Canon 70-200 f/4L for portraits?

<p>I have the 70-200 f / 4 L USM and not use it for portraits. I have read positive reviews on the use of this lens doing portraits. Does anyone have any experience to share? my sensor is not full frame. Thanks!<br /></p>

<p>Why do you <strong>have</strong> a 70-200 L lens? What did you think when laying out that money, that it might be useful for? And, why don't you just try it out on a portrait...and see what you think?</p>

<p>I agree with Robert, although I bought mine for stage shooting when the photo pit means I can't get close enough. However, I did shoot some portraits with it and it works just fine.</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/images/sandi8.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /><br>

<em>Sandi</em></p>

<p>I don't have one (a friend does), but I've heard only good things about the optical quality of the 70-200 f/4 L. My concerns for shooting portraits are: 1) f/4 isn't very fast if you want to lose/separate the background, and 2) 70mm is already at the longer end of the conventional 85-135mm full-frame equivalent portrait lens range. Not that there's anything wrong with shooting portraits longer, but you might find you'd prefer an wider option. (I lived with a 135mm for a while on full frame, and only picked up an 85mm later, so this may or may not bother you.)<br />

<br />

If you're thinking of getting one anyway, you can take perfectly adequate portraits with it. If you're looking for a portrait lens, it's no 50mm/85mm f/1.2, so it wouldn't be my first choice. On a budget, I'd think about the 50mm Sigma f/1.4, for what it's worth.</p>

There's plenty of blur and "background separation" in Jeff's example. You don't need a super fast lens for portrait

work. Very fast lenses do permit some unique depth of field possibilities, but whether that's important to you depends

on your taste. I usually shoot portraits in the f/4 to f/8 range, because I want to see more than a few eyelashes in

focus.

 

My 70-200 f/4 IS adds a bit of distortion, but it has the bonus side effect of making people look slimmer than they

really are. It's very easy to correct in Lightroom or other popular programs, but sometimes it looks so attractive that I

opt to leave it uncorrected.

<p>Dan - Jeff's example has a relatively shallow depth of field because the subject is close to the camera. If more of the subject is included - especially a full-body shot, more so if the subject doesn't entirely fill the frame - then a larger aperture starts to be more useful even with most of the subject in focus.<br />

<br />

However, I agree that ultra-fast lenses for portraiture aren't always necessary, and that a smaller aperture (especially at longer focal lengths) can often be fine. I typically shoot candids in places with ugly backgrounds, so I tend to find myself picking a wide aperture at the expense of the subject being totally sharp throughout, but my circumstances are a bit extreme. Much of the time, I agree that f/4 is plenty fast enough - especially at the 200mm end, and especially on a lens that's acceptably sharp wide open, as the 70-200 is. If you can control the background, f/8 is fine as well.<br />

<br />

To be clear: The 70-200 is perfectly capable of taking good portraits. A faster prime (or zoom) just gives you more options for blurring the background when you need to; when you don't need to, the f/4 is as good as anything else. If I were looking to buy a portrait lens, the 70-200 f/4 wouldn't be my first choice because sometimes I <i>do</i> need those options for blurring the background more, and on a crop sensor I'd prefer to have the option of a shorter focal length available. If I wanted a 70-200 f/4 anyway, I'd not hesitate to use it for portraits. All lenses have compromises and limitations - so long as you don't need to shoot in a way that the lens can't handle, you're fine.</p>

<p>I use my 70-200/4 for candids. Only a bit of blur or good contrasts in lighting are needed to achieve good background separation.</p>

<p>If you want to do those "big blur" portraits, where perspective and foreground/background size relationships are less important, a fast prime like the 85 f/2.8 or the 100 f/2.0 can be really nice.</p>

<p>I've done almost all of my outdoor portrait shooting over the last couple of years with my 70-200/4 L IS on my full frame and crop bodies, and couldn't be happier with it. There is the rare occasion when I wish I could open up the aperture to f/2.8, but the zoom's portability over it's much bulkier, heavier, more expensive cousin more than makes up for this "shortcoming."</p>

<p>And the 70-200/4 produces outstanding bokeh for a slower zoom, particularly if the subject is well in front of the background. I've taken most of my best outdoor portraits with this zoom (though I never use it indoors, preferring my faster primes for that work).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Jeff's example has a relatively shallow depth of field because the subject is close to the camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It was shot at 200mm, I wasn't very close given that.</p>

<p>Oops - sorry, Jeff. I carelessly thought I was seeing more foreshortening than I in fact was, and assumed you were at the wide end (but it's still quite a tight crop). Conventionally, 200mm (especially on a crop camera) is very long for a portrait lens, but it certainly helps in losing the background; I use a 200 f/2 (on FX) for portraits for a similar reason. At the 70mm end the background would obviously be less blurred, but that takes us back to the question about whether the "FX equivalent of 85-135mm" convention for portrait lens focal lengths is valid or not. The farther away you're prepared to go, I suspect the more appropriate the 70-200 f/4 becomes; there are plenty of pro photo shoots done with big supertelephotos, so it can't be entirely wrong. It does, perhaps, get a little fiddly to do a full-body shot at the long end, though - my 200mm is fine for candids and moderately close crops, but I eventually got an 85mm (on full frame) for full-length images because I got tired of having to shout to the subject.</p>

Andrew, you are absolutely correct with regard to the relation of subject distance and background distance. That said,

I find that when I take a head shot at an f-stop wider than 2.8, not only is the background blurred but most of the face

is as well. I rather dislike this effect and would prefer to position the subject so they aren't directly in front of a

distracting background. I can shoot at a somewhat smaller aperture, even up to f/11 if necessary in order to capture more of their features in relative sharpness. I just don't like

fuzzy faces. :-)

<p>Oliver- With the near legendary optical quality of canon's 70-200 series ( I have the 2.8L series II, the IQ is simply outstanding-I use it for driver portraits/ candids every weekend), what's not to like about it for that purpose? On your cropped sensor, it will be akin to having a 100mm (115) 135mm and 180mmF2 at your disposal. Just be careful on the longer end, as compression can distort your subjects features.</p>

<p>Thanks guys for all your advice. Today I understand that taking portraits is what I should start doing. It's good to know what you look to do portraits with this lens.</p>

<p>Dan - agreed, it's a "look", and I substitute having an entire face perfectly sharp for getting rid of more of the background. If you hate this look, I can't argue that a faster lens for portraits is going to be useful (although if you still want to lose the background, Sigma's 200-500 f/2.8 might have a customer...)</p>

 

<blockquote>On your cropped sensor, it will be akin to having a 100mm (115) 135mm and 180mmF2 at your disposal. Just be careful on the longer end, as compression can distort your subjects features.</blockquote>

 

<p>Just to pick up on that: a 70-200mm f/4 used on crop-sensor Canon behaves like a 112-320mm f/6.4 on a full-frame camera used in the same location in terms of field of view and depth of field (not in terms of exposure, unless you also scale the ISO of the full-frame camera by 1.6) - I'm not sure where the "F2" came from. In my experience compression is a relatively minor effect, but then I'm probably used to candids and seeing people from further away/not head-on to the camera. There's still plenty of aperture to separate the subject from the background, just not (as I tend to need) to make ugly details in the background disappear completely.</p>

<blockquote>unless you also scale the ISO of the full-frame camera by 1.6</blockquote>

 

<p>[Edit: unless you scale the ISO of the full-frame camera by 2.56. Sorry for any confusion.]</p>