Lens Preference - Outdoor Portraits

I'm shooting with a 1D2 (1.3x crop) and am trying to decide between a 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 for my outdoor portraits... What do you guys/gals prefer?

I use my Canon 24-70m F2.8L and a Canon 70-200mm F2.8 IS.
Occasionally a 50mm F1.4 Prime.

If I had to choose 1 I think I actually would use the 70-200 more

Matt

I'm pretty sure you are right... I looked through my last two shoots (w/24-105L) and only a hand-full of the shots were taken under 70mm, so I'm leaning towards the 70-200 as well.

When shooting outdoors I really like the 70-200/2.8 especially when using diffusers and reflectors. Both my bodies are cropped 1.6.

nrowensby wrote in post #13621570
I'm shooting with a 1D2 (1.3x crop) and am trying to decide between a 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 for my outdoor portraits... What do you guys/gals prefer?

Since the 135L isnt on the list go with the 70-200.

I would just add, if you are getting a 70-200 2.8L make sure you get the Image Stabilised IS version.

Otherwise you will always find yourself wanting it.
The IS is outstanding especially with longer focal lengths.

Good Luck, Let us know what you do.

I love the 70-200mm f/4L IS for portraiture. The f/4 aperture provides plenty of ability to use selective DOF when the lens is at a longer focal length and the lens is also lighter in weight and considerably smaller in size. The rounded aperture blades (which the f/2.8L IS ii also has) produce beautifully soft bokeh...

I agree with the above poster that IS is the way to go in a lens of this focal length. You can always turn off IS if you have it but cannot turn it on if you don't have it.

I keep my lenses for years and years. Pro-rated, the yearly difference between the price of an IS lens and a non-IS version doesn't amount to a great deal.

I can hand hold my f/4L IS lens in lower light levels than a non-IS 70-200mm f/2.8L lens and I am alble to use my IS version 4-5x more often than the non-IS lens...

Between those two lenses outdoors, the 70-200 for sure. The short zoom isn't short enough for wide-angle perspective effects and outdoors it's not necessary for tight-quarters framing. The longer zoom is short enough for tighter outdoors quarters and long enough for good telephoto background isolation. At the longer lengths, f2.8 still nicely blurs most backgrounds.

And, yes, get IS. Most people can't hold a lens at 200mm as steadily as they think they can.

I mainly use 70-200mm f2.8 IS II. before that ver I of the f2.8 IS zoom.

does it matter if i have IS or not?

cleyvosier wrote in post #13638413
does it matter if i have IS or not?

If you're not on a tripod and not shooting fast action, IS is valuable--even with a fairly high shutter speed.

On the shorter side if you prefer to do full body/environmental portraits.
On the longer side if you want to focus on tighter portraits.
I mostly use my 50 when shooting outside (I'm on a x1.6 crop), but when I want to shot environmental it's a bit too long and I have to step back a bit too far to communicate easily. I'm trying to find a 35/2 at the moment for this reason (sadly it's out of stock everywhere).
I prefer to shoot with primes for several reasons :
- big cameras make normal people nervous (I don't shoot pro models)
- wider max aperture
- good IQ at a light price (I do have a good zoom... and it cost me an arm and a leg)
- having to move around to change framing is a good creativity stimulant
- Finally, for me, the lighter, the better. I'm a short woman with no muscle to speak of in the arms, heavy gear is very tiring !

On the prime side... I also thought about pairing a Rokinon 35 (or Canon 28) & Canon 135 w/my 85 and using those for all my photography. I haven't ever tried shooting with all primes though...

Of thost two 70-200 plenty of room to back-off and frame if you are talkin outside portraits.
Personally I use a 100/F2 wich will fall in the range of the 70-200.

I use my Canon 70-200mm F4 which works great for me, love the bokeh even at higher apertures.