Thanks, Ted.

It sounds like the maximum apertures on both are too slow for serious low light situations, and it sounds like I'd struggle to get super shallow DOF with creamy bokeh.

Hmmm, I have WAAAAY more in photo gear than knives/swords and I have a lot of knives and swords. Maybe that's why I never have money. <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />


Who knew <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/doh.gif" alt="" />

Yeah... I've got a lot in knives, but I also have WAAAAAY more in photo gear. My 600 f/4 IS, alone, is more than all my knives, combined. Same goes for my digicam. Strobes, tripods, memory cards... don't even get me started.

Well, I used to think so, but with digital I can usually get that extra stop back by adjusting ISO. The IS really adds extra stops to handholding. I can handhold a real three stops slower than with non IS lenses and still get acceptably sharp shots. It all goes to hell if the subject moves, but I've not had a shoot that would have been better with only 1 extra stop.

If I want creamy bokeh I pull out the 200/1.8 L and it's magic. Only the 85/1.2 has better bokeh and that is debatable. The 24-70 is better than the 24-105 in regards to bokeh, btw.


Bokeh is a japanese term for how smooth the out of focus areas are in a photo. It really does make a difference.

That reminds me - I found Sandisk 2GB Ultra II cards at Staples for $29.95 today. These were several hundred $$$ fairly recently. Crazy.

Thanks for the definition Ted! I follow a bit of photography, but that was over my head! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

This wedding, last Friday, lit by candle light, was pushing the limits of hand holdability, even at ISO 1600, f/2.8, I was shooting a 200mm focal length at 1/30th shutter speed.

Subject movement at 1/30th of a second is a borderline problem with people who are kind of holding still or moving slowly, at a wedding ceremony.

Yes, I know what bokeh is.

I think my 600 f/4 has better bokeh than the 85 f/1.2, but it is hard to be sure, because the DOF is so incredibly shallow that the background is usually completely blurred.

The 24-70 actually has pretty nice looking bokeh. My 50 f/1.4 also has nice bokeh.

There was a time where my slowest lens was a 400/2.8 and my fastest was an 85/1.2 and a 50/1.2 and I didn't even own a zoom. The I got lazy and went to fast zooms and still got stuff out of focus(autofocus is the devil, but still better than my eyes now). Now I'm moving to slower zooms that take the shake out and I'm having sharp pics again. Yes, I can and do use a variety of tripods, but find that I don't vary the camera angles as much with them and it gets kinda boring.

Both my cameras go to ISO 3200 and with a little noise reduction don't look bad. SO it would be a wash on exposure with a tiny bit of extra DOF.

I knew YOU knew what bokeh is, I was just giving a basic definition for the rest of the guys reading. It's actually more complicated than my definition, but that works for general usage.

The 24-105 IS is not bad, but 24-70 has better bokeh.

50/1.4 is nice also.

I'm partial to the 400/2.8 and 200/1.8 for that creamy headshot look, but a lot of the wedding guys swear by the 85/1.2 and don't want to lug the heavy lens to a wedding(not to mention hire someone to watch the $5-10K super tele to make sure it doesn't grow legs and walk away)

This is the 100th post!

You had a 400/2.8? Man that thing's even bigger than the 600, isn't it?

I do most of my nature work in manual focus.

I find the tripod necessary for my nature work. I'm usually better off without the tripod for my wedding stuff and baby stuff.

Congrats on achieving Mutt!

I believe the 400/2.8 has a larger circumference, but is shorter OAL. They both weigh about 12lbs or so.

Nice background with the 600:

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=274802594&size=o