70-200 f2.8 instead of 85mm 1.8?

I picked up a 5Dc for portraits with a 50mm f1.8 STM. I also wanted to get the 85mm f1.8 but then I thought, should I consider the 70-200 f2.8 IS II instead of the 85? I see other portrait lengths are 100mm & 135mm which makes another case for the 70-200. Cost and weight aside, what would you guys advise? I don't want to go to the low 1.2 & 1.4 apertures and have a low keeper rate from what I've heard. The 85mm costs about $350 new, then add lens hood cost, figured why not put that money toward the 70-200.

iroctd wrote in post #17594112
I picked up a 5Dc for portraits with a 50mm f1.8 STM. I also wanted to get the 85mm f1.8 but then I thought, should I consider the 70-200 f2.8 IS II instead of the 85? I see other portrait lengths are 100mm & 135mm which makes another case for the 70-200. Cost and weight aside, what would you guys advise? I don't want to go to the low 1.2 & 1.4 apertures and have a low keeper rate from what I've heard. The 85mm costs about $350 new, then add lens hood cost, figured why not put that money toward the 70-200.

Heya,

I do my work at 35mm, 85mm and 200mm on a 5Dc.

I shoot mostly at F2 and F2.8 for portraits outdoors. Indoor, I stop down to F4 to F8 depending on how close I am to subject. And I mostly use the 35mm and 85mm for that. Outdoor I use any and all.

200mm requires a lot of working room for full body. So keep that in mind. 85mm is the "universal" focal length in my experience for all things, as you can use it inside, outside, full body, headshot, etc. It keeps that telephoto look, good compression, without being really long. When I shoot at 200mm for a full body, I have to be quite a distance from the subject(s).

A 70-200 is a classic focal length series for distance shooting and portrait. Just have to figure out if you really want the long end of the lens for portrait work.

You could also entertain a 70-200 F4L IS, for cost.

I used to shoot a 70-200, but ultimately went back to primes. I just like the size and working distance, and I like having the option to open my aperture wider. I also found I rarely shot away from 85mm~100mm for most of the portrait work, so I didn't feel the need for wider, nor the 135mm area. And 200mm I use the least for portrait, because I find I just like to be closer to subject in general. When I want maximum compression though I use 200mm. So ultimately I went back to 85mm as my most used portrait lens.

I suggest you buy a 70-200 or rent one and try it out. And maybe pick up an 85mm just to see which feels right for you. At the end of the day it's all about how it feels for you in your hands and what perspectives you like.

I like getting down and low and shooting at an upward angle mostly for my outdoor work, so a smaller setup that is fast works better for me (and I use ND filters as you know for ambient light control).

**********

Here's a quick comparison (ignore the model, the purpose is to see the different rendering of the background, etc) of the EF 85 F1.8 (at F2) and the EF 200 F2.8L (at F2.8):

85mm F2 and the working distance was pretty close still (as in about 12 feet away or so approximately):

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uyUv​tF

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/uyfN​7N

For portraits I use the 85/1.8 indoors and the 135/2.0 outside. My usual aperture is 2.5 or 2.8, because I mostly take half-body shots.

The zoom you are considering covers the popular focal lengths for portrait use. But if I was to shoot full-body portraits, I might want a wider than 2.8 aperture.

Very helpful, Thanks for the images, it reminds me of a youtube video I watched about backgrounds and focal lengths. I think my first thoughts were 70mm for full body and around 200mm or so for head shots / head & shoulders. The local Best Buy keeps telling me I can bring in my camera body and try out lenses, I think I'm going to do that.

What is the reasoning behind this "But if I was to shoot full-body portraits, I might want a wider than 2.8 aperture."

iroctd wrote in post #17594809
What is the reasoning behind this "But if I was to shoot full-body portraits, I might want a wider than 2.8 aperture."

Given the framing, depth of field depends only on aperture, irrespective of focal length used.

A given aperture will yield a wider depth of field on a full-body framing than on a half-body, the latter involving a shorter (measured in multiples of FL) subject distance.

Therefore, since f/2.8 fits my style on half-body, it would create too much DOF for my taste at full-body shooting distance.

In other words, to keep the same physical DOF, you need a wider aperture on full-body than on half-body.


VWDOF is my preferred calculator for framing, DOF and background blur calculations.

http://toothwalker.org​/optics/vwdof.html