SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

Goofy, you really know how to ruin a guys day.
Those donuts are like scraping your nails accross a chalkboard !!
:thumbdown: :hunf:
SS

GoofyNewfie Loc: Kansas City

Nikonian72 has managed NOT to get them in some photos he's taken.
Technique, having the only good copy of the Nikon 500 and the lack of spectral hightlights helps.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, BUT - shallower DOF tends to blur more and in that way provides less distraction which is thought to "improve" Bokeh.....There is a correlation of some degree.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Longer focal lengths and wider f-stops provide MORE control or a wider range of the backround blur possibilites......again, the "artistry" side of photography.

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

:thumbup:

Smartdoc Loc: Orlando, Florida

The Canon EOS 5 III and the 24-105 is a great choice.

However note that this is a F4 lens and if you want to "blow out the background" to emphasize the subject a f 2.8 lens or lower would be better.

Now for my ultimate tip on this. Go with the canon MACRO 100 mm L f2.8 Image Stabilized lens for portraits. It has great sharpness, allows short depth of field and its also a great image stabilized close up lens for flowers etc. It works better than the 24-105 but the 24-105 is also a great general purpose lens. I have both.

The ultimate Canon lens for portraits is the 85 mm f1.2, but it is hard to use and has no IS.

See enclosed photo @f2.8 on the 100 mm IS Macro L

Canon 100mm f2.8 macro @2.8

CHOLLY Loc: THE FLORIDA PANHANDLE!

Great detail and sharpness.

A lot of customers are fairly vein when it comes to their portraits though. They don't want to see what's there; they want to see what they'd LIKE to be there. ;)

Smartdoc Loc: Orlando, Florida

Of course with the 200 mm at f2.8 your subject needs to be in Montana in order for you to get a portrait!

For reasonable distance use a 85 up to 135 mm lens at f2.8 or less.

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

no kidding, SS!

Analog Guy

There we agree - the customer rarely wants the whole truth. I can think of three industries that depend on people's dissatisfaction with themselves: Cosmetics, plastic surgery, and weight loss.

BTW, Doc, - the original IS works with most cameras and lenses. It's called a tripod. :wink:

Smartdoc Loc: Orlando, Florida

You are quite right about a tripod, it is the best way to eliminate shake, but for hand held, IS can be a wonderful addition allowing a wide choice of f stop or shutter speed and now a 4 stop advantage.

When using a tripod, it is best to turn off the IS since if there is no shake the electronics can go ape!

I use my canon 100 mm Macro f2.8 for portraits on a full frame Canon EOS 5 III but I also use it for macro on insects and flowers where tripod use is limited "in the wild" I just bought a nice carbon tripod made for a 26 lb camera (overkill is good) and a Really Right Stuff large ball head. The RRS ball head is the finest head I have ever used and it is US made. The Canon is made in Japan which is not China folks. Most Nikon's are now made outside Japan.

mwsilvers Loc: Central New Jersey

On a full frame, 85mm to 135mm is considered portrait territory. I think 70mm is too short. By portraits I mean head and upper torso.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I prefer the 100 F2 for portrait work - more DOF option at half the price of the macro - no IS though. The 100F2 can be made into a very nice close up lens with a Canon 500D on the front - good for only about 1:2.5 though, again no IS. Of course, if money no object get both ! Full frame shooters should probably think more about the 135 F2 or 135 soft focus lens.

gessman Loc: Colorado

I was just hazing the "new kid" a little bit to see if you'd be cool under a little pressure and you are and I commend you for that as well as for your obvious mountain of knowledge. You will be a great asset to the lessor knowledgeable among us, myself included, and a role model for newcomers. I've watched you dodge some of our most prolific flamers with a great deal of skill and agility.

As to this comment, "my images were better than everybody else's," you did say that but I have to admit that I fudged the context just a tad for effect. I won't bother to go look it up because frankly you're posting faster than I can read, :shock: and I didn't make a note of what thread it was in. I'll be a little more specific and I'm sure you will remember where you said that. To paraphrase, you were telling about you and a friend doing a shoot and there were other photographers there shooting also but with lessor equipment than your D800. You went on to say that when the shoot was over you were "selling" when nobody else was because your pictures were better than everyone else's. You were no doubt emphasizing the benefit of owing a D800 with which, as a Canon FF shooter currently, I can agree with the potential. You'll have to pardon me that one little stretch - it's 2014, credibility is always suspect, and mine, while it is normally an exception, in this case I admit it isn't. :-) It has been a dull day on uhh each of those days when I've rattled your cage. :mrgreen: As you said, we'll be alright.

I'll rest easy with you on the job. You're doing good. Carry on. :thumbup:

amehta Loc: Boston

I forgot that, when I moved into a new neighborhood, there would be the ornery old guy sitting in his rocking chair on his porch "vetting" everyone. ;-)

You're right, my goal in many shooting situations is to create either different or better photographs, if I'm going to be able to sell them. That has been part of the intent of my volleyball photography: who is going to buy my shots if they can take the same shot themselves? Well, my camera is better, and my lenses are better, now I just have to make sure I'm better too. It's a fun challenge...