Canon 70-200 family which one for portraits?

scottduffy

scottduffy

Messages
3,348
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi There,

I have been thinking about one of these lenses and as it's mainy portraits i shoot i am in a dilema as to which one to get. I have heard the f4 IS is the sharpest of the lot but don't know if that is true. I have also read that the 2.8 IS and non IS have the better bokeh which might be important. What i would like to know is would i be better saving money and buying the non IS version of the 2.8 lens and just putting the lens on a monopod or tripod at all times? Does this lens have the same IQ as the IS version?
 
f/2.8L IS if you can afford it. The benefits of IS should be obvious at 200mm. The bokeh is stunning, but the price is stinging:bang::bonk:
this version is slightly softer wide open but in fact it is an advantage for portraits. Less photoshoping will be needed to soften the skin.
 
If your shooting portraits, on a tripod, 135mm, and you'll be using flash right, and at least f/5.6 - f/8, the 70-200 f/4 non IS is stella, and is by far the cheapest.

The bokeh ain't too shabby either.
 
The portraits will be both indoor and outdoor. The f4L was the first one i thought of then i was thinking of the 2.8 non IS as i could make sure i used a tripod but i am torn. I use a sgma 105 macro jus now and the IQ is really excellent but at times i feel i could be doing with similar IQ and the reach of the zoom. I have managed without IS so far so i really feel i could do without it if need be. Maybe i wil have another think tomorrow after reading another 4 million reviews. Cheers for the replies guys.
 
PerfectSpeed said:
Save some coin and just move your feet then :thinking: = instant zoom :thumbs:
Click to expand...

How does that work for flying birds then (I can fly with wings) :lol:

Go for the f4 lens. You can get them second hand around £380 and brand new at £470. Save some pennys, think do you really need IS?

Am I going to be shooting at 200mm alot of the time?
Can I afford it?
Am I crazy enough for a L Lens?

If you answer yes to all three then go for the IS :)
 
Having used both the f/4 IS and f/2.8 IS flavours of the 70-200, I have to say I prefer the latter for the shallower depth of field. You're unlikely to notice any of the softness mentioned above, but I know in some tests the f/4 IS is said to be sharper.

Here's an example of a portrait shot with the f/2.8 IS (which so happens to be my favourite Canon lens for portraits):

 
From the research I did a while ago; f/4 IS probably the sharpest, either f/2.8 variant will give shallower DOF and nicer background blur than equivalent f/4 glass but are substantially heavier. f/2.8 IS is slightly softer at the long end than the non-stabilised version. All are great lenses ;)

For what it's worth I got the f/2.8 non IS... although not it's primary purpose in my case, I think this would be best for portraits as you've got the shallow DOF potential and won't need the IS as long as you're lighting's decent.
 
The 2.8 is amazingly good at 2.8 - practically no chromatic aberation or vignetting even on FF, fast AF and super sharp. But it's really a lot heavier than the F4.

I took one out for the first time yesterday and was well chuffed with the results - didn't get such positive comments from the fine folk on here though. So I guess wide aperture is all down to taste.

HTH
 
daugirdas said:
f/2.8L IS if you can afford it. The benefits of IS should be obvious at 200mm. The bokeh is stunning, but the price is stinging:bang::bonk:
this version is slightly softer wide open but in fact it is an advantage for portraits. Less photoshoping will be needed to soften the skin.
Click to expand...
 
I've not used either of the IS versions, but have used the both the f4 and f2.8 non stabilized ones.

I tried both versions before I bought and ended up going with the f2.8 version, as I found the extra stop useful, but more importantly the autofocus was much better. Sharpness and colour wise both are good. Going to the f4 version after the f2.8 version it feels like you are using a toy lens. The f2.8 version also has the 77mm filter thread, which is pretty much standard across the Canon L range.

If I was buying now, I would go for the f2.8 IS version, even though I don't use IS (keep the shutter speed faster than 1/focal length like we did in the old days before IS), but it has the rubber seal at the mount to the body which will form a weather tight seal with the similar seal on my 1D, useful for when I shoot in the rain (can't say I've had any problems in that respect with the non IS version though).
 
buckas said:
2.8 IS without a doubt
Click to expand...

Maybe a little :thinking:

3793947179_7a0504960a.jpg
 
I've got the 2.8 is, and in some ways i wish i hadn't, all my other lenses are f4 and I always find myself yearning for that extra stop to knock out the backgrounds

The IS is always a bonus, especially indoors, I use a 5d and I'd rather use the IS rather than drop ISO to keep the noise low.

You also get the extra benefit with the 2.8 of being able to add the 2 extenders 1.4x and 2x - which gives your far more reach with less of an aperture penalty than the f4 models, and if you eventually use the extenders - the IS will be even more important.

They're like having the 100-400l but without the need for the extra bag space (and a saving on expense)

good luck with your choice - they're all good
 
you can of course use the extenders on the f4 models - but then they drop to f5.6 for the 1.4x and another stop for the 2x
 
As you shoot mainly portraits, lighting is important so saving some coin is a good idea for your set up.

Unless your already set up.
 
All four variations of the 70-200L lens are fabulous and you'd probably be hard pressed to tell the difference in sharpness. Decide which flavour has the characteristics most important to you (physical size, weight, IS, max aperture, weather sealing), is affordable, get yourself down to a shop and try them for yourself.

Without knowing specifically which characteristics you want above others, all you'll get here is people's opinions of their own particular variation and since they're all good and everyone's experiences are subjective you need to compare them for yourself.

They're all good lenses. Some might be better for your needs whilst at the same time not as good for others. You're more likely to be restricted by your own portraiture skills than by any of these lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top