real winner of the ones you posted - very nice shot. You have her on her back leg and nice triangles of space to emphasise her waist, but I'm thinking you could have minimized her derrier even a little more if you'd had her shoot her hip to her right as well, so it was pushing away from the camera; this would have added a little more arch to her back to enhance the waist too. (I hasten to add that this is WAY easier in theory than in practice, so take with a grain of salt!!)

Bilsen

Nice work overall Bryce. I have the 70-200 f4 IS (I'm too lazy to carry the f2.8) and I love that lens to death outdoors.

Agree with Diva that # 4 is the top followed closely by # 2.

Bryce Wilson

Bilsen wrote: »

Nice work overall Bryce. I have the 70-200 f4 IS (I'm too lazy to carry the f2.8) and I love that lens to death outdoors.

Agree with Diva that # 4 is the top followed closely by # 2.

Thanks...to me, 2 would have been the hands down winner except for the focus issue. THAT wouldn't have happened with my 105 prime!

I don't know why, but for some reason (most likely comfort with what I'm used to) I still prefer using two bodies with the 35-70 2.8 and 105 2.8.

Gotta give an old guy creds for trying to learn new tricks though right?

Lightsearcher

Beautiful portraits, I love it.

She looks very relaxed and natural, thank you for sharing.

Marcelo