<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Re: Rf85 or Rf70-200 in EF &amp; RF Lenses</title>
    <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Rf85-or-Rf70-200/m-p/311753#M3706</link>
    <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/99879"&gt;@shadowsports&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;Greetings,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The 70-200 is heavy, but has more use cases possible.&amp;nbsp; Its image quality is also undesputable in the right hands.&amp;nbsp; You can do portraits with a 70-200 focal length, &lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;EM&gt;but you might not get the desired amount of background blur with an f4&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;.&amp;nbsp; It won't be bad, it just can't achieve the same level of softness that a f2.8 or lower aperture lens can produce.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can easily add more background blur in Photoshop. &amp;nbsp;It looks best if there is already some background blur. &amp;nbsp;Makes it easy to get someone's entire face in focus by shooting at f/2.8, or even f/4 I suppose, and adding more blur in post.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:31:34 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Waddizzle</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2020-06-30T15:31:34Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Rf85 or Rf70-200</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Rf85-or-Rf70-200/m-p/311732#M3703</link>
      <description>&lt;P class="_1qeIAgB0cPwnLhDF9XSiJM"&gt;For those of you that have both, which one do you prefer and why?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P class="_1qeIAgB0cPwnLhDF9XSiJM"&gt;I will most likely get both but trying to prioritize. I already have the rf50 and the rf24-70 and just love what Canon is doing with the rf mounts. I would mainly be looking to do portraits but you have to love the versatility of a zoom lens. Is the lens at 70mm adequate for portraits? What about at 135mm? I typically use the ef 70-200mm f/4 for sports and to have a telephoto lens when needed.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 12:03:00 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Rf85-or-Rf70-200/m-p/311732#M3703</guid>
      <dc:creator>mishamdavan</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-06-30T12:03:00Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Rf85 or Rf70-200</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Rf85-or-Rf70-200/m-p/311744#M3704</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Greetings,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I have both in EF, f1.8 and f2.8 respectively.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;My everyday lens is a Sigma 24~70 f2.8&amp;nbsp; &amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The 70-200 is by far a more versatle lens.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;EM&gt;"would mainly be looking to do portraits"&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The 85's bokeh is phenominal, but limited as a prime due to its fixed focal length.&amp;nbsp; Great for portrats though.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The 70-200 is heavy, but has more use cases possible.&amp;nbsp; Its image quality is also undesputable in the right hands.&amp;nbsp; You can do portraits with a 70-200 focal length, but you might not get the desired amount of background blur with an f4.&amp;nbsp; It won't be bad, it just can't achieve the same level of softness that a f2.8 or lower aperture lens can produce.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:16:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Rf85-or-Rf70-200/m-p/311744#M3704</guid>
      <dc:creator>shadowsports</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-06-30T14:16:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Rf85 or Rf70-200</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Rf85-or-Rf70-200/m-p/311750#M3705</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I don't have the RF versons but I do have the EF modles. You absolutely want the 24-70mm f2.8 and 70-200mm f2.8.&amp;nbsp; I also have the ef 85mm f1.2L.&amp;nbsp; Fantastic lens but it is a play thing compared to the mentioned zooms.&amp;nbsp; I would buy that zoom combo and use it for a while, a long while before buying the 85mil.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;"Is the lens at 70mm adequate for portraits?"&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;Yes, you will tend to use 70mm more than 85mm. That is what is so great about the zoom. However, at times 76mm may just&amp;nbsp; be thst perfect FL.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;EM&gt;"What about at 135mm?"&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;IMHO, usually most of the time it will be too long.&amp;nbsp; Of course it depends on where you are shooting from and how large&amp;nbsp;the room or area is. However, I have used 200mm, with a zoom that is possible, with a prime like the 85mil, it is not.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;SPAN&gt;My 50mil f1.2 and 85mil f1.2 are fantastic lenses but mainly because they are f1.2. Never in a 1000 years would I give up my 70-200mm f2.8L zoom for them.&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 14:43:11 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Rf85-or-Rf70-200/m-p/311750#M3705</guid>
      <dc:creator>ebiggs1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-06-30T14:43:11Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Rf85 or Rf70-200</title>
      <link>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Rf85-or-Rf70-200/m-p/311753#M3706</link>
      <description>&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;a href="https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/user/viewprofilepage/user-id/99879"&gt;@shadowsports&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;wrote:&lt;BR /&gt;&lt;P&gt;Greetings,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The 70-200 is heavy, but has more use cases possible.&amp;nbsp; Its image quality is also undesputable in the right hands.&amp;nbsp; You can do portraits with a 70-200 focal length, &lt;STRONG&gt;&lt;EM&gt;but you might not get the desired amount of background blur with an f4&lt;/EM&gt;&lt;/STRONG&gt;.&amp;nbsp; It won't be bad, it just can't achieve the same level of softness that a f2.8 or lower aperture lens can produce.&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;HR /&gt;&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;&lt;P&gt;You can easily add more background blur in Photoshop. &amp;nbsp;It looks best if there is already some background blur. &amp;nbsp;Makes it easy to get someone's entire face in focus by shooting at f/2.8, or even f/4 I suppose, and adding more blur in post.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 30 Jun 2020 15:31:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.usa.canon.com/t5/EF-RF-Lenses/Rf85-or-Rf70-200/m-p/311753#M3706</guid>
      <dc:creator>Waddizzle</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2020-06-30T15:31:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

