70-200 4Lor 2.8L

i'm thinking about selling my 85mm and getting a 70-200 4L or 2.8L

now i know the 2.8L is going to be the obvious choice of many, but will the 4L suffice? i use it mainly outdoors or indoors with studio lighting, so is the 2.8 for me is really only a requirement for DOF.

i'm not sure how much image quality improvement i'll get over the 85mm but im looking for more reach and and no drop in quality.

How do you define quality? Your prime will be as sharp or sharper than a much more expensive zoom. I found the 70-200 f4 IS to be a great lens. Plenty sharp and with IS which is essential for a lens of this length in my opinion.

it needs to be sharp, and i know i wont get sharper. right now the 85 is my longest lens, and i need more length on occasion and sometimes i just cant move to the spot i need to be.

i know a 70-200 is in my future, but im not sure if i need to go all into the 2.8 or if he 4L will work for now.

i mainly shoot outdoors when light inst really an issue and im usually stopped down to the f4 or more anyway, just not sure if i will miss the ability to go shallow or if its plenty sharp wide open.

when I was in the same boat I went for the f4 and could not be happier. Sure, sometimes 2.8 would be nice, but that's pretty rare. I don't shoot much in low light and today's cameras can go pretty far in high ISO with no problem anyway. The f4 is a lot cheaper, a lot smaller, and a LOT lighter. Those were the points that made me decide. It's very sharp, a great lens I can carry around all day. I'd only get the 2.8 if I really needed the extra stops for low light. You can do some low DOF faking pretty easy in post if an image requires that. Not the same, but close enough for me. If you have the extra cash and don't intend to carry this thing all day, get the 2.8, otherwise I'd suggest the f4. and buy something else nice for the difference

I've used it in the studio with no problem, usually shoot around f8 there anyway or switch to my 50/1.4 if I really need very low DOF.

Both are excellent lenses, I doubt you'd see much difference in anything but the DOF issue.

I realize this does not answer your question but it is something to consider if you want a great portrait lens if plenty of room is available: Canon EF 300mm f/4.0L IS USM

A lot of "ifs" in that statement. Images are stunning when shot with a 300mm f/4.0L IS lens.

mike_311 wrote in post #15808164
i'm thinking about selling my 85mm and getting a 70-200 4L or 2.8L

now i know the 2.8L is going to be the obvious choice of many, but will the 4L suffice? i use it mainly outdoors or indoors with studio lighting, so is the 2.8 for me is really only a requirement for DOF.

i'm not sure how much image quality improvement i'll get over the 85mm but im looking for more reach and and no drop in quality.

Having never used 2.8L, I cannot really comment on it, but I absolutely love my 70-200 4L non-is. Image quality is fantastic compared to other zooms I have used in the past (18-135 STM, 28-105 mkII, 75-300mm). It is also very portable and extremely fast to focus.

f4L will be plenty sharp, outdoors daytime no problem, indoor studio light could go either way. You always can stop down the 2.8, but the price gap from a 70-200 f4L to a 70-200 2.8L ISII is enough to cover a 6D, 5DmkII, 7D, 60D, T4ix2, etc. I'd probably keep the 85, and get the f4, then use the 85 for situations you find lacking light but not wanting to pull out the flash.

While I've got a 70-200 f4L, I will admit it rarely sees use with an 85 1.8, 135 2, and 300 2.8 in the bag and I think the 135 could cover all need from any of the 70-200s and an 85 1.8 (the 1.2 earns itself a different look when shot at 1.2 that the 135 can't entirely replace). The difference there is if 135 is too short I can grab the 300...which if you're shooting outdoor sports is an important note, if it's just portraits you could zoom with your feet.

mike_311 wrote in post #15808206
it needs to be sharp, and i know i wont get sharper. right now the 85 is my longest lens, and i need more length on occasion and sometimes i just cant move to the spot i need to be.

i know a 70-200 is in my future, but im not sure if i need to go all into the 2.8 or if he 4L will work for now.

i mainly shoot outdoors when light inst really an issue and im usually stopped down to the f4 or more anyway, just not sure if i will miss the ability to go shallow or if its plenty sharp wide open.

With your requirements, I think that the f4 should be all you need. I use it and even add a 1.4x II teleconverter for outdoor shots and haven't had any problems at all. Quite the opposite - this is an amazing lens. Like Gonzogolf said above, the IS version is great. Even if half your work is on a tripod, when you hand hold it, the IS is a godsend. Better to have it when you don't need it than not have it when you do.

For me it came down to the “need” for f/2.8 as I occasionally shoot weddings, and indoor events; since purchasing a 2(x) teleconverter I am overjoyed that I opted for the extra cash up front.

great comments, no sports here, strictly portraits. i have though about the idea of getting a 135 to supplement instead but they don't make a nonL version., and if im dropping that kind of money, i may as get a 70-200.

i really just work with a 50 and 85 now. part of me is content, but there are times when i wish for longer, like when i don't want to get right in someones face.

is the 4L very sharp at f4 or does it need to be stopped down?

mike_311 wrote in post #15808821
great comments, no sports here, strictly portraits. i have though about the idea of getting a 135 to supplement instead but they don't make a nonL version., and if im dropping that kind of money, i may as get a 70-200.

i really just work with a 50 and 85 now. part of me is content, but there are times when i wish for longer, like when i don't want to get right in someones face.

is the 4L very sharp at f4 or does it need to be stopped down?

I have a 70-200, but it gathers dust in favor of the 135L for portrait use. Unless you can get the 70-200 2.8 IS II its not even close. You need to be specific about which variations of the 70-200 you are considering because the IS versions are optically different than the non-IS so there is a difference in performance in each.

Have a look at this video

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=n_g2JRj-V-E

It may offer you some help.

I have both the 70-200/4 IS and original 70-200/2.8 IS... as well as 85/1.8 and 135/2.

Trust me... For portraiture, keep your 85/1.8 and add the 135/2L! On your 5DII both are superb portrait lenses. For portraiture, the zooms will not be better in any way and give you less control over depth of field (are f2.8 at best). The "Canon white" zooms are larger, heavier to hold for long sessions, and more intimidating to non-professional subjects, too. The only real advantage the zooms bring is the convenience of not having to move yourself, to get the composition your want. I use them for sports, but generally not for portraiture.

I happily used 50/1.4 (left) and 85/1.8 (right) for portraits on crop cameras for years...

i can add the 70-200 for a few hundred or i can get the 135L for $1300. hmmm

but thanks for fueling my lust.

If you can do without the 2.8 for DOF, get the F4L IS. Its sharper than the standard F4 and the 2.8L/ IS Mk 1.