70-200 2.8 or 4 for portraiture

[philip_jacobsen]

<p>Hi guys,<br>

I am currently deciding between the 70-200 2.8 is II or the 4 is. I will be using this lens for a lot of things but my question is about portraiture:<br>

Is there a normal aperture for portraits in controlled environments? Like, even if you have the 2.8 you will set it to 5.6(example). Is the 2.8 a better portrait lens or will the f/4 be just as good?<br>

Thank you<br>

Phil</p>

[tim_ludwig2]

<p>What camera system and what lens manufacturer? Is it full frame size or the smaller digital chip or film? Are you shooting only available light or with a studio flash system or both? Do you want a very limited depth of field or to include foreground and background in focus? Are your lighting conditions bright or dim for focusing? Lots we need to know to try to help.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>There's no normal, because it depends on the look you're trying to create, the type of composition you're after (a head and shoulders image? a full-length portrait of two people?), and how much control you want over depth of field. <br /><br />One important consideration: the f/4 lens is never going to open up wider than f/4, which means that while you're composing and focusing (at which time a lens is always wide open) it's not pulling in as much light as a lens that opens up to f/2.8. If you're in poor conditions, or perhaps in the studio under dim modeling lights before the strobes fire, the faster lens can really help you see what's happening, and can help the camera's autofocus system to work more reliably.<br /><br />If you <em>do</em> like shooting at, say, f/4.5 ... the f/2.8 lens is going to be stopped down a fair bit from its wide-open aperture, while the f/4 lens would be just <em>barely</em> stopped down. This matters because most lenses aren't at their best when wide open or nearly so. The f/2.8 lens is going to be closer to its sharpness sweet spot than will its slower counterpart if you're shooting closer to f/4. <br /><br />What camera are you using? That also enters into the thought process.</p>

[philip_jacobsen]

<p>canon lenses, 60D crop body, i am also considering tokina 50-135 2.8 non is. Any thoughts on that?<br>

The f/4 is reported to be as sharp as 2.8 at the same f stops.<br>

Im thinking about portraits outside where i use strobes combined with natural light aswell as only strobes at night for example.</p>

[philip_jacobsen]

<p>And also, how about a non IS 2.8 over a f/4 IS?</p>

[alan_chan4]

<p>Between non-IS 2.8 & IS 4, I would take the IS every time. Another consideration is the weight & size. The 2.8 is substantially bulkier & heavier than the 4 IS. If you really want the f2.8, at least check out the actual lens b4 buying just in case.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>For portraits outside, where we may encounter limitations on how much we can control the setting, the ability to de-focus the background with a fast lens can really help. Defocusing to improve an imperfect background, to me, is more important than using the aperture which provides the sharpest image. Among the choices you have considered, I would select something with an f/2.8 maximum aperture. BTW, when a friend who shoots Cannon saw a series of images made with an 85mm f/1.8 and a humble little D50, she went out and bought an 85mm f/1.2 to put on her then-new 5D.</p><div></div>

[patricklavoie]

<p>for me the best all around Canon lens are the 24-70 2.8, and the 70-200 IS 2.8... i have that always in the same bag as my dslr. I like 2.8 because i like the effect i can have while using it, like the fact that i can shoot in a lower light condition, and i find that with prior test that the 2.8 was sharper than the 4 lens... at that time anyway.</p>

<p>But yes, *normal* portrait in control studio light, 8-11 is what you are after most of the time for clean straight portrait.. so 2.8 or 4 wont be a big deal... but IF one day you need it, you will have it ; )</p>

[rob_piontek]

<p>70mm on DX can force you to be pretty far back for full length shots. nothing wrong with that and some would prefer it, but make sure you are ok with it before you buy. </p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>2.8 makes a big difference over 4 in dropping the background out of focus. Also 2.8 gives you more versatility -- the lens can also be used for indoor and night sports, for example. IS s important if you're shooting handheld. But if you're shooting portaits in the studio on a tripod, it's irrelevant.</p>

[ted_suss]

<p>I was always taught that a lens is sharpest 2 stops down from "wide-open". That being said, if you're shooting at f 5.6, you'd be better off with the f 2.8</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Philip, I agree with Patrick on the Nikon side. But a warning, I went with the 70-200 2.8, loved it so much converted to full frame to get it at effective 70-104. I use it in and out of studio, although, if Nikon ever gets units out, the 85 1.4 may just take it head at the table. You might consider the Sigma 50 1.4 on your crop camera with an effective of 80mm for a third the cost of the 85 1.4 on full frame. Its one thing Nikon and Canon guys often agree on. When you have a cluttered background or want the isolated subject to pop out of a buttery out of focus bg, you'll never regret the purchase. Outdoors with room even in the dark as here, get back 15-20 feet, open up, zoom in, add some light. It produces some great results. </p><div></div>

[alexandrutunschi]

<p>Why are people talking about Nikon lenses, when the OP is on Canon? Also if I don't know the lens, I don't talk. But 70-200 F4/IS is a wonderful lens that I own. It's a beautiful lens, sharp wide open. I shoot constantly with it at SS of 1/40 - 1/50 s. handheld with great results.Need more light? Up with the ISO. 60D is very capable. When I bought it, I was hesitating between F4/IS and F2.8/IS Mark I. The 2.8 lens is softer wide open and almost as sharp at F4 compared with the F4/IS. Also is heavier and more expansive. If money is not an issue, than buy the 2.8 Mark II which is sharp from 2.8, but you'll get beautiful results with the F4/IS. It's under 900 EUR. Rent them both and put them to work and then make a decision. A. </p>

[simon_t1]

<p>I would'nt sacrifice the extra stop to gain lighter lenses. I been through a similar situation when I had the 24-105mm vs the 24-70mm, yes the 24-70 it heavier. But I got used to it and I am happy that I decided for the 24-70mm as I find the extra stop very helpful, especially in low light were subjects move, here IS is not so helpful. <br>

Just my thoughts.</p>

[bob_bill]

<p>Alexandru, as I read the question, it was about whether using a 2.8 lens is better for portraiture than a 4. ("my question is about portraiture") It didnt strike me as a Canon lens comparison question that would have been more properly located in the Canon forum.</p>

[shoppix]

<p>As in the last few messages, I like the additional capbilities of a 2.8 lens. More DOF control and sometimes your strobe won't work and a 2.8 lens may save the day, where the f4 will cause you to pack up & go home.<br>

The 85 prime is a great lens(1.8, 1.4 or 1.2). A pro photog I know in NH, Steve Bedell , often uses a Sigma 50-150 f2.8. Pretty sure it now has VR feature.<br>

My vote for the 2.8...more buck$, but worth it.</p>