Stumbling around downtown I discovered one thing about portraits. I like to photograph people who look smart.

Hanging out downtown with Selena.  We shot on Second Street and Third street.  Love the glasses.  Love the serious/smart look.  We stuck with open shade and shot with the Canon 7D.  My lens of choice (for the whole day, it seems) was the 70-200 f4 L (the non IS version which actually uses cooler glass...).  I brought along my tripod and used it just like my seat belt.......all the time.

It was the perfect counterpoint to a day of meetings, photo shoots at law offices and medical practices.  No lights anywhere.  Not even LEDs.


Eduardo said...

You and Selena did an AMAZING job buddy!! I think all the photos are awesome but the first one is extra awesome!!!!

That 70-200mm f/4 L looks like an awesome lens! I´m gonna have to get one of those when I switch brands :)!!!

Paul Feng said...

Without necessarily referring to Selena (lovely portraits...), can you opine on the correlation (or lack thereof) between "looking" and "being" smart? I realize that each of those things is multi-dimensional and may be subjective, but you've met and photographed a large array of folks, many of whom must actually BE smart. Just askin'.

Completely different question: in what way does the non-IS f/4L use "cooler glass"? Again, just askin'.

kirk tuck said...

Paul, at the outset I'll readily admit that looking smart and being smart are two totally different things. In the case of Selena they intersect well. People look smart when they engage the camera and seem to have focus. I've met "off the chart" brainiacs who cut up and look goofy and roll their eyes, etc in front of the camera. It works to their detriment. I've also met people who could pull of the intensity it takes to look smart who were dumb as stumps when you actually talked to them.

As the the Non IS f4L = Two aspheric elements that are not in the other version. While the other version as two UD's that are not in the Non. According to my optical experts the ASPH trumps the UD. My understanding.

Paul Feng said...

Ok, I had to look it up (i.e., Google it... what did we ever do before?)

If Canon Europe are to be believed, neither has an aspherical element, and both have UD and Fluorite elements.

I looked also at Canon's "Lens Works III" (also available online, at least it once was), and (from looking at the cut-away diagram) the two lenses have pretty similar optical formulations, differing from the IS element on back.

Paul Feng said...

And... (not posting these to say "nyah, nyah, you're wrong" - but rather, because I didn't know and find it interesting):

Looking more at Lens Works, it appears that there are a bunch of pretty pedestrian lenses with aspherics, but none with fancy glass like UD or fluorite.

Maybe it was "opposite day" when you talked to your experts? :-)

kirk tuck said...

Paul, according to the latest system brochure from Canon the Non-IS version is shown to have two of what Canon call "SUPER UD" elements which I understand to be a combinations of ultra low dispersion and asph where the IS version has only "UD" elements and not super ud. also, according to the Visual Science Lab research team the trade off for IS is four more elements which both lowers transmission and contrast compared to the non IS version. Less is more? Not opposite day around here.....