70-200 USM for nudes and glamour

[mountain man 67]

I am thinking about buying the Canon 70-200 USM F.4 for my new Canon d50 and was wondering if it is a good choice for Glamour and nudes. My main reason for buying it is for wildlife photography and sports. If anyone has shots nudes with a 70-200 USM F4 and wants to post them here I would apreacite it thank you.

Jon

[Semmonka]

If your main reason is sports I would suggest you to buy F2.8 version.
Its excellent lens for both sports and glam shooting. I use it for upper body shots but my studio is not that big I could use it for full body shots. If I had bigger studio I would use it for all kind of shots as its really sharp lens.
For reference have a look at glam/nude section and Im sure you will find many pics shot with that lense

[Dennis_Hammer]

Save more and buy the 2.8. it will be better for your wildlife and definitely better for sports. Plus the 2.8 is exceptional good for glam and nudes.

[Mark_Cohran]

To answer your question specifically - is it a good choice for Glamour and Nude? The answer is, it's not the best choice. It's certainly not a good choice for an indoor shoot with limited space on a crop body since you'll find yourself cramped for space even at 70mm, though it's fine for outdoor glamour where you have room to back away from your model. It's certainly one of Canon's sharpest zooms.

[Jon Foster]

Mark has good points about space restriction when using this lens but if you have the room the 70-200 will work just fine. I would also suggest you spend a bit more and get the 2.8 IS version. It's actually a very common lens for glamour and portrait work.

Jon.

[mountain man 67]

Why is the 2.8 so much better than the 4 I understand that it is better in low light because of the larger opening but is it worth the extra $500 dollars ?

Jon

[Mark_Cohran]

If you need the low light capability and the additional subject isolation the extra stop gets you with f/2.8 then it may well be worth it to you to spend the extra money. Additionally, the f/2.8 gets you a brighter viewfinder image for your compositions and allows you to use a faster shutter speed or a lower ISO if you need it when you're fully open.

[Dennis_Hammer]

It's more than the extra $500 imho.

[mountain man 67]

I live in a national park so I would be shooting mainly outside and hiking with the camera and lens. Most of the nude and glamor shots I want to do involve waterfalls, rivers, lakes, woods, mountains and beaches. I am thinking that the 24-70 and 70-200 would be a good lens combo after the research I have done and pictures I have looked at. That set up should allow me to wildlife, portraits, climbing photography, landscapes, glamour and nudes and get really good IQ.

The F4 is half the weight of the 2.8 it seems like which is why I am thinking about the 4 plus the extra cost. The time when that decision might hurt me is when I am shooting at sunset and sunrise.

I have a quistion if you use a flash outside during low light will it allow you to shoot at a low ISO or do you have to turn up the ISO ? By low light think sunrise and sunset. Thanks for all your help.

Jon

[smurffman]

I think if you don't go with the 2.8, you will regret it. The 2.8 give you much more latitude in lighting.

[Jon Foster]

Why is the 2.8 so much better than the 4 I understand that it is better in low light because of the larger opening but is it worth the extra $500 dollars ?

Jon

For me the extra stop is well worth the additional cost. The IS can also be a huge help. I shoot in all kinds of situations. Indoors and out. In sunny and cloudy weather.

Being in the outdoors at a waterfall for a shoot sounds bright and cheery but given the limited amount of waterfalls compared to open sun lit fields I'd wager most probably won't have perfect lighting. If your lens has an extra stop (or 2 or 3 with IS) you would use it and never look back. But what if you just can't get the "shot" because it's just a bit too dark or the shutter speed needs to be a bit faster to capture the water rushing over the rocks just the way you want it etc?

There's lots of scenarios that could play out here and you will get all kinds of answers from everyone based on their opinions. If you have the time it might be worth renting both lenses and taking them out on the trail for a few days to do some real life testing. Then buy the one you feel is the best for your situation.

Edit: Here's a shot I took with the 70-200 2.8 IS this fall at a birds or pray show. I was amazed at how well the shots turned out using this lens. I also shot the same birds earlier in the season with a old 75-300 IS. Using the much faster 70-200 gave me almost a 100% keeper rate compared to maybe a 10% keeper rate with the other lens. Of course you are talking about the f4 to the f2.8 version of the same lens here but the bottom line is the faster lens is much better for my style of shooting.

http://www.pbase.com/jfoster/image/117473304.jpg

Jon.

[mountain man 67]

Jon

I think that renting them both and then deciding which one bests fits my needs is a great Idea and is the really the only way I will know without spending the money first. That way I can discover which lens best fits my needs. Your shot of the eagle is awsome and what your saying about the faster your lens the better off you are makes sense it"s why I bought the D50 instead of the T1I because of the extra 3 FPS for wildlife photography.

Thanks that is great advice and I am going to do it.

[Semmonka]

Remember that if you have 70-200 2.8 lens, you can connect 1.4x extender for extra reach and you are still able to shoot at F4.

[Karl Johnston]

I would suggest a 135 f2 instead. If you use a kenko 1.4 or 2x you can extend it. Fast as hell and excellent for people work.
189 mm at 2.8 or
270 mm of reach at f4
Top it off it's a tad cheaper too

...hell I should get that combo, come to think of it, I shoot the 70-200 2.8L :lol:

[Jon Foster]

Remember that if you have 70-200 2.8 lens, you can connect 1.4x extender for extra reach and you are still able to shoot at F4.

This is a good point too. I have a 1.5 extender that works pretty well. A good quality 2x like the Canon would be very nice.

Jon.

[Kagemaru]

I use the 70-200 2.8IS almost exclusively. I like the IS but I generally don't need 2.8 since most of my work is in the studio at around F16. Sometimes I would prefer the F4 version because it's much lighter. Carrying the 2.8 IS around all day can be quite tiring.

[Cosha]

I Have the F4 - Im in love with it

I have done a few G/N with it, not in a big space either:
(Cant post in G/N as i dont have 500 posts just yet, and i dont want to hassle the mods for granted acess, and also cant post her as its only G/N Talk)

So far im having no trouble with the F4, yes i will say there is some times where i would love the F2.8, but still i manage with out. Most important not not all that heavy

I use it as my "general" lens, dog walks, people, aircraft actualy, it lives on my 450D :D

I would say, if you can afford the 2.8 then go for it, just remember the weight is slightly heavier

Good luck

[kvnkane]

cosha now that you have reached 500 posts please post your images for us to see if you dont mind?

[speedster00]

I dont know what he ended up going with....but if most of his shots are outdoor, IMO he doesnt need to spend the extra on the 2.8. Plenty of light outdoors and for portraits chances are he wont be using below F4...or shouldnt be anyway. I love mine. To much lens for indoor use any way IMO.....or atleasat in my house .