Best shallow DOF lens? Nikon 35-70mm f/2.8 or 17-55mm f/2.8?

I have a D80 and I'm looking for some reviews on each of these lens if you know anything about them. I'm looking for something that offers the best shallow DOF. Both of these lens I have found a good deal on the used market. But find myself on the fence, I have also found good reasons to purchase for each one of these.

Rather than leaving this to chance, I figured I might as well ask on a photography forum to see what others said.

Thanks in advance.

Craig

Craig, since both lenses are F2.8 there's not much difference there. That said, the longer the focal length of a lens, the easier it is to get the shallow DOF you are looking for, so the 35-70 would be better in this scenario. Actually, a 50mm F1.8 ( or any other F1.8 or faster lens) would beat the pants off of either of these 2 lenses. Here's a link to an online DOF calculator where you can compare lens focal lengths to see the difference. Just key in the required info in the drop down boxes. It does not list zooms, but just do 2 searches at min & max focal length...I have the older MF version of the 35-70 (F3.5 version) & love it

www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Screamin Scott wrote: Craig, since both lenses are F2.8 there's not much difference there. That said, the longer the focal length of a lens, the easier it is to get the shallow DOF you are looking for, so the 35-70 would be better in this scenario. Actually, a 50mm F1.8 ( or any other F1.8 or faster lens) would beat the pants off of either of these 2 lenses. Here's a link to an online DOF calculator where you can compare lens focal lengths to see the difference. Just key in the required info in the drop down boxes. It does not list zooms, but just do 2 searches at min & max focal length...I have the older MF version of the 35-70 (F3.5 version) & love it

www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

That is a good link Scott, I just booked marked that page.

I own the 35-70mm 2.8D and the 50mm, 1.8D Scott is right about the 50mm. Although for the money that the 35-70mm, you could also have the 50mm 1.4 which really rocks! That being said, I'm not at all disappointed with my 35-70mm 2.8 depth of field, getting closer to the subject also provides a nice shallow DOF and the 35-70 is an amazing lens! I tend to shoot portaits @ f4 or f5.6 just because that seems to be a happy place for sharpness....I also like the fact that the 35-70 is a full frame lens which mean I can throw in a film body into my bag and have it work with all my lenses.....food for thought!

Screamin Scott wrote: Craig, since both lenses are F2.8 there's not much difference there. That said, the longer the focal length of a lens, the easier it is to get the shallow DOF you are looking for, so the 35-70 would be better in this scenario. Actually, a 50mm F1.8 ( or any other F1.8 or faster lens) would beat the pants off of either of these 2 lenses. Here's a link to an online DOF calculator where you can compare lens focal lengths to see the difference. Just key in the required info in the drop down boxes. It does not list zooms, but just do 2 searches at min & max focal length...I have the older MF version of the 35-70 (F3.5 version) & love it

www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Techically speaking the DOF will be the same no matter the focal length (DOF is determined by Sensor size and the aperture only). BUT at longer focal lengths you get the illusion of a shallower DOF (apparent DOF) because of compression (you're further away from the subject generally, so the background will appear closer to the subject as perspective distortion factored by your distance to the subject. The background being more out of the DOF will therefore appear to be more OOF).

So, long story short: The DOF is determined by Aperture (and sensor size) not the focal length (sorta).

www.waynesthisandthat.com/dof.html

McBeth Photography wrote: getting closer to the subject also provides a nice shallow DOF

Depends on how you define "getting closer" if you mean moving your camera closer, then this isn't true because you'll be getting more perspective distortion so the OOF areas will appear further away and by optical illusion sharper (meaning, you'll see less of the blur because it looks further away). Which is why it's hard to get a shallow DOF effect the wider you go.

BUT I guess you meant zooming in more (70mm vs 50mm) which is sorta true (see my previous post). But the 50mm will have less DOF because of the larger aperture.

I did mean zooming in, thanks for the clarifacation though. The 50mm 1.8 does rock, no question, but I rarely shoot it wide open anyway .... unless in low light.

I still have a lot to learn...been doing this photography thing since june 2009.

McBeth Photography wrote: I did mean zooming in, thanks for the clarifacation though. The 50mm 1.8 does rock, no question, but I rarely shoot it wide open anyway .... unless in low light.

I still have a lot to learn...been doing this photography thing since june 2009.

That's cool. We've all got lots to learn.

I'm sorry for not replying to your wonderful answers. I'm very rarely at my computer, plus my computer died on me along with all my saved favorite websites!

C.Morris wrote: I'm sorry for not replying to your wonderful answers. I'm very rarely at my computer, plus my computer died on me along with all my saved favorite websites!

Welcome back.

Welcome back. And the best shallow DoF lenses are the DC or Defocus Control lenses. You can pretty much cut the defocus to what you want once you get the hang of them.