FYI: This Is The Gear Used To Take Obama’s New Official Portrait

[aalbert]

Ray, thank you for the link... Well worth watching.

 

[RS2021]

Ray, thank you for the link... Well worth watching.

Yes, PBS always does a great job with documentaries.
But several of us posted the links across different threads including Vivid in this thread... can't take credit.

 

[Marsu42]

It's not a personal attack, geez, it's just a joke.

No problem, esp. since the post wasn't directed at me in the first place - I just wanted to know if you have any real insight in 85L vs. other lenses or were talking off the top of your head... I don't own such a fast prime and thus really cannot tell if there would be a difference.

 

[bdunbar79]

It's not a personal attack, geez, it's just a joke.

No problem, esp. since the post wasn't directed at me in the first place - I just wanted to know if you have any real insight in 85L vs. other lenses or were talking off the top of your head... I don't own such a fast prime and thus really cannot tell if there would be a difference.

To answer that particular question, yes I do, and well, I agree with others in that I cannot perceive a difference in IQ with either lens at f/7.1. I am interested now, and might just have to get them out and do some tests. Problem is finding time :-[.

In the meantime I'm going to see if Bryan Carnathan mentioned the lenses in comparison anywhere on his site.

 

[sandymandy]

I'm just jealous I can't afford the 85L, but can get the exact same shot with my 70-200 L f/4....

So? I heard people that got the pulitzer prize award have used cameras which are totally stoneage technology compared to todays digital world. Does it make a difference? no.
Getting a good shot is not about the lens u have. Anyway the president is not a model and doesnt want to be presented like that Its all about good documentary photos not more not less. Camera settings also look a lot like typical studio settings. Bokeh doesnt make crappy picture awesome its just the distorted view of many people thinking a photo looks great when there is so much bokeh present...

 

[elflord]

It's not a personal attack, geez, it's just a joke.

No problem, esp. since the post wasn't directed at me in the first place - I just wanted to know if you have any real insight in 85L vs. other lenses or were talking off the top of your head... I don't own such a fast prime and thus really cannot tell if there would be a difference.

To answer that particular question, yes I do, and well, I agree with others in that I cannot perceive a difference in IQ with either lens at f/7.1. I am interested now, and might just have to get them out and do some tests. Problem is finding time :-[.

In the meantime I'm going to see if Bryan Carnathan mentioned the lenses in comparison anywhere on his site.

I checked photozone and the TDP chart pictures. photozone has the 70-200 doing better (though neither of these lenses struggle at f/7.1). Based on the TDP chart shots, I think you'd really have to be pixel peeping to tell the difference. So for that particular shot, I agree with those who say a number of different (85mm or zooms that cover 85mm) lenses would have worked

 

[RS2021]

I don't know when this thread became a competition between 85L and 70-200L f/2.8 IS II .

Some of us seem to advocate this particular zoom as an answer to everything... I own it and realize in spite of the excellent IQ it is not for every occasion. So getting that out of the way, I think this zoom's reputation has become so holy and unquestionable that if someone says clearly they are unable to carry it or that it is too obvious in events with its size... The advice from those who have read all the right reviews is ...oh this is the greatest thing ever..".you have a head ache? Take two 70-200 f/2.8 II and you'll be right as rain..."

The 85mm at a slow aperture of 7.1 is covered by a several L lenses...why suddenly this focus on the heaviest and longest among the lot? Why not ask "he could have used the other 70-200L"...we have three other variations of this...pick one. Or... 24-105L?

The 70-200L f/2.8 IS II, has become the "I have arrived" lens...it is not that expensive but the ones who get it for presumed status are like the nouveau riche.. They drive in the biggest, loudest mustang... Come back with an understated car that may cost what 10 mustangs cost and then you can impress people. .

Now, if you don't fall in this category, and truly need, use, and love your 70-200 f/2.8L IS II, don't get excited...I already said it is a great zoom. But Some just parrot its virtues without any context or if it suits an occasion.

And there is no need for a long white zoom indoors in this specific occasion unless you are a parroting fanboy. The 85L was just as good as many other lenses and suits the occasion just fine.

Love, Ray :-*

 

[RS2021]

So for that particular shot, I agree with those who say a number of different (85mm or zooms that cover 85mm) lenses would have worked

+1
Amen!

 

[tnargs]

85L at 7.1. What a waste!!!

So an 85 f1.8 and 6D would have done? More than good enough IMHO

 

[infared]

85L at 7.1. What a waste!!!

So an 85 f1.8 and 6D would have done? More than good enough IMHO

Right ...but if you are the White House Photographer you are going to have the top end cameras and lenses. That kind of goes without saying...What is funny is that I think a lot of people on the thread are making a case for the equipment that they own that could have taken the portrait of the President..but that they are not admitting to that point of ownership. LOL. Most of the suggestions work for this particular assignment, I must say.

 

[jp121]

Can the more knowledgeable assist me?

85L vs 70-200L f/2.8 II; both @ f/7.1; both focused at the same distance ie 85mm...

Would the compression be the same? Would it be possible to achieve the same ratio of focus/bokeh that this presidential picture achieved?

 

[East Wind Photography]

Everything being equal I like the bokeh better with the 85mm. The 70-200 bokeh is good but it's still a little harsh compared to some of the fine primes. That's the only thing I can say against the 70-200. Weight is not a problem for me as I carry a 300 2.8L w/1.4x 5d3 with battery grip pretty much everywhere. The 70-200 is literally a walk in the park for me.

Can the more knowledgeable assist me?

85L vs 70-200L f/2.8 II; both @ f/7.1; both focused at the same distance ie 85mm...

Would the compression be the same? Would it be possible to achieve the same ratio of focus/bokeh that this presidential picture achieved?

 

[bdunbar79]

Can the more knowledgeable assist me?

85L vs 70-200L f/2.8 II; both @ f/7.1; both focused at the same distance ie 85mm...

Would the compression be the same? Would it be possible to achieve the same ratio of focus/bokeh that this presidential picture achieved?

I would be thinking about distortion, if there even is any at 85mm on the zoom, if I am choosing a prime vs. a zoom lens. In this particular case, I would have shot with a prime. I've dealt with barrel distortion on big group photos with a zoom lens and it isn't really all that fun. In this case, it is completely different, but the 85L gets the job done.

 

[bdunbar79]

Yes, the bokeh with the 85L is actually much better than the 70-200L zoom lens.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Well, anyway, as Vincent Laforet says in his blog, there is NO reason to own the 85L if you're not shooting it between 1.2 - 2.0, as you might as well own the 70-200 II for only a few hundred $ more, with the ability to have the versatility of the zoom, much faster auto-focus, IS and pretty much equal sharpness.

If you can afford both, well, I'm jealous of you.

What I understood from the video (Presidents Photographer) is that he follows the President all day long and takes 20000 photos a week, so carrying a big heavy like 70-200, all day long, would be a bit too much (especially for a 59 year old like Pete Souza) ... also in that video I saw him work mostly with a 35 f/1.4 & 85 f/1.2 lenses ... the only other lens I saw him use in that video was 24-70 (if I am not wrong it was mostly used outdoors).
So don't be jealous ... be happy that you are a strong young person with the muscles and strength to carry a 70-200 all day long ;D

The 85 f1.2 isn't a light lens, I would say it's almost the same weight as the 70-200 2.8 with out the collar. I know it's a lot heavier than my 24-105 f4. I know carrying a 70-200 more than 4 hrs non stop will do a number on your arms, but i think it would be the same for the 85 f1.2 since you would need to walk around more to get your shot. Both lens would have done a great on the portrait so what ever you have on you, you will learn to use it to your best ability.

85 f/1.2 weighs 2.26 lbs (1.03 kg) ... 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II weighs 3.28 lbs (1.49 kg) ... i.e. 70-200 is almost 50% heavier ... also a longer lens (mounted on a camera), when carrying around your shoulder or neck tends to annoyingly hang down more than a shorter lens would, due to its length and weight.

 

[Jesse]

Haha, nice debate I stirred here. For the record, if I could afford both the 70-200 II and the 85L I'd definitely shoot this with the 85. Obviously a zoom isn't needed in this situation. And anyone who can't shoot a portrait in focus at 7.1 with the 85L shouldn't be shooting the president.

 

[East Wind Photography]

And thus having you lens stick out in front you also causes your shirt buttons to scratch your LCD screen! Just another reason to carry your camera with the lens pointing down no matter what lens you use.

Well, anyway, as Vincent Laforet says in his blog, there is NO reason to own the 85L if you're not shooting it between 1.2 - 2.0, as you might as well own the 70-200 II for only a few hundred $ more, with the ability to have the versatility of the zoom, much faster auto-focus, IS and pretty much equal sharpness.

If you can afford both, well, I'm jealous of you.

What I understood from the video (Presidents Photographer) is that he follows the President all day long and takes 20000 photos a week, so carrying a big heavy like 70-200, all day long, would be a bit too much (especially for a 59 year old like Pete Souza) ... also in that video I saw him work mostly with a 35 f/1.4 & 85 f/1.2 lenses ... the only other lens I saw him use in that video was 24-70 (if I am not wrong it was mostly used outdoors).
So don't be jealous ... be happy that you are a strong young person with the muscles and strength to carry a 70-200 all day long ;D

The 85 f1.2 isn't a light lens, I would say it's almost the same weight as the 70-200 2.8 with out the collar. I know it's a lot heavier than my 24-105 f4. I know carrying a 70-200 more than 4 hrs non stop will do a number on your arms, but i think it would be the same for the 85 f1.2 since you would need to walk around more to get your shot. Both lens would have done a great on the portrait so what ever you have on you, you will learn to use it to your best ability.

85 f/1.2 weighs 2.26 lbs (1.03 kg) ... 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II weighs 3.28 lbs (1.49 kg) ... i.e. 70-200 is almost 50% heavier ... also a longer lens (mounted on a camera), when carrying around your shoulder or neck tends to annoyingly hang down more than a shorter lens would, due to its length and weight.

 

[sandymandy]

The bokeh is fine in the photo isnt it? If he really used 1.2 then it probably looked like it was taken "somewhere".

 

[Hill Benson]

As if I didn't already have enough reasons to get an 85mm f/1.2L!

I wonder if a digital medium format camera has been considered by this photographer?

 

[Marsu42]

I wonder if a digital medium format camera has been considered by this photographer?

They probably wanted to leak the dslr spec the president was shot with and make him a man of the people (you can also afford a 85L!) rather than a leader whose picture is taken with a medium format camera worth the price of a porsche racecar - the man is a democrat after all