New lens mainly for portrait... good choice or other options?

[shootermcgavin]

I am thinking of picking up the canon EF 70-200mm f2.8L USM, mainly for portraits but I'll probably use it for other stuff too. First anyone have it and happy with it? Second is the IS necessary, for $1,000 I'm thinking no and my Tamron I usually turn it off. If there's any other lenses I should look at I'd love to know, I'm trying to get a little bit better quality glass than my canon 50mm1.8 and tamron18-270. Any input appreciated.

 

[cgipson1]

IS is nice... especially in lower ambient light when you can't use flash! 2 to 4 stops can make the difference on a shot....

 

[shootermcgavin]

I guess what I don't understand about IS is that if it's on a tripod it ruins the photo... so if it doesn't know to turn off on a tripod what if I'm really still on the shot for some reason. It's kind of like ABS, I don't really like what I can't control. Also there is a II version lens that cost $500 more, how do you determine if it's worth it or not? "one fluorite and five UD elements for increased optical quality and reduced chromatic" I guess it does that.

 

[analog.universe]

The Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 OS is nearly as sharp as the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS II, and like half the price. It's not quite as good as the Canon, but it's close, and I think I'd prefer it over the Canon without stabilization. Shooting 200mm at 1/40 is pretty sweet.

 

[analog.universe]

You can check out sites like lenstip.com and photozone.de for technical lens comparisons. You can see exactly how much of an effect fluorite and UD elements have, and decide if that's worth $500 to you.

 

[Robin Usagani]

I just bought a 135 f/2L. It is the sharpest portrait lens for canon period. It may be too long if you have a crop sensor.

 

[Big Mike]

I guess what I don't understand about IS is that if it's on a tripod it ruins the photo... so if it doesn't know to turn off on a tripod what if I'm really still on the shot for some reason.

Very unlikely that you (or anyone) holding the camera, would be still enough for the IS to cause blur. The IS uses some sort of gyroscope to help steady the lens. Only when it's very, very still, will that cause movement and give you blur.

As for your actual question...yes, IS can be worth it...but not always. I can sometimes get decently sharp, handheld photos at 200mm with a shutter speed of 1/20. I don't think I could do that without IS.

IS does not help to freeze moving subjects, so if you're shooting sports or even portraits, it won't be as useful...but I'd say it's still better to have it than not. $1000 is a hard pill to swallow though.

 

[shootermcgavin]

I like that 135mm Schwetty, I've got a 60D right now so I believe you're at 1/1 and I'm at 1.6 I think that's what you meant. The price on the 135 is nice I kind of wanted to get the 5D II and I might be able to justify picking them both up. I went to get the 5D this weekend but the guy at the camera store talked me out of it, he said I'd be better of getting an older camera for some reason and that image quality is mainly done in post processing the 60D is as good as I'm going to get... they're actually a pretty big camera store too I haven't really ran into that sales approach before. That photozone site is nice I've been looking for something like that, thanks analog.

 

[o hey tyler]

I have the Sigma 85 f/1.4 on a full frame camera and love it. My girlfriend uses it on her crop frame as well and she says it's somewhat of a narrow field of view (~135mm), but the image quality is excellent and the background control doesn't hurt either.

 

[dakkon76]

The majority of my photos are portraits and I love my 2 primes. The 50mm f/1.4 is great for full-body shots, and the 85mm f/1.8 on my crop sensor can't be beat for head shots. I hear the 70-200mm makes a great portrait lens... but to get an IS f/2.8 is substantially more and really massive overkill if you don't intend to use it for more than portraits.

I had a Canon 50mm f/1.8 that I upgraded from because I wanted better mechanical performance and higher image quality - my Sigma is MUCH nicer than the Canon, which I sold for not much less than I paid for it. If you like that focal length, upgrade to a different 50mm. If you have something that zooms to 85mm, give that length a try for a bit and see if it's comfortable for ya.