My 5D Mark III portraits

[florianbieler.de]

A selection of my best portraits since I own my 5D Mark III, which is for a little over three months now. Owned a 500D/Rebel T2i before, the difference is vast, I believe I don't need to tell you. You can find others on my website www.florianbieler.de or on facebook, if you got that.

Here we got some taken with the 100mm 2.8L:

Before that I owned the 100mm 2.8 non-L, also great for portraits.

The 70-200 4.0 non-L also makes a nice portrait lens, if space is available.

And these ones were taken with the Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC

I love that thing.

 

[JBeckwith]

The first picture is remarkable. Did you use a flash or is it natural light?

 

[Menace]

Well done, I really like the first one too.

Cheers

 

[florianbieler.de]

I did not use a flash in any of these.

 

[florianbieler.de]

More now. No flash used.

First 135mm 2.0L
Second 100mm 2.8L Macro, handheld
Third Tamron 24-70 VC USD
Fourth 135mm 2.0L

 

[SpartanII]

Outstanding portraits!

 

[wickidwombat]

wow the difference between the canon glass and that tamron oof areas is massive
great shots, not a fan of the tamron shot though due to the oof areas looking wierd

 

[Kernuak]

wow the difference between the canon glass and that tamron oof areas is massive
great shots, not a fan of the tamron shot though due to the oof areas looking wierd

I had the same thought, plus the ones I gravitated towards were taken with the 135 f/2.

 

[jondave]

Nice indeed.

 

[distant.star]

.
Fine work in every respect.

Thanks for showing them.

 

[Dylan777]

Thanks for sharing your works. I love the colors.

100L Macro looks real good - this will be my next lens.

no words for the Tammy :-\ :-\ :-\

 

[crasher8]

I love freckles, smoking…not so much. Oh and I love the 5D3 as well.

 

[florianbieler.de]

Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC USD

 

[Drizzt321]

wow the difference between the canon glass and that tamron oof areas is massive
great shots, not a fan of the tamron shot though due to the oof areas looking wierd

Yea, weird OOF areas. The new 24-70 is said to be much nicer, see http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/ which came from one of our own forum members, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251.

 

[wickidwombat]

Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC USD

this shot is nice

 

[florianbieler.de]

wow the difference between the canon glass and that tamron oof areas is massive
great shots, not a fan of the tamron shot though due to the oof areas looking wierd

Yea, weird OOF areas. The new 24-70 is said to be much nicer, see http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/ which came from one of our own forum members, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251.

You do notice that I used that very same glass? There is no "new" 24-70, the old one was 28-75.

And how does OOF look weird there? In the pic with the girl in the grass, the bokeh was added at the edges via photoshop, the pic with the two girls in the window has no remarkable oof areas and the flower shot was overexposed at first and heavily edited. And of course you can't really compare a bokeh from a 24-70 lens at, say, 30 or 40mm to a 100 or 135 prime lens.

This here was also taken with the Tamron 24-70 at 44mm, and I am very much satisfied with sharpness and oof quality. The other shot from my previous post has fake bokeh, so don't compare that.

 

[Drizzt321]

wow the difference between the canon glass and that tamron oof areas is massive
great shots, not a fan of the tamron shot though due to the oof areas looking wierd

Yea, weird OOF areas. The new 24-70 is said to be much nicer, see http://www.dustinabbott.net/2012/11/tamron-sp-24-70mm-f2-8-di-vc-usd-review/ which came from one of our own forum members, http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=11251.

You do notice that I used that very same glass? There is no "new" 24-70, the old one was 28-75.

And how does OOF look weird there? In the pic with the girl in the grass, the bokeh was added at the edges via photoshop, the pic with the two girls in the window has no remarkable oof areas and the flower shot was overexposed at first and heavily edited. And of course you can't really compare a bokeh from a 24-70 lens at, say, 30 or 40mm to a 100 or 135 prime lens.

This here was also taken with the Tamron 24-70 at 44mm, and I am very much satisfied with sharpness and oof quality. The other shot from my previous post has fake bokeh, so don't compare that.

Oh, it is? Hrm...I'm so confused with their naming convention :\ I had to just chat with the LensRentals guy to figure out that the Tamron 24-70 they have listed is actually the same lens, just without the full model number. I didn't actually realize they hadn't had a previous 24-70, I thought this was their version 2 of the lens, just with VC and updated optics.

I'll be using that lens (and my 5d3) for a performance this week/weekend. If it's as nice as I think it will be from what I've heard elsewhere, I'll probably be putting it on my shopping list instead of the Canon 24-70 v2.

 

[florianbieler.de]

The Tamron is a great bargain for it's price, considering it comes with stabilization. It is my standardzoom and I am completely satisfied with it.

 

[Drizzt321]

I'm hoping so. I'm looking forward to trying it out, and probably will get one in the next 3 months, once I sort out whatever taxes will be, either negative, or more hopefully positive.

 

[wickidwombat]

Tamron 24-70 2.8 VC USD

I love the colours and tones of this one you wouldnt want to share your PP settings would you
also the oof looks much better on this one than that previous one even though its the same lens whats up with that?