Long lens for portraits?

Shooting people is not my forte, so bear with me here. I recently read somewhere people saying they mostly use a 70-200 lens for portraits (seniors, etc.).

I always thought the best focal length was somewhere in the 50 to 100 range. Always some exception to the rule, of course.

Am I missing something here? What do you use for portraits? I know many seniors like outdoor shots, so maybe that's the reason for the longer lengths.

During a shoot, you may encounter scene limitations that require longer focal lengths. Perhaps the person is on a bridge and you are off to the side, or they are in steps, etc. many times you might stay in the lower range of the 70-200, but having the length is nice for some creative shots. I have used a 50mm 1.4 but it is sometimes too limiting.

The 70-200 provides me flexibility in my placement to the subject.

You don't mention which body you are using, that makes a difference. On a full frame body a 50mm lens can give you perspective distortion if you are working close enough for a 3/4 body shot or less. This link will show you the effects of different lenses using a similar framing. http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …distortion/stri​ppage.html.

So much depends on the sort of portrait you are trying to create. My favorite portrait lens is the 135 f2 L. The combination of the flattering compression and ability to destroy background clutter in a soft blur is somewhat magical. A 70-200 2.8 will get you close but with a lot more versatility.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19158238
During a shoot, you may encounter scene limitations that require longer focal lengths. Perhaps the person is on a bride and you are off to the side, or they are in steps, etc. many times you might stay in the lower range of the 70-200, but having the length is nice for some creative shots. I have used a 50mm 1.4 but it is sometimes too limiting.

Those are good examples. I have a 24-105, and a Tamron 180 Macro, but I can see where I might want better flexibility than that.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19158244
You don't mention which body you are using, that makes a difference. On a full frame body a 50mm lens can give you perspective distortion if you are working close enough for a 3/4 body shot or less. This link will show you the effects of different lenses using a similar framing. http://www.stepheneast​wood.com …distortion/stri​ppage.html.

So much depends on the sort of portrait you are trying to create. My favorite portrait lens is the 135 f2 L. The combination of the flattering compression and ability to destroy background clutter in a soft blur is somewhat magical. A 70-200 2.8 will get you close but with a lot more versatility.

I intended to include the body, then it slipped my mind. I am currently using a full-frame 6D v1.

My hands down favorite lens for environmental portraits ( where I can move around ) is the 135L. For studio ( or when you have some sort of lighting setup in a controlled environment ) I like having some flexibility so that's where something in the 70-200 range is ideal.

Tommydigi wrote in post #19158409
My hands down favorite lens for environmental portraits ( where I can move around ) is the 135L. For studio ( or when you have some sort of lighting setup in a controlled environment ) I like having some flexibility so that's where something in the 70-200 range is ideal.

When you use the 70-200 what would you say is your most common focal range?

I don’t have one anymore but it’s nice if you have lights set up to able to zoom. That being said for head and shoulders type shots 85-100 is pretty much ideal for me. I find 135 gets really tight if you have limited space.

I almost never shoot in a studio... so my favorite range is from the 135 to 200 range. At 2.8, it provides nice bokeh but also renders the image slightly compressed looking. Good for environmental portraits.

Its worked for me.

Since portraits aren’t moving often it’s really a convenience of field of view. Foot zooming out at 200mm will give you a totally different look than walking closer and shooting at equivalent framing with 70mm.

70-200s are great for this, but they typically have a good bit of barrel distortion or or pincushion to them. A lens like the Canon 100L macro shoots an incredible distortion free image that does not distort a subject’s features. It’s also really freaking sharp.

200mm can produce beautiful portraits. Love the results of shooting long.

So, I'm looking at a Canon 70-200 f2.8. For portraits is there a significant difference between IS and non-IS?

I am presuming IS would be preferred, especially at the longer focal ranges, and double especially when not using a tripod. The non-IS is a bit cheaper (used v1), but I don't want to regret saving a couple hundred bucks.

I already have a 100 IS macro that I intend to use a lot.

I also just pull the trigger on a 100-400 L IS v1, but I'm intending that for more landscape photos. The biggest aperture is 4.5, if I recall correctly.

photoguy6405 wrote in post #19163454
So, I'm looking at a Canon 70-200 f2.8. For portraits is there a significant difference between IS and non-IS?

I am presuming IS would be preferred, especially at the longer focal ranges, and double especially when not using a tripod. The non-IS is a bit cheaper (used v1), but I don't want to regret saving a couple hundred bucks.

I already have a 100 IS macro that I intend to use a lot.

I also just pull the trigger on a 100-400 L IS v1, but I'm intending that for more landscape photos. The biggest aperture is 4.5, if I recall correctly.

If you can't get the v2 IS, keep saving until you can. Its really that much better. Its considerably sharper and has improved IS. The original isn't the sharpest wide open and stopping down negates getting it over the f4 is which is sharper, lighter, and cheaper. The 2.8 IS II is really a game changer compared to the earlier versions.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19163475
If you can't get the v2 IS, keep saving until you can. Its really that much better. Its considerably sharper and has improved IS. The original isn't the sharpest wide open and stopping down negates getting it over the f4 is which is sharper, lighter, and cheaper. The 2.8 IS II is really a game changer compared to the earlier versions.

+1

If you're going the Canon 70-200 2.8 route this is the way to go.

gonzogolf wrote in post #19163475
If you can't get the v2 IS, keep saving until you can. Its really that much better. Its considerably sharper and has improved IS. The original isn't the sharpest wide open and stopping down negates getting it over the f4 is which is sharper, lighter, and cheaper. The 2.8 IS II is really a game changer compared to the earlier versions.

Aves wrote in post #19163510
+1

If you're going the Canon 70-200 2.8 route this is the way to go.

I'm presuming the v3 would be even better. I've decided now that I do want a 70-200 IS for portraiture, but one of my admitted shortcomings is impulse buying. I cannot find any v2s for sale here right now, or even a couple used stores, so I started looking at Amazon, Adorama, etc. At Amazon, a new v3 ($1900) is "only" $150 more than a refurbished v3, which is only about $150-ish more than a refurbished v2. Part of me says to still economize, part of me says with that little difference I should opt for the better... if it really is better.

Hopefully this isn't a dumb question: Is the IS in the v2/v3 better enough for handheld for portraits, or would I still need a tripod?

ETA: There's a couple promising v2s on FM for between $1000 and $1100. It also occurred to me if I buy from a place like Amazon I also have to pay sales tax. That would add over $100. Ugh.