Discussions (284)

70-200 2.8 II vs 100-400 II

view profile

mj Markovitch says:

I had a 70-200 2.8 II for a few years and it was my goto lens for portrait work and outdoor photography.

I got out of the portrait genre for awhile and sold the lens and picked up the new 100-400 II since I was doing more outdoor work. It is an amazing tack sharp lens.

I'm getting back into doing portrait and model work and trying to decide if I should pick up another 70-200 2.8 II.

Does anyone here own both?

What are your thoughts?

6:48AM, 21 January 2015 PST (permalink)

view photostream

irina_escoffery says:

I own both lenses. Both of them are amazing. I believe for just portrait work you don't need 70-200. I love shooting birds and action photos. For me, 100-400 is a little slow as it's pretty much useless during clouded not very bright days. For portraits you probably appreciate nice background blur and shallow depth of field. At this point I think both lenses create a very nice blur when they are large open.
Have you tried manual lenses for portraits? Helios makes amazing portraits.
Good luck in your work! Irina
58 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

yuanxizhou says:

what is best setting for soft image like flower with blur background with 70-200 2.8 IS
46 months ago (permalink)

view photostream

photocat001 says:

aperture value mode at f/2.8.
13 months ago (permalink)

Would you like to comment?

Sign up for a free account, or sign in (if you're already a member).