Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM for Portraits...

I have a Digital Rebel with the kit 18-55mm lens. I'm looking to get another lens for portrait. I'm thinking about the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM. Hopefully, the longer 70-200mm has "background blur which is soft and creamy."

The f/4.0 is a little smaller and lighter than EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS Image Stabilizer USM- which I also considered buying.

The f/4.0 weighs 3.0lbs vs f/2.8 weighs 3.5lbs.
And length of f/4.0 is 6.8 inches vs f/2.8 length is 7.7 inches.

Of course cost is huge difference: f/4.0 is $580 and f/2.8 is $1650 at B&H.

I've read some good reviews here:
http://www.fredmiranda​.com …oduct=14&sort=7​&thecat=27

http://www.the-digital-picture.com ….0-L-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

The Rebel's 1.6x conversion factor would make this lens 112-320mm. Would this be too long for portraits or actually perfect?

I've read reviews on this board about f/2.8 but not much about the f/4.0.

I'm not sure if the extra stop, size, weight, and cost of the f/2.8L is worth it...And oh yeah, that other feature Image Stablization in the f/2.8..

http://www.bhphotovide​o.com …ails&Q=&sku=183​198&is=USA

You will have even better control of DOF with a faster lens.

Take a look at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/b​okeh.shtml

So that 85 mm/1.8 might not be that bad an idea.

Another advantage of using a prime for portrait is that after a portrait session, all photos will have the same FOV, and they won't look too different when all put together (not just head+shoulders on one shot, and the torso in another shot) like what might happen if you zoom during the session.

But that'S something I heard somewhere, as I don't have any experience in professional portrait photography.

Best regards,
Andy

So basically, it sounds like you're asking if it worth the extra $500 to $1100 to go from a f/4 to a f/2.8 lens.

If you are serious about photography, it may be worth the extra investment. Even if you never shoot at the wide open 2.8 aperture, I've heard the optics will still be better in your smaller apertures. The larger lens will only help you in indoor situations where you can't use a flash. As for the IS, they say this buys you up to 3 more stops of light...it's useful if you end up traveling without a tripod, or need to shoot moving subjects. If you don't need the IS and are on a budget, you should also consider the Sigma 70-200 2.8, not as rugged and sealed as the Canon, but a good quality lens nonetheless.

Yes, it does weight twice the amount as an f/4, so you will probably need a more stable tripod too.

If you can afford the f2.8, and you are set on that focal range, go for it. The wider max aperture of the 2.8 allows you a little more control in blurring the background (shallower depth of field). The focal length is not bad for portraits at the shorter end, especially for head/shoulder portraits.

If you had the 17-40L, the 50 f1.8 or f1.4, and the 70-200 f2.8L, that would be a pretty good battery of lenses for most portrait needs. My personal favorites for portraits are the 50mm f1.8 and the 85mm f1.8, but I like primes for portraits.

It really gets a little confusing at times remembering which lens to use for which situation with 3 different formats...for head/shoulders portraits, I use a 135mm for 35mm format, a 150mm for 6x4.5 format and a 85mm for the 10D.

I use the 70-200 F/4 for mostly all of my portrait work. I like blurring the background on my outdoor shots. It's a good lens and will carry you a long way. The only time I wish I had the F/2.8 is doing low light work such as shows & some sporting events @ night when you can't use flash. Then I crank up the ISO & pic my shots.

VegasBoy: I'm debating between the F/4.0 and the f/2.8.
Do you think you would carry the 2.8 with you to sporting events since it's bigger/heavier than the 4.0. I've read on some websites that the 4.0 is good for carrying around on nature hikes. And the 2.8 is better suited for tripod situations, and tripod is necessary? I want the lens mainly for portraits but also will use it outdoors, nature.

Is the 2.8 that much heavier and bigger than the f/4.0? I don't want to get the 2.8 and never use it because I don't want to lug it around with me.

There are no local stores who carry these lenses, so I can't handle them.

Does the 2.8 really make a bigger difference for low light indoor shoots?

Thanks, all for the replies. Now I'm seriously considering the f/2.8 USM. I'm not sure if I can justify spending extra for "IS" though.

I traded my 70-200 f/4 for a f/2.8 version. The telephoto effects on the background blur, combined w/the L quality and small DOF is short of amazing.

For low light situations get the F/2.8L IS. Handheld in low ambient light, I can't get a sharp picture of 1/60-1/100 or slower, and i've seen acceptably sharp pictures from the f/2.8L IS at 1/30.

For general use, the F/2.8L is great, and since *I* think F/2.8 is too slow for low light (i choose to use the 50mm f/1.4, faster and lighter) it works great for me right now.

For outdoor photography, the F/4.0 is great. Optically on par with it's two bigger siblings and significantly lighter. Indoors and low light is where it shows it's faults.

-hza

Also, I just wanted to add: The one stop difference between the non-IS f/2.8 to the f/4.0 will double your shutter speed, but don't expect miracles. I would expect the IS version to excel at low-light photography however.

I think Canon should *seriously* consider putting IS in the F/4.0L model.

-hza

This is my first semi-pro zoom telephoto lens.

I didn't realize how siginificant a tripod and steadiness is. Okay, I did know but I didn't realize how UNsteady I was.

How much of help is the Image Stabilization?
I'm considering the "70-200 f/2.8 USM with IS" but it weighs twice as much as my 4.0.

Is the weight difference that noticeable in actual use. Do you guys use a tripod all the time with the 2.8?

I can see my weak arms getting tired from holding a 2.8 after 15 minutes. Yes, I'm a wimp...

Do you guys actually carry your 2.8 around your neck on outdoor events?

I hope JandR.com will let me exchange the 4.0 if I decide to change to a 2.8. They should be happy to get more money?

Now I need to get an Alien Bees Digibees setup with B800 and the Manfrotto 322RC2 Grip Action Ballhead...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

The IS will be useful only for photographying non-moving objects in really low light, because it will let you use much slower shutter speed without actually blurring the image by the camera shake. Such slow shutter speeds are not sutable for shooting sports events for example, where fast speeds are needed (generally 1/250 and faster), therefore the IS is not needed in such cases.
I guess you'll have to decide what kind of photography you will do with the 70-200 and then to decide if the IS will be useful for it. If you want it for hand-held portraits of really steady-sitting people in low light - then go for the IS version. But then again - why not use a good tripod or at least monopod ?

pn.md wrote:
VegasBoy: I'm debating between the F/4.0 and the f/2.8.
Do you think you would carry the 2.8 with you to sporting events since it's bigger/heavier than the 4.0. I've read on some websites that the 4.0 is good for carrying around on nature hikes. And the 2.8 is better suited for tripod situations, and tripod is necessary? I want the lens mainly for portraits but also will use it outdoors, nature.

Is the 2.8 that much heavier and bigger than the f/4.0? I don't want to get the 2.8 and never use it because I don't want to lug it around with me.

There are no local stores who carry these lenses, so I can't handle them.

Does the 2.8 really make a bigger difference for low light indoor shoots?


Thanks, all for the replies. Now I'm seriously considering the f/2.8 USM. I'm not sure if I can justify spending extra for "IS" though.

When you look @ the overall specs of the 2.8 it is heavier & @ the time of my purchase I was looking into the $$$ of all the products I still needed to complete my bag. I've played wit the 2.8 @ sporting events and I would use it on a monopod more than free style. As time goes on & my health grows old I would shoot more on a tripopod or mono than freestyle.

If you have the cash go for the 2.8 I feel after I start generating more income from this hobby I'll trade up. But so far even in low light I've been able to pull off some good shots I just have to pick my shots more careful & I'm not doing any major pro work.