70-200 f/4IS vs 100 f/2.8L for Potraits

The 135 is beast!!

Mr_Smith4852 wrote in post #16094438
The 135 is beast!!

... and the lack of IS is irrelevant with the high ISO capability of the 6D body.

I have the 100L and used to own 70-200f4 IS in the past. This one really comes down to where and how you are using it.

With f4, what you want to do is predominantly shooting at 200mm or close to to compensate the slow aperture. Therefore it's more suitable for outdoor when there's plenty of space. The zoom of course is more versatile and can be used in tighter space, but shorter focal length, say 70-135mm @ f4 will not be as nice.

I hardly use the 100L for portrait as I have better lens for the task. But I have to say when I do I like the result.

Conclusion - I think you should go with the zoom and add 100L later, or consider the Canon 85 1.8 as a cheaper alternative.

Get a fast prime. Since you ruled out 135mm, take a look at 85mm f1.8 or sigma 85mm f1.4. f4 is too slow for me for bg blur.

85mm f1.8 at f2

If you like 70-200 zoom save for the 70-200mm f2.8 IS II.

Just dropping by to say that the 70-200 F4 is capable of shooting with a maximum diaphragm of 50mm at 200mm FL (200/4). the 100 f2.8 is capable of shooting with a maximum diaphragm of 35.7mm (100/2.8) .

The 70-200 is therefor capable of producing a more blurry background at equivalent subject framing, but only if you shoot at 200mm. At 140mm f4 the 70-200 will produce the same amount of background blurring, and at anything less than 140mm, the 70-200 will produce less background blurring than the 100mm.

I agree with many others in this thread. Buy a fast prime and stop worrying about IS so much. the 85 1.8, 100 f2 would both be great. the 135 is even better and the 85 1.2 is the betterest.

^^^^ +1


I have the 85 1.2, the 2.8 mkII, and the 100L, I have used them all over the place, and still find uses for them all. For what you have suggested I would pick up the 85 1.8 and see where that takes you. By the way do not discount the the 50's, with a 85 1.8 and a 50 version I think you shall find a bokehrefic photo lifestyle.

200mm is quite a ways back for a portrait shot, especially for the half body/full body shots you specified. I recently went back and looked at the exif in most of my portraits and found that my shots usually ranged between 70-115mm. The exif is intact in these in case you want to see the focal length, most of these shots are half body/full body, but they're mainly glamour flickr.com/photos/rick​randh/ (NSFW)

I'm gonna agree with bobbyz and say get the Sig 85. 70-200MKII is too damn big and heavy, especially for traveling. I also think the 24-70MKII + 100L would make a pretty versatile walkaround/travel setup and still cover portraits and food photography. However, you're going to need quite a bit of distance behind the subject if you want to destroy the background for full body portraits with the 100L.

Depending on a crop or full frame body, my two staple lenses begin with a 17-55/24-70 and a 70-200 L IS lens. Years ago I bought the 70-200 f/4 L IS as money and rumors of a possible 70-200 f/2.8 L IS Mark II were starting. The f/4 sharpness along with drastically reduced weight allowed me to purchase at that time to fill my needs. When the relase of the Mark II 2.8 was public, I knew I could unload the f/4 L IS at a moments notice. I did buy the the new 70-200 f/2.8 L IS in January of 2011. And boy am I glad I did. However I did not sell or unload that also wonderful f/4 L IS. Just yesterday I decided to go light on the beach with the f/4 L IS. I tell you what. Every time I use it I am glad I did not unload it as the reduced weight alone really is nice. The sharpness between both the f2.8 and 4 are similar. Fortunately I am in a situation as keeping both are a must, especially if I need to send back the 2.8 for service.
Absolutely no regrets buying the f/4 L IS first and still using today and in the future.

ceegee wrote in post #16094040
The 70-200 f4 IS is a great portrait lens and gives excellent subject separation. I use it a lot for animal portraits.

nice work ceegee.

@ 200 you will get tons of blur

1. Portraits

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …211250&k=3dkpMt​6&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …684990&k=fzCffT​f&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …061379&k=XLvVPF​m&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …949330&k=GXXgrF​p&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …547006&k=WMpRDK​G&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …109409&k=3CSK8v​Q&lb=1&s=A

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …075179&k=7jNpxT​t&lb=1&s=A

KristyT2i wrote in post #16093789
P.S. I should add that the 135L is out for me. I like having IS and may consider it if it gets updated soon.

P.P.S. Most of my portraits are going to be half body to full body shots. So i'd most likely stay between the 70-135 end. But I'll be outdoors so it doesn't matter too much.

I never missed IS on my 135L since it gives me, when i treat it right, the best possible image quality i would expect.

I have both and the 100mm 2.8 is better for portraits because it gives you the option of 2.8. Of course, the zoom is more versatile. However, I rarely use either for portraits because I have the 100mm f2 which is better for portraits than the 2 you're considering.

I had 100L, 70-200/4 and have 135L. I'm mainly portrait photographer, and to be honest i would go for 70-200/4. 100L and 135L are beautiful lenses, but also very specific. 100L sucks in lowlight (on minimal distance it's around f/5.6), 135L is very limited - it's "magic" shows olny in few situations, and as a lens it's bit too long and it's horrible when framing into sun.