70-200 4 is or not

[kribee]

<p>Hi all!<br>

I am very happy with my 5d + 24-105 (I also own 35 1.4 and 50 1.4).<br>

However, I need some kind of telezoom. I am mainly into landscape and portrait.<br>

I am about to get the 70-200 4 is, maybe with tc 1.4x, as it seems to be a fantastic lens. However, I am<br>

wondering if getting a 70-300 is + 135 2.8 would be more versatile... Could you help me choose?<br>

Is f4 enough for portait ? will 70-300 is be good enough coupled with 5d II which I guess i will get next year?<br>

thank you</p>

<p> </p>

[tommyinca]

<p>No (IMHO), 70-200/2.8 is more versatile. It is just not light weigt but it is more versatile. With a 1.4X it is actually a good 70-280/2.8-4 zoom. May be (pushing it a bit) better then a 70-300 or 135/2.8 alone :-) </p>

[tdigi]

<p>Is F4 enough for portraits? Try some with your 24-105. But yes you can do studio portraits at F4 F 5.6 F 8. However, considering your set up, I would vote for the 70-200 2.8 ( non IS ) over any of the above options. </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have had a 70-200 2.8 over twelve years. My all time favorite lens for things like night time sports and bad light swimming meets indoors. However, there are many time the f4 would have been less of a burden and I think it a real bargain for about the same IQ as the 2.8. You see it a lot in congressional hearing as those guys like its lighter weight and smaller size. Both very good lenses IMO> </p>

[pjmeade]

<p>I think the 70-200/4 makes a pretty fair portrait lens. I've been very pleased with it. It's a lot easier to carry than the

2.8 for landscape use.<br /><a title="Adi by Peter Meade, on Flickr"

href="

src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2114/2062687524_624bc057aa_m.jpg" alt="Adi" width="160"

height="240" /></a></p

[paul_russell1]

<p>I have the 70-300 IS and the 135 f2.8SF & the 200 2.8.  If I'm doing landscape work the 135 never makes my bag, although I use it for

other stuff.  I prefer the 200 f2.8 in use but obviously the 70-300 is more flexible.  For that reason I would back the 70-200 & 1.4x.  <br>

If I were buying afresh i would have one lens, the 70-200.  By the time you add the 1.4x you won't be any worse off in terms of speed

at the far end, the build quality in particular is far higher and you won't curse the extending body and rotating focus ring of the 70-300.   The

70-300 is a good lens, but its build belies its price.  The 135mm is redundant pretty much in most landscape situations if you have a 70-

200 f4.</p>

[sbp]

<p>Ditto Tommy and Tommy. F/2.8 is really nice for portrait work, particularly if you can't put enough distance between your subject and the background to create a nice blur. With the 1.4 extender, the f/2.8 becomes fixed f/4, and still allows autofocus function. IMHO, IQ is also significantly better than the 70-300.</p>

[gdanmitchell]

<p>There's a popular myth that you must have f/2.8 (or f/2 or f/1.4 or f/1.2) to shoot portraits. While there are a few situations in which you might need this, most portrait photography is done at smaller apertures and for this work f/4 is fine.</p>

<p>If you must have the larger apertures for portrait work but you want the 70-200mm range for your landscape work, consider getting the excellent non-IS f/4 70-200mm L zoom and an appropriate focal length prime for you portraits. You could actually get this zoom and a couple of very useful portrait primes for the price of the f/2.8 70-200mm zoom, and you would arguably be set up better for portrait work and just as well for landscape.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have done a lot of portraits with the 70-200 2.8 and also with a MF 150(equiv to 90mm 35 mm cam)f4 and any other camera and lens combination sitting around my former studio. I did not worry about Bokeh because I controlled the background with lights and different color backgrounds. IMHO there is really no such thing as a portrait lens just lenses of different focal lengths and apertures. </p>

[DickArnold]

<p>I have done a lot of portraits with the 70-200 2.8 and also with a MF 150(equiv to 90mm 35 mm cam)f4 and any other camera and lens combination sitting around my former studio. I did not worry about Bokeh because I controlled the background with lights and different color backgrounds. IMHO there is really no such thing as a portrait lens just lenses of different focal lengths and apertures. </p>

[matthijs]

<p>Me and my wife use the 70-200/4 IS.</p>

<p>I use it for anything that comes to mind (but mostly improvised abstracts and architectural detail).</p>

<p>My wife uses it to shoot candid portraits of our kids and kids at school. She never misses the extra stop. However if there's not enough light OR not enough distance between subject and background you might miss the 2.8.</p>

<p>In short: if you listen to the pro's they'll advise you to get the 2.8 and never look back. If you listen to this amateur, get the 4 IS and let yourself be amazed by what it can do for you unless you absolutely positively need the extra stop.</p>

<p>Kind regards, Matthijs.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p>Well I might see that the 70-200 f2.8 IS might be just a little better for portraits. However for me the f4 version is infinitely superior for town and country because at least I'll carry it. And that to me is the measure of versatility. If you look at reviews it loses nothing to the more expensive and bigger lens in terms of performance.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>I just got the 2.8 IS. Awesome lens, definitely worth the extra $$ for this version.</p>