Studio and portrait lens for 5D

[Phideaux]

I'm having difficulty in deciding on a lens for portraiture to use on a 5D. I can't afford the 85mm f/1.2L and I was going to go for the 135mm f/2L.

However, I've got the 24-70mm f/2.8L that I can use for groups and full-half length shots and the quality outdoors seems fine (I've not used it under controlled stuion lighting yet).

I'm wondering if the 70-200mm f/2.8L would be a reasonable choice for head&shoulder shots in the studio?

Then I'd also get to use it (have an excuse to buy it ;) ) for indoor sports and as a walkabout.

My main concern is that sharpness and overall IQ may be disappointing when compared to the 135mm, but I'm seeing reviews that rate the non-IS better than the IS version in terms of IQ and serveral that say it's comparable with the 135mm.

Your thoughts?

[CT]

I think the 70-200 could fill the bill very nicely for you. With 35mm film 135mm was considered the ideal portrait length to give a reasonable working distance without poking the lens up subjects noses and without the flattening of features longer lenses give, and the distortion wider lenses give. As you're using a full frame sensor and the zoom incorporates that ideal length I reckon you should give it a go.

The difference between a quality zoom and a prime isn't night and day these days, and often primes can be unflatteringly sharp for portrait work.

I'd go ahead and get your zoom as if you're happy with it, it will be a good all rounder for you. If you're not happy with it you'll have no trouble selling it on.

[oldgit]

The 70-200f2.8 is an absolutely stonking lens.
I can't use it much for portraits on a 20D due to the 1.6 mult.
However if I could I would.

See my sig... I mean the rest of the stuff stops the bag blowing away.

[mho]

Cant go wrong with the 70-200 2.8

the Non IS one is marginally sharper from what ive read about it..

I'm more than happy with my IS version, saying that.