canon 70-200 can I handle portraits with f/4?

Hi, I don't care about IS. I want to get some long zoom for tight portraits, I've 85 f/1.8 but I want tighter portrait look, so 70-200 looks more versatile to me. I want to know if anyone can give me example of 70-200 f/4 portrait, I want to see how bokeh compares to f/2.8 please... thanks!

http://www.pixel-peeper.com/lenses/?len​s=14&p=1

thanks, great site btw... very useful. ok so I need more money for 2.8, bokeh is allot better.

The 70-200 f4 IS is a terrific portrait lens. These are dog portraits, not people portraits, but the lens does a great job of isolating the subject. I used to own a Sigma 70-200 f2.8, and I actually prefer the results I'm now getting with the f4 IS. I also prefer the 70-200 over the 85 f1.8, particularly for outdoor portraits. It's a very versatile lens.

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

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

OP was concerned specifically abou bokeh, Your right picture exactly illustrates what he was concerned about.

sandro9mm wrote in post #11755474
thanks, great site btw... very useful. ok so I need more money for 2.8, bokeh is allot better.

The bokeh I've gotten from the f/4 is wonderful. Not "85/1.2" wonderful, but as good as I've seen with the f/2.8 (and I've certainly not experienced the f/2.8 to be 'a lot' better than the f/4).

Perhaps you're confusing 'bokeh' (ie. the quality of the background blur) with the amount of background blur?

edge100 wrote in post #11755609
The bokeh I've gotten from the f/4 is wonderful. Not "85/1.2" wonderful, but as good as I've seen with the f/2.8 (and I've certainly not experienced the f/2.8 to be 'a lot' better than the f/4).

Perhaps you're confusing 'bokeh' (ie. the quality of the background blur) with the amount of background blur?

hm, perhaps 'confusing' is a bad choice of word... with bokeh I always meant quality and the amount together. No need to separate these concepts in my head. Obviously f/2.8 will have more bokeh, but how pleasant f/4 bokeh looks depends both on amount and quality and this is exactly what I was asking for.

own both lens but prefer to use the 70-200 2.8 more often than the 85 1.8

sandro9mm wrote in post #11755698
hm, perhaps 'confusing' is a bad choice of word... with bokeh I always meant quality and the amount together. No need to separate these concepts in my head. Obviously f/2.8 will have more bokeh, but how pleasant f/4 bokeh looks depends both on amount and quality and this is exactly what I was asking for.

Bokeh refers only to the quality of the out of focus areas, not to the amount of blur (ie. the depth of field). Bokeh is subjective.

It's meaningless to say that the f/2.8 lens will have "more" bokeh than the f/4. That's like saying one steak has "more good taste" than another; it either tastes better or it doesn't. One doesn't quantify quality in that way.

The f/2.8 will have the capacity for shooting with a shallower depth of field than the f/4, of course, but the subjective quality of the resulting blur may be better, worse, or the same as the f/4. I've found it to be about the same (and very good on both lenses).

To use another example, compare the blur created by the 50/1.8 and the 50/1.2L. When set to the same f/stop, these lenses will have the same DoF, but no one would claim that the bokeh is equivalent.

Bokeh = quality of the blur, not the DoF.

The EF 70-200/4 l IS is the model you really want. Better optics and IS does help, or you can turn it off. Nice MFD as well. Want blurry backgrounds? Keep the background far away. And, yes for a zoom lens, it does have some nice bokeh, IMO.

gasrocks wrote in post #11755882
The EF 70-200/4 l IS is the model you really want. Better optics and IS does help, or you can turn it off. Nice MFD as well. Want blurry backgrounds? Keep the background far away. And, yes for a zoom lens, it does have some nice bokeh, IMO.

It is much easier to turn the aperture dial to F2.8 than to move the background away.

My old 50D with the 70-200 F4 IS @ 100mm F4:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

Given the use of a 100mm FL at f/2.8 at 10' (3m) which is a very typical shooting distance with that FL to achieve a head & shoulders portrait...

1. the difference in DOF (f/2.8 vs. f/4) is 5.3cm (12.7cm vs. 18.0cm). The difference in where the rear DOF limit is located will be a mere 2.7cm (1.1") difference!
   
   
2. The amount of background blur (a separate issue, which is not the same as DOF) is dependent upon FL, so since we are comparing same FL, the amount of background blur is going to be somewhat influenced by aperture selection. Scrool half way down this page to see difference in amount of background blur at 200mm with different apertures http://www.bobatkins.c​om …on_ef_70-200_f28L_IS.html
   
3. Another completely separate issue is the bokeh of the two lenses...if one has more pleasing bokeh vs. less pleasing bokeh. Without direct comparison photos with same subject matter and same backgrounds, one only makes assumptions about the outcome of such a comparison.
   

For me depth of field effects quality of bokeh. end of discussion. u are right about semantics though.