Printable View
So I have a budget around 600, and i'm currently looking at some jobs in portrait photography now. Unfortunately, however much i love my tamron 17-50, it's just not quite long enough for a good working distance portrait. I'm looking at a canon 70-200 f4L non IS, and i already know it's a great lens but i was just wondering if anyone had experience using it for portraiture? This would be on an XSi body, so 1.6 FOVCF applies. Thanks!
The 70-200 f/4L is great fro portraits. I've shot a majority of the senior pictures I've done this year with that lens.
Are you looking at it for studio portraiture? Or more on location style? I've done both (to the best of my limited abilities). I'll include some examples of what I've used it for in the portrait arena :) Hope some of this stuff helps you out! By the way, these were all taken on my 1.6x FOVCF 20D. I hope to move to FF eventually. haha!
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2521/...2ff93ffb11.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2514/...49c0ecb5d0.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2596/...6fd8e32cf5.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2709/...b1991b4221.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2606/...df944effcb.jpg
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2496/...2743babcea.jpg
Here is a link for a setup shot of the studio setup: S@H Setup Video
Sorry to post a bunch of stuff, but hopefully these help you make a decision.
Would I like to have the faster f/2.8? Yes, at some point I would like to. But for $600, you get L build quality, super fast AF, ACCURATE AF, tack sharp pictures, excellent colors & contrast, and a super useable zoom range.
Bottom line, if it's what you can afford, get it! If you can afford more, get the f/4L and a strobe kit! Learning to and having the ability to light a scene will DRASTICALLY improve your portraits, formal or casual.
-Rodger
If you want cheap and quality for portrait stuff, I'd go 85 1.8.
I've owned the 70-200 f4 L and almost never used it. Without IS or a faster aperture I couldn't wait to get rid of it. The only time I used it was for strobe lit portraits. I will say it was really sharp though.
PS
I also noticed it sucked up some dust. It didn't seem to affect image quality though.
I use the 70-200 f4 L IS USM for most of the portrait shots on my "people" section of my website. My hands just aren't steady enough for the non-IS version.
well i tend to do a mix, some on location, some studio, but on location is what i tend towards more, as my studio still can't compete with natural light =/. The 85 f1.8 was a lens i was looking at but i decided against it for now because a) I don't shoot so many portraits that i need a lens specifically for them, the 70-200 would also be used for a variety of other purposes, and b) most of the events i shoot that are not portraits and dimly lit are strange in that i either seem to need a lens that's about 30mm or one that's about 135, but nothing in between. Strange phenomenon really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Really? that seems unexpected from a lens that doesn't extend at all for zooming or focusing.
I think that you'll do well with the 70-200 f/4. I've used the IS version (with IS off) for weddings (both with and without flash) and it's excellent. Much lighter than the 2.8, which I also have used.
Look at the varied opinions on this lens: Keith B did portraits with it, but couldn't wait to get rid of his. Yet, Roger demonstrated how excellent this lens is for portraits.
Can you see how these opposing views might make people go crazy???
Quote:
Originally Posted by photosurfer
It still has parts that move in and out internally and it isn't sealed. The mount also fit very loose on my 40D.
Maybe sucking isn't the right term, but accumulating is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
I didn't say I preferred it for portraits. It was only good for stuff that was purely strobe lit. You had to use higher shutter speeds to eliminate camera shake and therefore not allowing for ambient light to create atmosphere. If you shot at lower shutter speeds, you negated it's sharpness. This made this lens nearly useless to me and without IS I could not find enough uses to justify ownership, therefore I could not wait to get rid of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
Keith, neither did I. But, you did mention that you used it for portraits, and so does Roger.
The lens is good for portraits, regardless, as Roger's examples show.
What can be confusing for the OP, though, are the two opinions about it, and how it squares with the lens' actual use for portraiture photography.
I suppose it is good if your portraits are shot in optimum light or on a tripod.
I'd still prefer the 85 1.8 over this lens.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
You're right on both accounts. I also prefer the 85 1.8. Outstanding portrait lens, much faster, IQ excellent, and it's somewhat in the middle of the range of the 70-200.
We can always zoom with our feet, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alan
Not always. I was in a tight location today and really needed my 10-22's wide end. Unless by "zoom" you only meant "zoom in." :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean Setters
Yep. That's what I meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
I'll agree to this. I should have stated in my first post: All those shots are lit with strobes. Does that mean that no ambient light can be seen? Of course not, but it does mean that in all the cases, I was using my strobe(s) as the main light.
It really depends. I think for photosurfer's needs, this lens will do great. I bought this lens with the intention of becoming a "strobist", and using flash in almost all of my portraiture. Therefore, I am finding that I really love the lens.
Keith may not have intended to always be using a flash or may have wished that he could get more ambient. That's totally legit. There are times when I wish I could open the aperture up another stop, but for my purposes, and my highschool budget, this lens is a winner.
-Rodger
Keith, did you end up getting either the 85 1.8 or the 70-200 2.8? Or both?
Now this is the difference between photogs and politicians. . . At least we can work out our differences. At least until it comes to Canon vs. Nikon. . .
Quote:
Originally Posted by photosurfer
Yes, and it's excellent. Even with just f/4 it's easy to get sufficiently-blurred backgrounds for your standard "deep DOF blurry background" headshot. I do a lot of those, so my 70-200 gets a lot of use. You may find that it's not quite wide enough for some shots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodger
I bought the grand daddy 70-200 2.8 IS. I do not own the 85 1.8. It is #3 on my list though.
I admittedly sounded harsh on the non IS f/4 version. My personal style for portraits 95% of the time does not involve a tripod. And for every other use I would use the 70-200 it just didn't cut it. Therefore it was a $600 space filler in my kit, and that is why I couldn't wait to sell and put that money toward something that better suited my style.
Keith, totally understandable man! No worries!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Keith B
You make an interesting point. Not specifically the tripod part, (I can't stand shooting portraits with a tripod either) but that a lens needs to fit the photographer's style to be appreciated. It could be a beast of a lens, but if it doesn't fit the photog's style, they're not going to rave about it.
Good stuff!
-Rodger
Have a view...
http://suprasonic.aminus3.com/image/2009-07-09.html