100-400 as portrait lens

Anybody ever pressed the 100-400 into service as a portrait lens? Before the screaming starts that it's too long, I shoot FF, so that's a true 100-400. Besides, Canon's "showcase" shots for both 300mm primes are portraits.

I don't actually take that many portraits, but when I do, I find I use the 100mm++ range. The famed 85/1.8 on APS-C is actually a 135/1.8 equivalent, so bear that in mind.

Anyway, I may be on the move in the near future and can only take one long zoom and that'll be the 100-400. Just wondering how well it covers this role in the unexpected event I have to use it as such. I already know it will do everything else I expect from it. Interested in hearing from others who have used it in this capacity. I'm aware it's not as nice as a 70-200, but the best lens is the one you have with you when you need it.

Much has been written about the 85mm amd 100mm focal lengths being too long for portrait uses especially with a crop camera, yes I am aware that you shoot full frame. Maybe allot of photographers shoot their portraits in a closet and find things too cramped but when I take portraits I find that the more I can get my camera out of the subjects face, the better my chances of having an uninhibited subject, so for my personal preference 100mm or longer would not be too long. Some of the best professional portrait and fashion photographers use 300mm and even longer. I own the 100-400mm and use it mostly for wildlife but I don't see why it couldn't be used for an occasional portrait. It is big, heavy ,not very fast and maybe not designed explicitly for portrait use but it is a good lens and if you are only carrying one lens it will probably work for you.

Any lens can be used for Portrait's the only thing that limit's you is if you cant get far enough back to get in what you want in .
Rob.

Not so crazy lightstream some of my best portrait shots have come at the long end of that lens....yes 400mm.
The bokeh is amazing and you are so far away that you capture a real candid pose.

You often here that teles are too long but I think most people are refering to INDOOR shots. The 70-200 is regarded as one of the best portrait lenses and I use my 70-210 frequently outdoors. I just picked up the 85 to use as well. I shoot with a 1.6 crop camera, btw.

Agree with Mike, a very nice candid / portrait lens!

Here is one I shot at 400mm

Man, some of the best portraits I have of my daughter I took with the 300/2.8 on a full frame body. I love what long telephotos can do for portraits....out of doors of course.

The only negative thing I'd say about the 100-400 for portraits is that it's not very fast. And for portraits it's nice to be able to control depth of field by opening up the aperature.

So the issue is not so much length, IMHO, but maximum aperature.

Here's a portrait taken with the 300/2.8. f/3.2; 1/1000s; ISO 100; natural light (sorry for the repost but it seemed apropos)

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

Byte size: ZERO | Content warning: NOT AN IMAGE

My mother in law, with my 100-400. Shadow too, ok.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

All taken with an XT and EF 70-210 f/3.5-4.5 USM

70mm

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif'

can it be done, of course. but thats a large, heavy, slow lens for portrait work. an 85 1.8 or 135L would be much better, or the 70-200 even.

Lightstream wrote in post #2265819
... but the best lens is the one you have with you when you need it.

In my view that's true, and I wouldn't hesitate to use mine for portraits.

Thanks for all the replies

True that the 100-400 is not the ideal tool, but if it can be made to work, then that's all good. I'd usually use my 70-200/2.8 but this one's staying home on the trip, so....