PDA

View Full Version : 70-200 2.8 MKII vs 70-200 f4 @ f4 for portraits?


Jannie
17th of October 2010 (Sun), 14:01
I got tired of handling my 70-200 2.8 IS when shooting portraits during rather long sessions or when I had a lot of people to photograph, it also was huge an overly obvious when out shooting in public, I now do those things on a MKIII with an 85L which although heavy, is short and balances with the camera quite beautifully.

But there are times I want to go longer and have been planning to get the 70-300 IS L that's just coming out, but I had thought it would be out by now and there doesn't seem to be any information coming from Canon. Where it would work if the image is good enough is that it's a constant f4 from 70mm through 134mm and much lighter than the bigger zoom, with new IS.

Then I got to wondering about giving in and getting the 70-200 2.8 IS MKII just because it appears that the image quality is so excellent and also has general build and stabilizer improvements, but then I'm adding the weight again.

So my third option and it's been around a while, is the little 70-200 IS f4 and I'm wondering how it compares image wise and bokeh wise to the 70-200 f2.8 MKII when shot at an f4? The area of the lens that I would be most interested in is 85mm through 135mm.

I'm not that concerned about sharpness, I know all three will be excellent and fit my needs, I'm more concerned about the "look" for portraiture, there is so much more to clarity and the way a lens handles skin than sharpness.

I would be totally thrilled if Canon made a portrait zoom that was 70mm to 135mm f2.8 IS with the new optics, made especially for portraits with the kind of rendition that you can get out of an 85L or 70-200 2.8 IS MKII.

Any input?

Dorman
18th of October 2010 (Mon), 16:52
I previously owned the 2.8 MKI, and now own the F/4 IS. I rented the 2.8 MKII for a week (just returned today). Initial impressions are that the sharpness, color + contrast are much better on the MKII wide open than the MKI. Likewise I would say that if you are planning to use the lens @ F/4 than it will be a toss up between the F/4 IS and the F/2.8 MKII. Check out Bodank's thread on the subject for some photographic evidence. I think the true question will be if either lens at F/4 gives enough separation for your needs? If so the F/4 is less expensive, much smaller + lighter, and less conspicuous.

Here is the thread I mentioned, first he compares the MKII w/ the 135L, and then with the F/4 IS:
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=945834

gonzogolf
18th of October 2010 (Mon), 16:59
I've enjoyed using my 70-200F4 IS for portraits. It doesnt give supershallow DOF like the 85L, but in its context it does a nice job. I dont have exif on this shot, but I think its near wide open.

http://kevin-jones.smugmug.com/Other/Jordan/Jordan0037A/855336395_9CyD7-M.jpg

ni$mo350
18th of October 2010 (Mon), 18:31
Shot wide open on the f/4IS from saturday's e-session. Bokeh quality still surprises me for a zoom @ f/4

http://i578.photobucket.com/albums/ss222/goddardca/5088384040_08347c4fe9_b.jpg

trevert2
4th of March 2011 (Fri), 17:30
shot at f4. Was just a quick snap but the lens is nice
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5260/5483741439_35368a6c19.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorpowell/5483741439/)
Gyongyi Hungary 2010 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/trevorpowell/5483741439/) by Trevor Powell (http://www.flickr.com/people/trevorpowell/), on Flickr

KKing
29th of April 2011 (Fri), 05:59
I really love the 70-200f4 lens for portraits, but then budget meant that the f2.8 was never really an option. :(