Quote:Shallow depth of field, subject isolation, all those are interesting in portraits but how muchof it do we really need ?I had the same problem with the 70-200/2.8L IS that I have, very often I was forced to shoot at wider apertures due to poor light, and ended up with not enough DOF for real life shots (especially theatre - thankfully I don't do that one anymore). Say, I had to use f/3.5-4 to eke out decent shutter speed, where f/6.3-8 would be a minimum requirement for getting more than a part of one actor's face in focus. And no, it was not always possible to get closer and use the 16-35 instead (apart from the fact that I'd be getting a very different perspective - disjointed, for a lack of a better word).
when using my 50f1.4 I rarely use it at f1.4 why ? DOF is too shallow, I want the whole face i focus, with my 100mm macro on full frame, I never felt I needed more DOF, for some shots it is good to have a lot of blur but not for all of them.
it is worth carrying the extra weight and often using ND filters for that extra blurr ? I am in the middle of a decision of getting an ultra fast portrait lens, so help me decide before I end up with a dust collecting expensive item
I have one f/1.4 lens but I'm mostly using it in very lousy light. Ironically enough, it's the least accurate of my lenses AF-wise in such conditions - it incurs a noticeably higher degree of OOF shots (including completely blurred ones) where the 16-35/4 just gets there (albeit with some struggle at times). The lens in question... 24/1.4 L II. By the way, if anyone has had the same experience as me, please tell me - I'm eager to know if something is wrong with my copy, or it's a common trait of this model... (but no, I'm not ready to put it on the chopping block - when it is in the right mood, it's making wonderful shots).