70-200 II - one of the best ever portrait lenses?

A niche portrait lens is the 135L......cheaper of the L lenses but simply amazing. I dont own one because my 85L and 70-200 works well for my needs.

I tend to love the 85L for indoors and 70-200 more for outdoors.

All I can say is the 70-200 has always been and insanely accurate beast of a lens. Awesome tool!!

Yes it is. the only true challenger is the 85 1.2, as it can do significantly better with background blur in tight quarters, and does much better in low light, as its 2.5 stops faster.
135L and 200L, individaully are marginally superior at a single focal length. I had 135 for a while, and found its advantage for portraits to be size and weight.
I end up using my 85 more, simply b/c I tend to shoot indoor a lot more.

People talk about how they prefer a two lens or 3 lens combo better. However, thats not a single lens option.

kevindar wrote in post #17258669
Yes it is. the only true challenger is the 85 1.2, as it can do significantly better with background blur in tight quarters, and does much better in low light, as its 2.5 stops faster.

I couldn't help laughing at your joke, thank a lot for the laugh

More seriously Canon do not have the universal panacea with his 85L ... third party lenses can be as good as or even better and cheaper

Reservoir Dog wrote in post #17258721
I couldn't help laughing at your joke, thank a lot for the laugh

More seriously Canon do not have the universal panacea with his 85L ... third party lenses can be as good as or even better and cheaper

You are welcome

for my usage, there is no third party lens that competes with 85 1.2 for portraits, due factors such as lack of AF, lack of Consistent AF, lack of f1.2 aperture. for your use it may be different. I am sure there are third party lenses that people may prefer due to cost, over all sharpness at certain aperture, having the letter Z in the name, etc.

I am with you. My personal experiens with Zeiss is the most sad memory of my photography life and maybe this is why I love 70-200 II so much, I can rely on it 100% and I will never miss a moment. Being able to consistently nail focus in every situation is a big part of success for me.

kevindar wrote in post #17258777
You are welcome

for my usage, there is no third party lens that competes with 85 1.2 for portraits, due factors such as lack of AF, lack of Consistent AF, lack of f1.2 aperture. for your use it may be different. I am sure there are third party lenses that people may prefer due to cost, over all sharpness at certain aperture, having the letter Z in the name, etc.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17256425
Between 135mm and 200mm are an infinite number of variations, and thus an infinite number of compositions and looks. Why just stick with 2?

Because f/2 at that focal length compresses the image untill it starts to look like a short supertele. You can't really make a 70-200 do the same thing.

Xyclopx wrote in post #17256425
Yes those two lenses make pictures look pretty. But pretty looks are worthless if the overall photo is boring. And his pics clearly show that you don't need a $5000 lens to make excellent photographs. $2k will do

You don't need a $2k lens to make a good photo either, I don't understand how this is relevant; The thread title is "one of the best ever portrait lenses?", so naturally i'd talk about portrait lenses regardless of the pricetag

Xyclopx wrote in post #17256425
Also, I have a copy of Helmut Newton's Sumo on my coffee table. Hundreds of photographs from one of the most famous people photographers ever to have lived. I think I count absolutely 0 --ZERO-- pictures shot at an aperture bigger than f2.8, if even that. Almost all of them have a background or setting that is interesting, and thus in focus. If there are any that do have thin DOF, then clearly those weren't his best because I don't remember any like that.

I also have books of various other famous people photographers... same deal, almost none are shot at large apertures. DOF should not be a band-aid for lackluster technique and composition.

I'm not trying to be like other photographers nor do I want to follow them. To say that DOF is a band-aid for lackluster technique is quite a statement

Xyclopx wrote in post #17256425
I have a challenge for you: can you find any world famous or iconic portrait that has thin DOF?

Im sure there are tons

Today I did an Autumn family shoot in Vancouver's Olympic village. I had my 85L in my thinktank lens bag on my hip......didn't even use it once. Used the 70-200 and 16-35.

Interesting how a photoshoot goes by "feel" and how things "roll".