70-200 f2.8 IS for portraits

shuttleboi · Mar 7, 2005

I don't know if I should get the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I'm really getting into portraits, and I would like to get the 85mm f1.8 and the 135mm f2. On the other hand, I've read that the 70-200 IS produces pretty nice portraits with good bokeh and of course is more flexible since it is a zoom. I have the 70-200 f4, which I don't use very often at 200mm. I'm thinking of selling that if I decide to get the 70-200 IS.

So basically, the tradeoff is

70-200 f2.8 IS (~$1600)
vs.
70-200 f4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2 (~$1700)

CptnJustc · Mar 7, 2005

What crop are you talking about? The 2.8 IS takes absolutely fantastic portraits on a full-frame camera, but so do the others.

shuttleboi said:
I don't know if I should get the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I'm really getting
into portraits, and I would like to get the 85mm f1.8 and the 135mm
f2. On the other hand, I've read that the 70-200 IS produces pretty
nice portraits with good bokeh and of course is more flexible since
it is a zoom. I have the 70-200 f4, which I don't use very often at
200mm. I'm thinking of selling that if I decide to get the 70-200
IS.

So basically, the tradeoff is

70-200 f2.8 IS (~$1600)
vs.
70-200 f4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2 (~$1700)

jxsq · Mar 7, 2005

just kidding of course.

if you are in control, model shots for example, primes are better, otherwise zoom can be more useful. (events, parades etc)

So it really depend on your purpose. All four lens are very fine lens and should be good enough .

Here are two galleries of mine for your referece

70-200 L IS
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/san_jose_holiday_parade

135/2L
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/arizona_renaissance

if you realy can't decide, buy them all.

seriously you can consider 85/1.8 first, play it for sometime, and then decide the one to get next.

--
jx
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq

shuttleboi · Mar 7, 2005

Thanks for the opinion. Some questions for you:

From looking at your pictures, it looks like both the 70-200 IS and the 135mm f2 produce nice enough bokeh. Do you think one is better than the other with bokeh? I was looking in particular at these two photos and can't see much difference.

http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/image/37524041
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/image/40456325

Do you feel that the 70-200 produce as nice bokeh at 70mm as it does at 200mm (both at f2.8)? I know that depth of field increases with focal length though.

I noticed all your shots with the 70-200 are at f2.8. Did you use aperture priority, or did you use the "portrait" auto-mode on your Digital Rebel?

Also, it looks like we're both in San Jose. Do you know a good photo store in the valley that rents Canon L lenses?

jxsq said:
just kidding of course.

if you are in control, model shots for example, primes are better,
otherwise zoom can be more useful. (events, parades etc)

So it really depend on your purpose. All four lens are very fine
lens and should be good enough .

Here are two galleries of mine for your referece

70-200 L IS
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/san_jose_holiday_parade

135/2L
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/arizona_renaissance

if you realy can't decide, buy them all.

seriously you can consider 85/1.8 first, play it for sometime, and
then decide the one to get next.

--
jx
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq

jxsq · Mar 7, 2005

shuttleboi said:
Thanks for the opinion. Some questions for you:

From looking at your pictures, it looks like both the 70-200 IS and
the 135mm f2 produce nice enough bokeh. Do you think one is better
than the other with bokeh? I was looking in particular at these two
photos and can't see much difference.

http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/image/37524041
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq/image/40456325

I think there is no difference practiclly between these two in terms of bokeh. Of course one can argue that 135 have shorter minimal focus distance ( I hope my memory is right) and with f2, one can blur even more, but for practical purpose, this is not a big issue to consider.

the trade-off is really f2 vs. IS+zoom.

shuttleboi said:
Do you feel that the 70-200 produce as nice bokeh at 70mm as it
does at 200mm (both at f2.8)? I know that depth of field increases
with focal length though.

the bokeh at 70 is as pleasant to see, but remember the distance is a big factor here. and if you do a group shot, certainyl the bokeh will be less than you do a head shot at 200mm.

shuttleboi said:
I noticed all your shots with the 70-200 are at f2.8. Did you use
aperture priority, or did you use the "portrait" auto-mode on your
Digital Rebel?

I use AP mode, I never use "portrait mode" myself.

shuttleboi said:
Also, it looks like we're both in San Jose. Do you know a good
photo store in the valley that rents Canon L lenses?

sorry I don't know. There is one big camera store at Palo Alto which have good reputation (I forgotthe name, but goggle "palo alto camera store" should point you to the place)

Good luck, and enjoy.

--
jx
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq

shuttleboi · Mar 8, 2005

Hi jxsq, you seem to have a good nose for finding festivals and celebrations (like the one in Arizona). Where do you find this information, particularly in San Jose. I recently moved here and would like to go check out places. Any info on celebrations online? I don't get the print edition of the Mercury. Thanks for any info.

jxsq · Mar 8, 2005

Actually I am not good at this myself, and like to hear how others find such events.

try goggle "san jose event" and so on. I learn this tip from my friend and another forum member here.

Best,

jx

shuttleboi said:
I don't know if I should get the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I'm really getting
into portraits, and I would like to get the 85mm f1.8 and the 135mm
f2. On the other hand, I've read that the 70-200 IS produces pretty
nice portraits with good bokeh and of course is more flexible since
it is a zoom. I have the 70-200 f4, which I don't use very often at
200mm. I'm thinking of selling that if I decide to get the 70-200
IS.

So basically, the tradeoff is

70-200 f2.8 IS (~$1600)
vs.
70-200 f4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2 (~$1700)

--
jx
http://www.pbase.com/jxsq

Daniel Jackson · Mar 8, 2005

shuttleboi said:
I don't know if I should get the 70-200 f2.8 IS. I'm really getting
into portraits, and I would like to get the 85mm f1.8 and the 135mm
f2. On the other hand, I've read that the 70-200 IS produces pretty
nice portraits with good bokeh and of course is more flexible since
it is a zoom. I have the 70-200 f4, which I don't use very often at
200mm. I'm thinking of selling that if I decide to get the 70-200
IS.

So basically, the tradeoff is

70-200 f2.8 IS (~$1600)
vs.
70-200 f4, 85mm f1.8, 135mm f2 (~$1700)

I take a lot of senior portraits and have a 10d and 1DM2 and use a 50mm 1.4, 85mm 1.8 and 70-200L 2.8. I'm finding that I am using the 70-200L 2.8 more and more.
--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

Daniel Jackson · Mar 8, 2005

Here is a shot with the Mark2 and 70-200L 2.8 at 200mm and 2.8

--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

Dana Jacobsen · Mar 9, 2005

The 70-200 f/2.8 IS is fine for portraits. On a full frame camera the range is fantastic, covering the entire classic range. It gets a bit long on a 1.6x crop camera. I have read a lot of comments from professional portrait photographers using this lens.

Primes will be just a hair sharper (the 70-200 is fantastic, but the 135/2 is, well, fantasticer). For most portrait use this won't be a huge concern given the zoom we're talking about.

Primes will be lighter and perhaps less intimidating to some people (assuming you're no using the 200/1.8 or longer). On a tripod the weight and size won't matter much, but handholding the 85/1.8 is a lot different than the 70-200.

Primes give you the ability to do very shallow depth of field effects which can be nice. The bokeh on the 85/1.2 and 135/2 are pretty special (I don't have the 85/1.2 but it's well known).

We use the zoom and the primes, and the 70-200 gets a lot of use.

Maurice Joubert59901 · Mar 9, 2005

Dana Jacobsen said:
Primes will be just a hair sharper (the 70-200 is fantastic, but
the 135/2 is, well, fantasticer). For most portrait use this won't
be a huge concern given the zoom we're talking about.

It would even be a handicap for pôrtrraits, if the lens is too sharp

).

The reason why Canon issued a "soft" 135mm for portraits...
--
Maurice Joubert
http://www.pbase.com/joubert

JLW5150 · Mar 9, 2005

i'm not really sure why people say that 70-200mm is good for portraits yet i see other post that ask 'is a 50mm 1.4 any good for portaits' and is usually followed by a torrent of people saying that 50mm on a 1.6 is too long!

i understand that portatits from a distance would be best taken with a longer lens but...you see what i mean?

the picture posted here taken at 200mm on a 70-200 didn't that mean that you had to be miles away from the subject? (o:

I'm still at the point of getting my first lenses I want one for indoor stuff no flash mainly portaits and have decided on 50 1.4
also want an ultra wide so have ordered the 10-22mm.

does the 50mm make sense for what i'm going to use it for?

Daniel Jackson · Mar 9, 2005

JLW5150 said:
i'm not really sure why people say that 70-200mm is good for
portraits yet i see other post that ask 'is a 50mm 1.4 any good for
portaits' and is usually followed by a torrent of people saying
that 50mm on a 1.6 is too long!
i understand that portatits from a distance would be best taken
with a longer lens but...you see what i mean?

the picture posted here taken at 200mm on a 70-200 didn't that mean
that you had to be miles away from the subject? (o:

No, I was about 15 feet at most.

JLW5150 said:
I'm still at the point of getting my first lenses I want one for
indoor stuff no flash mainly portaits and have decided on 50 1.4
also want an ultra wide so have ordered the 10-22mm.

does the 50mm make sense for what i'm going to use it for?

Yes. I use the 50 a lot also. I don't think the 10-22 would be good for portraits. Wide angle lens will do wierd things to faces.

--
Scotty, I need more power! I'm givin it all she's got Jim!
http://www.pbase.com/daniel_jackson/root
Pbase supporter

Maurice Joubert59901 · Mar 9, 2005

JLW5150 said:
does the 50mm make sense for what i'm going to use it for?

The 50 1.4 is good for portraits too

Here's a sample @f/1.4. I would not recommend this aperture considering the very narrow DOF, but as far as the eyes are sharp...

It's a very fast lens to work in available light, but with it's crop factor, it's like a little tele and needs more space than a WA for indoors shots.
--
Maurice Joubert
http://www.pbase.com/joubert

JLW5150 · Mar 9, 2005

ah man, what a lovely photo.

can i just ask how far away you'd have to be to get that from the length of a 50mm?
sorry to lead this string away form the original question.

Maurice Joubert59901 · Mar 9, 2005

Thanks

About the distance, I cannot be precise, since Exif data do not mention it, but I would say between 1,50 and 2m.

I used the fastest aperture to blur the background which was a bit messy...

JLW5150 said:
ah man, what a lovely photo.
can i just ask how far away you'd have to be to get that from the
length of a 50mm?
sorry to lead this string away form the original question.

--
Maurice Joubert
http://www.pbase.com/joubert

Dana Jacobsen · Mar 9, 2005

Maurice Joubert said:
It would even be a handicap for pôrtrraits, if the lens is too
sharp ).

The reason why Canon issued a "soft" 135mm for portraits...

Arguably so. I'd rather have a sharp lens and use Photoshop, a Softar, or just shallow depth of field. In some simple far field testing I've found my 135/2 to be sharper than my new Sigma 150mm macro at high f/stops, and the 135/2 is certainly used for portraits. The 135 soft focus is interesting because it can be either sharp or SF blurred, not because it's an inherently non-sharp lens.

But a lot of people do say they have some issues using the Canon 100mm macro for portraits because it's too sharp. Maybe my Sigma 150 just isn't sharp enough.

My daughter with a Sigma 150mm macro. ISO 800 on a 1Ds underexposed 1 stop (doh!), 1/200, f/2.8. Note to self: next time have better light. I can get them cooperate for photos so rarely that I'll take what I can get.

Dana Jacobsen · Mar 9, 2005

JLW5150 said:
i'm not really sure why people say that 70-200mm is good for
portraits yet i see other post that ask 'is a 50mm 1.4 any good for
portaits' and is usually followed by a torrent of people saying
that 50mm on a 1.6 is too long!
i understand that portatits from a distance would be best taken
with a longer lens but...you see what i mean?

Wow, that's crazy. I believe a good photographer can make a good portrait with just about any lens, but typical portrait lenses are in the range 80 - 150. Read about people using 645 medium format and you'll see very similar focal lengths (110 being a bit too wide = 66mm equiv, 250mm being a long portrait lens = 150mm equiv, typical = 150-200 = 90-120mm equiv).

A 50mm lens on a full frame camera is generally considered too wide for head and shoulders portrait work. But on a 1.6x camera it's more-or-less an 80mm lens, which is a short portrait lens, and seems like a good focal length to use (meaning you tend to take photos at a distance which is close to the minimum for a flattering look -- not too 3D, not too 2D).

I see some people using and recommending the 24-70 on a 1.6x camera for portrait work. It's way too short on a full-frame, but goes to 112mm equiv on the APS-C cameras so would seem to be useful. The annoyance is that these two pro Canon zooms (24-70, 70-200) split the portrait range. You'd like something like a 40/50 - 100. Maybe Canon will have something like that in an EF-S mount sometime (like the Olympus 35-100 f/2 lens for the 4/3 system).

Anyway, for a 1.6x camera I think the 50/1.4 would be a good choice as well as the 85/1.8 (or 85/1.2). Maybe a 100 for long work, and the 135/2 is unfortunately long for portrait work without a lot of room (since it'd be over 200mm equivalent). If you like everything in focus, then the 50/1.8 will work quite well, but as soon as you get blurred highlights the 5-blade diaphram doesn't look so good.

As usual, my opinions only, and I'm no Monte Zucker (who uses a Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS, by the way) or even close. One more reminder that with some creativity and work you can make a great portrait with a 20mm lens or a 500mm lens, but I was thinking of traditional portrait lens lengths.

shuttleboi · Mar 9, 2005

Dana Jacobsen said:
Anyway, for a 1.6x camera I think the 50/1.4 would be a good choice
as well as the 85/1.8 (or 85/1.2). Maybe a 100 for long work, and
the 135/2 is unfortunately long for portrait work without a lot of
room (since it'd be over 200mm equivalent).

Thanks for the extremely helpful comments. I have a Digital Rebel. Do you think the 135mm f2 is too long, in terms of compressing the face for head&shoulders and head&chest shots? If not, is its only deficiency the fact it's too long for some indoor environments?

I am really enamoured with this lens and want to get into portrait styles like jxsq's:

Chad M. · Mar 9, 2005

Dana Jacobsen said:
JLW5150 said:

i'm not really sure why people say that 70-200mm is good for
portraits yet i see other post that ask 'is a 50mm 1.4 any good for
portaits' and is usually followed by a torrent of people saying
that 50mm on a 1.6 is too long!
i understand that portatits from a distance would be best taken
with a longer lens but...you see what i mean?

Click to expand...

Wow, that's crazy. I believe a good photographer can make a good
portrait with just about any lens, but typical portrait lenses are
in the range 80 - 150. Read about people using 645 medium format
and you'll see very similar focal lengths (110 being a bit too wide
= 66mm equiv, 250mm being a long portrait lens = 150mm equiv,
typical = 150-200 = 90-120mm equiv).

A 50mm lens on a full frame camera is generally considered too wide
for head and shoulders portrait work. But on a 1.6x camera it's
more-or-less an 80mm lens, which is a short portrait lens, and
seems like a good focal length to use (meaning you tend to take
photos at a distance which is close to the minimum for a flattering
look -- not too 3D, not too 2D).

I see some people using and recommending the 24-70 on a 1.6x camera
for portrait work. It's way too short on a full-frame, but goes to
112mm equiv on the APS-C cameras so would seem to be useful. The
annoyance is that these two pro Canon zooms (24-70, 70-200) split
the portrait range. You'd like something like a 40/50 - 100.
Maybe Canon will have something like that in an EF-S mount sometime
(like the Olympus 35-100 f/2 lens for the 4/3 system).

Anyway, for a 1.6x camera I think the 50/1.4 would be a good choice
as well as the 85/1.8 (or 85/1.2). Maybe a 100 for long work, and
the 135/2 is unfortunately long for portrait work without a lot of
room (since it'd be over 200mm equivalent). If you like everything
in focus, then the 50/1.8 will work quite well, but as soon as you
get blurred highlights the 5-blade diaphram doesn't look so good.

As usual, my opinions only, and I'm no Monte Zucker (who uses a
Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS, by the way) or even close. One more
reminder that with some creativity and work you can make a great
portrait with a 20mm lens or a 500mm lens, but I was thinking of
traditional portrait lens lengths.

70-200 f2.8 IS for portraits

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Member

Keyboard shortcuts