I have an EOS33 camera, and a 28-105 zoom, and a 50 1.4 lens. I've been thinking about which lens I should buy next, and would like some advice. I would like a lens more telephoto than 100mm, and some would say that the next logical step is a 100-300 zoom. I think that the 28-105 zoom is good whem i'm out and about, in daylight, it is very convenient. I have taken to taking portrait shots with the 50mm lens, rather than the zoom at 100, as it can blur the background better than the zoom. I'm inclined to shy away from 100-300 zooms, as I don't like the small maximum apertures that they have. I'm inclined to shy away from the 70-200 F2.8 as it has focal lengths I already have in my other lenses. This leads me to consider the 200mm f2.8 fixed lens. 1) Is it a better portrait lens than the 50mm f1.4 for head and shoulders shots, or is it too impractical? 2) How far away from someone will I need to stand with this lens to get a head and shoulders portrait? 3) Is it a reasonable substitute for a 100-300 zoom in practice? Or will I keep wishing for the different perspective of a 150mm lens, or a 300mm lens, or is the difference not too big a deal. 4) Is the effect of f2.8 over f5.6 on depth of field significant at 200mm? Thanks for your help......

-- Phillip Wylie (goonshow@rivernet.com.au), February 13, 2002

Answers

The 200/2.8L is a very nice lens. I got a used one several years ago, and never used the 75-300 again. I was looking over some slides recently shot with both, and although the 75-300 was not bad, the 200 is visibly better. Not just the sharpness, but contrast as well, is better. The improved quality more than made up for the loss of the long end, and you could always enlarge and crop the 200mm image to obtain the same magnification as 300mm.

For portrait shots, the f2.8 works like a charm. I haven't done any measurements, but it seems to me that you would have to be 15-20 feet away for a head shot.

My next shortest lens was an 85/1.8, and the gap between them was sometimes inconvenient, but I was able to live with it.

-- Geoff Doane (geoff_doane@cbc.ca), February 13, 2002.

Perhaps the lens you're looking for is the 135 F2L? 135 is the classic head and shoulders portrait length, and the 135 F2L has an amazing reputation for the quality of its optics.

Personally, I would go for any one of the L series 70-200 lenses (F2.8, F2.8 IS, F4). Replication of focal length? So what? Any of the 70-200s will blow away the 28-105, and overlap does no harm. All of the 70-200s are optically superb, and will keep you happy (although some say they are too sharp for flattering portraits). The added bonus is that you can then attach the Canon 1.4X TC to get a 98-280mm lens (F4 or F5.6, depending on which 70-200 it is). I have had excellent results from my 70-200 F4L with the 1.4X TC on it.

-- Isaac Sibson (isibson@hotmail.com), February 13, 2002.

OR you could get the 200mm 2.8, the 100mm 2.0 (or the 2.8 macro), AND a Canon TC, instead of the very heavy and conspicuous 70-200mm 2.8.

1) it's a better portrait lense than the 50mm, I think. the 50mm's focal length has a bit too much distortion for me, but it also works (i've used it). I prefer the 100mm over the 200mm, however.

2) You have to be pretty far away with the 200mm for the head & shoulder. Too far for me. The 100mm is preferred.

3) depends on what you do or want to do. zoom vs. prime is a personal decision.

4) yes! it is. extremely shallow dof.

-- m. lohninger (clickclick@attbi.com), February 13, 2002.

I gave up a 28-300 for primes and haven't looked back. I have the 50 1.4, 100 2, and 200 2.8. I don't miss the versatility or focal length of the 28-300. Do you need 300mm? Sounds like you are mostly concerned with portraits. My favorite portrait lens is the 100 2. Very sharp, and shallow DOF. If I want soft, I'll use a filter. Between the 50 and the 200 for portraits, the 200 is definately preferred. 50 is way to wide for head & sholders in my opinion. I have use the 200 very effectively for shots like this - clients have been pleased. Distance is a factor - count on 15 feet. So, what exactly are you looking for? Do you want a portrait lens? If so, I like one suggestion from another post - get the 135 2. That is probably the best portrait lens Canon makes, and probably my next purchase. If you just want to complement your current system, I'd go for the 70-200 2.8. This is not redundant when you consider the upgrade in optical quality - it will give you terrific portraits throughout its range, and allow versatility for event coverage.

-- Derrick Morin (dmorin@oasisol.com), February 13, 2002.

I purchased a 200mm f2.8 used some time ago for a very reasonable price - far far less than a 70-200 f2.8 would have cost. I have found it to be a great lens that I use for all manner of pictures. In particular I have used it at wedding receptions and parties to take individual portraits (usually with flash using a 540EZ)- you are sufficiently far away that the subject is not really aware (even with the flash) that you are taking a close up of them. At f4 or f5.6 DOF is fine for portraits while still giving a good background blur. I also have a 100-300 which to be honest I rarely use these days tending to stick with my 28-135 IS and the 200mm prime.

-- Derek Linney (dlinney@aol.com), February 13, 2002.

Thanks all for your help, portrait photography with a 200mm lens is something I have been considering, as I don't have a 'good' portrait lens, and want my next lens to be better than my current ones at that. I understand what most of you mean when you say that 100-135 lenses are best for portrait photography, because using my zoom at 100 is convenient for this task, except for depth of field issues. I agree that a 70-200 would be excellent for portrait photography, it makes a lot of sense. I suppose my real question is about whther or not a 200mm 2.8 lens does a good job of replacing a 100-300 zoom for general photography. I like the idea of a 2x converter making it a 400 5.6, then I could try nature photography as well. Thanks again for your help.

-- Phillip Wylie (goonshow@rivernet.com.au), February 14, 2002.

I have the 200mm f/2.8L and find it to be a specialized lens. Its uses are more limited than a 50 or 100, but it's very sharp and contrasty, with pleasing background blur, very similar to the 50 f/1.4.

1. Yes, it is a far better portrait lens than the 50 for head and shoulder shots mainly because of its ability to blur background to mulch. I would say it does a better job than the 50 for head and shoulders because of the greater distance. With the 50, you'd have to stand pretty close to the subject for head and shoulders. You may or may not like the perspective at that distance. The enlarged nose isn't so much a problem as enlarged breasts...

2. I took out a tape measure and found that for tight horizontal head and shoulder shots of a 6-ft tall frame, my feet were around 12-13 feet from the subject. I had a tiny bit of space on each side of the shoulders. For vertical shots, 15-16 feet.

3. I haven't used a 100-300 zoom but I would think the blur wouldn't be as nice and smooth. I had a 70-210 once and found it to render background objects like foliage and fences with double-edges. I also have the 135mm f/2L and the difference is there but negligible. Don't know about a 300.

4. Yes, other things being equal, the blur is more pronounced at 2.8 than at 5.6. Besides aperture, tough, you can control blur by adjusting the camera-subject-background relative distances. The farther the background and the closer the subject, the more pronounced the blur.

-- Willie Ju (wju@mediaone.net), February 14, 2002.

The 200/2.8 is probably one of Canon's most underrated lenses. It is a superb performer and you can find many used ones around. Look around. It's also one of my favourite walk around lenses :)

-- Anthony (ant@hotmail.com), February 28, 2002.