70-200 f4 L for portraits?

[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. . .

[SupraSonic]

Have a view...


http://suprasonic.aminus3.com/image/2009-07-09.html

[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.

[Rodger]

Keith, totally understandable man! No worries!

My personal style for portraits 95% of the time does not involve a tripod

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