70-200 2.8 IS II vs. 4 IS ... again

facts:
-i will use it for portraits and the rare kid graduation
-i think the II IS is heavy and big, i'm having doubts of this being an everyday lens (i got to play with the mark 1) but i'm also the guy who wants to have THE best
-i have the 100L and i love the 2.8 IS feature.
-if i did get any of the tele zooms, i might still reach for the prime for portraiture
-if i did get the mark 2, it might kill my dream lens 200 f2 IS (that's a good thing)
-i shoot in ambient light
-though i use primes, i'm attracted to the zoom versatility
-i don't want the 135 f2 ... right now

questions:
1) for portraiture, will f/4 vs. f/2.8 IS matter?
1a) will i have enough shutter speeds with the f/4?
1b) will having a bounce flash help with the f/4 enough to trounce the mark 2?
1c) don't we want a smaller opening anyway to get more of the facial features in focus?

2) anybody have both and kept both?

3) anybody have any of these teles and have a 200 f2 IS?

bonus question:
if the 200f2 IS was the same size, weight and price as the 70-200 mark 2

which would you choose? 200 f2 IS or 70-200 f2.8 IS II (you will have this ONE telephoto and no other)
basically IQ/speed vs. versatility

mike cabilangan wrote in post #10137216
questions:
1) for portraiture, will f/4 vs. f/2.8 IS matter?
1a) will i have enough shutter speeds with the f/4?
1b) will having a bounce flash help with the f/4 enough to trounce the mark 2?
1c) don't we want a smaller opening anyway to get more of the facial features in focus?

2) anybody have both and kept both?

3) anybody have any of these teles and have a 200 f2 IS?

it's one stop difference that's all.. for most applications that's not worth 1000 $

but if you don't get good results with the 85 1.8 you won't be getting good results with the zooms imo.. unless you need to use the prime at shutterspeeds like 1/160 or something?

you can't handhold the 85mm to let's say 1/60-1/80?

PS taking portraits @ ISO3200 seems a bit weird, use some strobes

mike cabilangan wrote in post #10137223
bonus question:
if the 200f2 IS was the same size, weight and price as the 70-200 mark 2

which would you choose? 200 f2 IS or 70-200 f2.8 IS II (you will have this ONE telephoto and no other)
basically IQ/speed vs. versatility

depends on what you want to do with it..

70-200 alot of versatility for uncontrolled situations. and the 200L will give you something extra - double shutterspeed -, I doubt on the other hand if someone will say woow that picture must be taken with the 200L because it's not possible with the 70-200 @ 200mm..

just like the difference between the 85L and 85mm is more in the mind of the photographer than anything else

germinal wrote in post #10137234
it's one stop difference that's all.. for most applications that's not worth 1000 $

but if you don't get good results with the 85 1.8 you won't be getting good results with the zooms imo.. unless you need to use the prime at shutterspeeds like 1/160 or something?

you can't handhold the 85mm to let's say 1/60-1/80?

PS taking portraits @ ISO3200 seems a bit weird, use some strobes

i do bring my flash most of the time, but there are times when i am tasked to take a picture immediately out of the bag. these are not "formal" portraits btw. these are just snapshot portraits of family and friends.

i did get a lot more keepers with my 100 2.8 IS than the 85 1.8. in short, it really wasn't the subject's fault, but my involuntarily shaking hands.

These are just my 2 cents, although I won't be able to answer all:

1. f/2.8 will give more profound background blur, regardless
1a. Depends on where you're shooting, if it's bright outside then definitely!
1b. Can't tell you, sorry
1c. f/2.8 is not nearly narrow enough to blur onces facial features
2. I only have a 70-200 2.8 IS and I wouldn't trade it anytime soon
3. Answer above goes for this one too

Bonus answers:

I'd go for the zoom, image quality on the Mark 2 (from what I've seen) is simply astounding and I couldn't live without the convienence of being able to change composition with a simple turn of my hand!

Optically, they are both absolutely stunning. You'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between them. (Technically, the 2.8 mk II is a few line pairs sharper, but it's a pretty darn small difference, and the f/4 IS already competes with the very best primes in the range, and it has a little more pleasing bokeh).

So, it really is a decision to be made by you: f/2.8 or lighter weight. If you need f/2.8, shell out the dough. If you don't, then save your money and your back. None of us can answer that question for you. You'll get a little better subject separation at f/2.8 vs f/4 (though the f/4 can still generate a LOT of background blur at the longer focal lengths), and you'll get double the shutter speed. If you want to shoot this in low light, the extra stop will more than likely be useful. If will shoot mainly outdoors with this, then I'd go for the f/4 IS.

Get the 70-200 f2.8 IS L MK II. I had the f4 IS at one time and while it was an excellent lens, I rarely used it because I found I needed the extra stop for low light and portraits.

I just bought a 70-200 MK II to replace a 70-200 F4 and ended up sending the MK II back. Its a beast and heavier than my 100-400. It also no sharper than my F4 L IS. For portrait work below F4 I have a 100L. The reality is that F4 for portraits... at least on a full frame camera is just fine. The DOF @ F4 is very thin anyway, especially at 200mm.

Unless you just have to have 2.8 for low light or where you cant use a flash, than save the money and the weight and get the F4 version.

Why would you use anything but your 100mm 2.8 for portraits? If you want the best, you already have it with this extremely sharp lens. So, if you drop $2500 on the new 2.8 zoom, you'll get what you already have... great sharpness at 2.8! To answer your other question, what would I rather have, the new zoom or the 200mm 2.0 if they were the same price? I would MUCH rather have the spectacular 200mm 2.0 as its the most incredible lens Canon makes.

And finally, you say you wouldn't be interested in the great 135mm 2.0. Why not? If you want great outdoor portraits, this is your lens, and its a fraction of the cost of the great 200mm 2.0. If you really want a slight improvement for portraits over your excellent 100mm macro, I'd buy the very fast and sharp and light 135mm 2.0 and save for a later purchase of your dream lens, the 200mm 2.0.

If you have the 100 f/2.8L IS and the 85 f/1.8, just use them for portraits and if you still need a tele-zoom get the 70-200 f/4 IS. Personally I like Sigma 50 f/1.4 (Sigmalux) for portraits on a crop frame camera.

Kronie wrote in post #10137457
I just bought a 70-200 MK II to replace a 70-200 F4 and ended up sending the MK II back. Its a beast and heavier than my 100-400. It also no sharper than my F4 L IS. For portrait work below F4 I have a 100L. The reality is that F4 for portraits... at least on a full frame camera is just fine. The DOF @ F4 is very thin anyway, especially at 200mm.

Unless you just have to have 2.8 for low light or where you cant use a flash, than save the money and the weight and get the F4 version.

looks like i missed out on some details ... i will use an FF cam for portraits.

nightcat wrote in post #10137588
Why would you use anything but your 100mm 2.8 for portraits? If you want the best, you already have it with this extremely sharp lens. So, if you drop $2500 on the new 2.8 zoom, you'll get what you already have... great sharpness at 2.8! To answer your other question, what would I rather have, the new zoom or the 200mm 2.0 if they were the same price? I would MUCH rather have the spectacular 200mm 2.0 as its the most incredible lens Canon makes.

And finally, you say you wouldn't be interested in the great 135mm 2.0. Why not? If you want great outdoor portraits, this is your lens, and its a fraction of the cost of the great 200mm 2.0. If you really want a slight improvement for portraits over your excellent 100mm macro, I'd buy the very fast and sharp and light 135mm 2.0 and save for a later purchase of your dream lens, the 200mm 2.0.

because i heard that the compression on 200mm would be great for portraits
plus of course, the versatility of the zoom (i think the 70 side should be wide enough for most uses)

i'm still wishing for a 135 f2 IS

peter.pan wrote in post #10137721
If you have the 100 f/2.8L IS and the 85 f/1.8, just use them for portraits and if you still need a tele-zoom get the 70-200 f/4 IS. Personally I like Sigma 50 f/1.4 (Sigmalux) for portraits on a crop frame camera.

since 100 is my longest FL, if any occasion comes up, i won't have a telephoto in my kit (believe me, the nifty two fifty is haunting me, but i keep thinking that i don't want to buy the 250 and will only "settle" for the f4 IS. then if im thinking about the f4, i might as well think about the 2.8.)

main usage would also be indoors, mostly nighttime, ambient light

70-200mm /2.8 L IS is more versatile as a portrait and wedding lens. If you do wedding or PJ, I would strongly recommend it. But for portrait outdoor/indoor, the 100/2.8L macro should be good. I don't have the 100L yet but I may probably add it to my line up or replace the 85/1.8 with it later this year. Same as you I just don't have very steady hands, so the latest IS will be a must.

mike cabilangan wrote in post #10137216
questions:
1) for portraiture, will f/4 vs. f/2.8 IS matter?
1a) will i have enough shutter speeds with the f/4?
1b) will having a bounce flash help with the f/4 enough to trounce the mark 2?
1c) don't we want a smaller opening anyway to get more of the facial features in focus?

2) anybody have both and kept both?

3) anybody have any of these teles and have a 200 f2 IS?

1. You can get great separation with f/4, and in many cases you'd want at least f/4 for portraits anyway.

1a) I've never had an issue, with the types of photography you mention, in getting good enough shutter speeds with my f/4 IS. The IS allows you to hand-hold at fairly low speeds anyway.

1b) Don't know - can't help here.

1c) For my animal and kid portraits, I rarely shoot below f/3.5 or f/4. If there's more than one subject in the frame, you need an smaller aperture anyway.

2) I used to have a 70-200 f/2.8 non-IS but sold it and bought the f/4 IS instead. I've never regretted my decision. The f/2.8 was just too big to carry around on a daily basis (I found I was leaving it at home more often than not, because of the weight), and I had a problem with the lack of IS because my hands aren't that steady (arthritis). The f/4 IS is an awesome lens in every respect, and light enough to carry anywhere.

i'm hearing that a lot. those who have the 2.8 leaving it at home, i wonder if i only had one (no f4 IS) if i would still leave it home.