Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L vs. Canon EF 17-40mm f/4 L

[J.Bat]

I am very into portrait photography, sr pics, band promos, maybe a few weddings. Which of these would benefit me more? I shoot with a 20D.

 

[keith204]

If you are very into portrait photography, what range do you need? Then, you will have solved your own question.

Both are very sharp lenses. Both L's, and both f/4. The only question is - what range are you trying to fill?

 

[J.Bat]

Range isn't a huge factor, I am just curious which will take a better picture and which would come in more handy. I already have a 50mm, which is why I am leaning towards the 70-200mm.

 

[ksmattfish]

You need both. Well, not these specifically, but I think you'd find both the normal and telephoto zoom quite handy.

 

[Village Idiot]

Range isn't a huge factor, I am just curious which will take a better picture and which would come in more handy. I already have a 50mm, which is why I am leaning towards the 70-200mm.

So if you're shooting in a small room and only have the 70-200 and can only get a small portion of what you need into the frame, then you're still not going to think that range is a huge factor?

 

[Mystwalker]

I have the 17-40 and it is an EXCELLENT lens, but I do not believe better then the 70-200 - I'm comparing to the f/2.8L IS though.

For portraits, unless you have a large room/studio (larger then 10-15ft), you are going to have problems using that 70mm. I have the 70-200 and no way for me to use it indoor (my house, parties, etc ...).

 

[maulrat]

I, too, am looking for a portait lens. I am wanting the freedom of taking photos in low light, indoor and outdoor, full body and headshots. I am really leaning towards the 24-70mm f/2.8L

Just another lens to consider.

 

[Big Mike]

Typically, you will want a longer lens for portraits, as it flattens your subjects...which looks more flattering to them. A wide angle lens tends to accentuate features, rather than compress them. Neither way is right or wrong...it's just up to you.

Of course, the practicality is that sometimes you don't have room to work with a longer lens and sometimes you can't get close enough and you would want/need a longer lens.

This isn't something we can decide for you.

 

[keith204]

For big people portraits (ages 5 and up) I prefer my 70-200, for kids below 5, I loved the 17-40 on a crop body. Kids at real young ages (a few months) can only see about a foot away from them apparently - and that seems to be true. With real young kids, I've been able to keep the kids looking at me much better if I'm real close to them.

 

[J.Bat]

Thanks keith.