tonyholmes

<p>A large amount of the successful pro's I know who shoot portraits on 35mm (full frame) format, use the 70-200mm f2.8 (Canon, Nikon and Sigma, all have pro versions of this model) the majority of the time. It provides the flexibility of a zoom, the clarity of a pro lens. Whilst it's heavier than a prime and may not have as wide an aperture, it's rare in my experience that you'll need anything much less than f3.2 in portraiture (shooting f2.8 at 200mm will give only a few inches of DoF which can be restrictive more than creative sometimes), so anything like the 135mm f2 or the 85mm f1.8 seems like over kill in my opinion, they may offer a little more clarity due to less elements (perhaps not enough to tell the difference?) and be lighter for the same reason, but you trade a great deal of versatility for that. Also bear in mind extra compression can be quite flattering offered by shooting at 200mm rather than 70mm. IS (VR for Nikon) or non-IS in my opinion doesn't make a bean of difference to the quality of the image.<br>

As an example of pro's that use this lens a lot for portraiture, to name just a few off the top of my head:<br>

Jerry Ghionis, Damien Lovegrove, Annabel Williams, Jo de Banzie.<br>

Just my 2 cents<br>

T</p>

Agreed, I used a 75-300 f4-5.6 IS USM for a while, but the first time my editor sent me on a floodlit game or overcast late afternoon, my shutter speeds simply weren't even close to fast enough. I hit the plastic hard and now have a 70-200 f2.8 and have not regretted it since. The decision to make is if the future photography you plan to warrants the outlay.

Definitely, if you have a nice sunny day you'll be fine, just don't plan on using the slower lenses in poorer light.

T.