Ligthing/70-200L..

[yalemba]

Dear photography gurus:

1) Can you please recommed a good studio lighting (strobe) system for portraits in the range of $1,500-$2000?

2) Is 70-200mm f/2.8L IS also good for portraits (using 10D)? I have read that it is easier to blur the background using this lens (than 24-70L) because of its larger focal length. Any sample pictures will be very helpful.

Thanks.

[defordphoto]

1. Alien Bees
2. No

[Vegas Poboy]

I agree with RMS even though I have not purchased mine yet but Alien Bees or White lightning for good low cost expandable lighting.

I do use my 70 -200mm f/4 for portriats it's good for halfg & 3/4 shots. If you want to do head shots for models I would say go with the 24-70mm.

In fact all the portraits I've done has been with the 70-200mm but I'm not that creative with lighting yet so I try to do the typical low key / high key setups.

[WestFalcon]

I agree with RFMsports on both answers.....I use the 28-135 USM and get 16x20's that look like medium format

[yalemba]

I agree with RFMsports on both answers.....I use the 28-135 USM and get 16x20's that look like medium format

Thanks for your response. For some reason, my pictures from 28-135 are not as sharp as the ones from my 24-70mm... I am a bit surprised that 70-200mm is not rated as one of the top choices in your list.

[MediaMagic]

Dear photography gurus:

1) Can you please recommed a good studio lighting (strobe) system for portraits in the range of $1,500-$2000?

2) Is 70-200mm f/2.8L IS also good for portraits (using 10D)? I have read that it is easier to blur the background using this lens (than 24-70L) because of its larger focal length. Any sample pictures will be very helpful.

Thanks.

1)Since you have $1500-$2000 to spend, I'd suggest going with the White Lightnings. I have owned Aliens Bees, and they were good, no doubt there, but the White Lightnings are a bit sturdier, are more easily controlled (at least to me), and have more powerful modeling lights (250w as opposed to the 100w of the AB's). They are a step up in quality of build.

2)yes the background is easier to blur with proper subject/background separation, but, you won't see much background. You need a major amount of studio room for anything other than close-up work. If you do have room to work, you can create some interesting images with it for sure.

The 24-70L, though, is much better suited for portraits. To put it into perspective, my most beloved portrait lens is the 85mm f1.8. I rarely use it at all for portraits on the 10D because it's just too long for most of the portrait work I do. So, if 85mm is too long, think of all the wasted focal length there on the 70-200 for most studio portrait work.

The only time I've used my 70-200L in a studio environment was in a shoot of a woman's feet for a "fuzzy slippers" ad. That was the only time I considered it "the best tool for the job". I can track those down if you are interested, but they are certainly not your standard portrait shots.

My primary portrait lenses are the 24-70L and the 50mm f1.8 mkI. I still want the 50 1.4, but just can't bring myself to shell out another $270 bucks when the mkI and 24-70 have 50mm covered with such quality.

Good luck.

David