70-200 f4 L for portraits?

[photosurfer]

I also noticed it sucked up some dust. It didn't seem to affect image quality though.

Really? that seems unexpected from a lens that doesn't extend at all for zooming or focusing.

[Alan]

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???

[Keith B]

I also noticed it sucked up some dust. It didn't seem to affect image quality though.

Really? that seems unexpected from a lens that doesn't extend at all for zooming or focusing.

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.

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???

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.

[Alan]

I didn't say I preferred it for portraits.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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.

[Keith B]

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.

[Alan]

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.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

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?

[Sean Setters]

We can always zoom with our feet, right?

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." :-)

[Rodger]

I suppose it is good if your portraits are shot in optimum light or on a tripod.

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?

[photosurfer]

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. . .

[Keith B]

I suppose it is good if your portraits are shot in optimum light or on a tripod.

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?

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.