Bit of advice regarding canon 70-200 variants for portraiture

scottduffy · 22 Oct 2016

Hi Guys,

I was shooting some outdoor portraits of my son recently using both my Sigma 50mm art and my Canon 100mm L macro and loved both of them. I have advertised looking for a 70-200 f2.8 IS MK2 but i'm wondering how often i'd actually use anything under f4 for outdoor portraiture and was wondering whether i should instead plump for the f4 IS version. Having not much experience with 70-200's i'm not quite sure how depth of field etc will look at a distance of over 150mm. Would f4 still give me enough out of focus area to make my subject pop? I have also noticed that when i get close to my son he notices and acts accordingly and i'd like some candid shots of him and i think the 70-200 would be ideal. I use a 5d mk2 so the lens will be mounted on the full frame camera.

Regards

Scott

MatBin · 22 Oct 2016

I believe the f4 is version is the sharpest of the 4 versions and isn't just an is version of the "ordinary" f4. The is does seem to result in a sharp image and isn't massively heavy. I used mine of a 5d and now on my 5d3, it also takes a 1.4 extender well with very little degradation of IQ. As for dog using f4 is perfectly possible as it's sharp wide open.
Matt

graycbr · 22 Oct 2016

I've got the F4 version a great light lens lovely sharp lens

Meeten · 23 Oct 2016

I have a mki 2.8is on a 6d and yes it is a heavy beast. Mine is used primarily for outdoor portraits, mostly of children playing, having fun.

I love it.

I didn't (possibly my ineptitude) the f4, but it would appear that I missed a trick.. .

scottduffy · 23 Oct 2016

Just wondering how often I'd use 2.8 for portraits as I don't really use it too often right now but I have in my head that because of the longer focal length there's more chance of getting the person in focus at 2.8 with the 70-200 compared to 2.8 using the lenses I have now. Hope that makes sense.

HoppyUK · 23 Oct 2016

There is no change to depth of field at different focal lengths, if the subject is framed the same, at same f/number (on same format). The field of view changes though, so there is less background included at longer focal lengths when zoomed in from greater distance, and this often gives the visual impression that DoF is reduced, even when it isn't. As a result, longer lenses tend to 'pop' a bit more, with greater apparent subject isolation and enhanced bokeh.

The Canon 70-200/2.8 Mk2 is a very sharp lens, and the f/4 only very slightly behind it. Six of one, half dozen of the other TBH. The big difference is to weight, with the f/4 version weighting only about half as much - and cost of course.

graycbr · 23 Oct 2016

Really down to the cost & weight as the F4 Version costs a lot less & weights about half the weight ..
Picture wise they are very close in IQ

scottduffy · 23 Oct 2016

The weight and cost are not factors for me I just thought that since I don't use 2.8 a lot now it's maybe a waste getting the 2.8 version but maybe when my technique improves a bit I will. Decisions decisions. Thanks guys.