Canon 100 400 for portraits

I was wondering if anyone has any experience shooting outdoor portraits of people while using the 100 400. I would mostly be shooting

between 100 and 200mm. I know it's not a 70 200 2.8 but how will it compare. I have searched online for reviews as a portrait lens but I can

only find reviews for wildlife and airshows. Thanks in advance.

<p>Well, I don't have this lens yet, but it's on my list right after the TS-E 17mm :)</p>

<p>It certainly has the coverage at the low end to satisfy both traditional portrait lengths (100mm) and longer portrait work (ca. 135mm), but unless you want to focus in on face parts from a long way away, everything from 150-400mm is along the lines of "more than you need".<br>

In addition, it is 92mm x 189mm and weighs 1.38kg (3.6" x 7.4", 3.1 lbs.) and its maximum aperture is only f/4.5-5.6. This is fairly slow for portraiture. Someone who has the lens can speak to its "bokeh" qualities, but I doubt it would equal one of the shorter, faster zooms for that. The f/2.8 70-200L is slightly heavier and longer, so it's pretty much Hobson's choice so far as length and weight go.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can only find reviews for wildlife and airshows</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Frankly, that's because few people would ever think to use this sledgehammer to drive a small tack.</p>

<p>I have taken some outdoor family portraits with this lens (mounted on 50D) and was very pleased with the results. The background blur is probably the weakest point.<br>

One suggestion, go to http://www.pbase.com/cameras/canon/ef_100-400_45-56l_is and check the samples. If you keep pressing "more" you'll find some people that use this lens for portraiture.</p>

<p>I wouldn't consider the 100-400 for outdoor portraiture, since the 70-200/4 IS is so much better in this regard. And it's also $400 cheaper!</p>

<p>It wouldn't be my first choice for that, but it is an amazingly versatile lens. (Yes, I have it.) On a full frame camera the 100mm end of the focal length range is in a reasonable portrait range, and a f/4.5 you'll be able to control DOF enough for a lot of shots.</p>

<p>Assuming that you don't already have the lens... if you main need is a lens for doing portraits and similar stuff, I'd probably look elsewhere. On the other hand, if you need the 100-400 for other purposes and you are just wondering if you can shoot it effectively at 100mm or so... yes.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p >This lens is one of my most used outdoor portrait lenses. And I very much satisfied with this lens. You may have a look to result</p>

<p >http://www.photo.net/photo/9404871</p>

<p >This lens is one of my most used outdoor portrait lenses. And I very much satisfied with this lens. You may have a look to result</p>

<p >http://www.photo.net/photo/9404871</p>

<p>Would it be my first choice for outdoor portraits? No, that honour would go to my 100mm 2.8 Macro or 24-105 L depending on the situation.</p>

<p>Would the 100-400 do the job if it was already on the camera? Indeed it would, and I've used I this way a few times. After all, it *is* L glass, so it's going to perform reasonably well within it's limits. It's just optimised for other things.</p>