17-55 VS 70-200 Portrait work on my 50d

Your thoughts. I am looking at the 17-55is and the 70-200 f2.8 non-is, since they are about the same price point. I shoot with a 50d and am strictly looking for a good upgrade for a portrait lens. Currently I work with primes, but am trying to decide if a zoom will be a nice option. I don't really need either one, but would like to add another lens to my arsenal. I don't NEED a 17-55, as I have a 30mm that I love. And I don't NEED a 70-200, as I have an 85mm that I love.

Which of these would you take?

I LOVE the 30/85 combo, so I'd stick with those and add the 70-200. It's nice for getting those "up close and personal" shots without having to get too close to the subject.

17-55mm, that way you can use it as your walk-around as well. 200mm on a crop is pretty intense for portraits :P Or you could just expand your primes and get a 100mm f/2 or a 135mm f/2

My first lens upgrade was to the 17-55. I needed the wider angle than the 28-135 kit lens has. My first impressions of this lens was WOW! Keeper rate went way up. IQ and AF speed much improved. But I missed the long end.

So...my next upgrade was to the 70-200 f4 IS. This is a double WOW! Great IQ and wonderful image separation. The head shots are mind blowing.

Please note that with either lens, older ladies complain about the details revealed in the images...every line and wrinkle! Every positive review of these lenses I read on POTN was true.

I have the usual problems with 1 body and two lenses...need the lens in the bag for this 1 shot!

I would suggest that you rent the 70-200 of your choice. If money had not been limited, I would have gotten the 2.8 IS (this was before the MK II version, which, without question, is outside my current price point).

Good luck, Paul

bakatari wrote in post #10466644
Your thoughts. I am looking at the 17-55is and the 70-200 f2.8 non-is, since they are about the same price point. I shoot with a 50d and am strictly looking for a good upgrade for a portrait lens. Currently I work with primes, but am trying to decide if a zoom will be a nice option. I don't really need either one, but would like to add another lens to my arsenal. I don't NEED a 17-55, as I have a 30mm that I love. And I don't NEED a 70-200, as I have an 85mm that I love.

Which of these would you take?

You will get nicer portraits with the 70-200 than you will with the 17-55, so if that is your only concern, the 70-200 would be the better choice. Once you get one of these lenses onto your camera, you may find that you like it and want to use if for other things. When that happens, you will probably get much more use out of the 17-55.

That Sigma lens is great from f/1.4 - f/2.2, but the 17-55 is better from f/2.8 and smaller.

Okay, just to put some perspective to this (pun intended). You can use either lens very successfully for portraits, period. The only thing that really will be different will be your perspective on the subject. At 55mm you will be closer than you would be at 70mm or more if you want the same framing. That changes your facial features perspective a bit.

Here are two I just took, one from the 17-55 and one from the 70-200, both at f2.8. There is a slight sharpness and color difference between the two, but I expect that. This shows how well the $800 lens performs compared to the $1400 lens though IQ-wise.

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

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

Which one is which? haha, they look almost the same to my untrained eye

jdmz wrote in post #10468611
Which one is which? haha, they look almost the same to my untrained eye

Top one is the 17-55. The colors are much cooler than the 70-200 (or any other lens). I can almost always see it in the skin tones if no corrections have been done.

It's comparing different lenses , but I like the 17-55 better than the 35-350 [I don't own the 70-200 f-4 yet] I find I like f4 - f8 better then 2.8 . But when I put the 35-350 on it's because I want / need it .
If you have the 85 and the 30 then The one you use most - replace with other - IE you ose the 30 the most get the 17-55 .
Why not either rent both for a day or 2 or go to a camera shop with body and snap a head shot with each .
Check on return policy before you buy . Sometimes a shop will let you borrow 2 lenses to check . Be for warned - they will want a credit card with price of both .

Which $800 lens are you talking about?

The 70-200 will be a bit long on a crop body. I'll bet you'll get more use out of the 17-55MM.

i use my 70-200 more than any lens ive ever owned. i like being away from my subjects when shooting. i think it makes them more comfortable instead of a camera right up in their face

The 70-200s are awesome portrait lenses. I use (and recommend) the f4L IS, but the straight 2.8 should be great for your use.

Kento wrote in post #10466910
17-55mm, that way you can use it as your walk-around as well. 200mm on a crop is pretty intense for portraits :P Or you could just expand your primes and get a 100mm f/2 or a 135mm f/2

These are two outstanding lenses for portraits.

I have both the 17-55 and the 70-200 F4 IS on my 40D. If I was forced to keep one it would be the 70-200 F4 IS, as it never fails to impress me with the sharpness and great bokeh for head shots.

However it would not be very good for portraits indoors in alot of occasions. It would recommend getting the 17-55 and saving for the 70-200.

These lenses compliment each other very well.