100L vs 70-200L II for portraits

[dunkers]

For those of you who have both lenses like I do, which do you prefer for portraits?

I love the 100L dearly, for it was my first L lens. I love its uses for macro/portraits and how ridiculously sharp it is. It was always mounted on my camera since the day I got it. I bought it mainly for macro and portraits. None of my other lenses came even close...


That is until I purchased the 70-200 II. I wasn't really shopping around for this lens, but I had to jump on the sale that Canon had last Christmas. Obviously this was my go-to lens shooting collegiate sports. The lens is as sharp as a prime and extremely versatile. My macro was suitable for indoor sports like volleyball and basketball, but the 70-200 is more useful and I got a lot more shots out of it.

However, I am torn between the two lenses for portraits. Obviously clients would be more impressed with the 70-200 II thanks to its size and color. The 100L looks much less imposing, but is tack sharp and produces creamy smooth bokeh. I love using the prime because it draws less attention and I love moving around to frame my shots. The 70-200 II is so sharp and versatile that my 100L is really only being used for macros =[

Again, my question is which lens would you choose for portraits? Is there a benefit to using the 100L over the 70-200?

 

[prestonpalmer]

The 100L IS is one of the sharpest lenses I own. That being said, the 100L is used primarily for details, secondary for wedding portraits. I lean toward the 70-200L II for the bride and groom session. Simple because it speeds up the portrait process. Less moving from me is faster, and time is always an issue. I don't think your clients would ever notice the difference between the two lenses unless you handed them almost identical images side by side, one at 100mm from the 70-200 and the other from the 100 macro. Both lenses are fantastic, and both are in my bag at all times. If my 2nd photographer has his 70-200 on, then ill use the 100macro. I do love the lens for portraits, and would probably use it more if time were not such a concern. this probably didn't help you at all!

 

[Random Orbits]

70-200 most of the time. The 100L is great for macro work but is also good enough that you won't have to switch lenses when you switch from macro work to portraiture.

 

[D.Sim]

70-200 over the macro. Macro is great for small, up close details, but for general portraits I'd rather use the 70-200

 

[Dylan777]

I have never own 100L before - so I can't speak for it. I use to have 70-200 f2.8 IS version I and last X-mas upgraded to version II due to Canon Rebate($300 off) Plus ($100 off from B&H).


My 2cents - the 70-200 f2.8 IS II is a TACK SHARP lens, even at 2.8. I prefer this lens over many prime lenses. This lens is versatile on my 5D III.

 

[dunkers]

I'm trying to justify using my 100L as a dedicated portrait lens.

And I'm training myself to using the 70-200 for sports and wildlife so that both lens get a lot of use. I wouldn't have this issue if Canon didn't tempt me with that rebate =/


Although maybe if I had a second body this wouldn't be an issue for me at all

 

[JR]

Tried both, ultimately only bought the 70-200 which i find great for portrait. I may get the 100L eventually but only once i start macro a bit more...

 

[pwp]

While there is absolutely no getting away from the fact the 100L is a fabulous lens, your question is about a useful portrait lens. There would scarcely be a serious Canon shooter on the planet who shoots portraits who doesn't have the 70-200 as an almost permanently attached to a body. Either the f/4 or the f/2.8 will deliver great flexibility and IQ.

Ideally go for the f/2.8 70-200isII. Sure it's big & heavy and is expensive, but this lens will earn your bread and butter for years to come. If I did an ROI calculation on every bit of gear I've ever owned, the 70-200 zoom would easily top the list.

Paul Wright

 

[elflord]

For those of you who have both lenses like I do, which do you prefer for portraits?

I love the 100L dearly, for it was my first L lens. I love its uses for macro/portraits and how ridiculously sharp it is. It was always mounted on my camera since the day I got it. I bought it mainly for macro and portraits. None of my other lenses came even close...


That is until I purchased the 70-200 II. I wasn't really shopping around for this lens, but I had to jump on the sale that Canon had last Christmas. Obviously this was my go-to lens shooting collegiate sports. The lens is as sharp as a prime and extremely versatile. My macro was suitable for indoor sports like volleyball and basketball, but the 70-200 is more useful and I got a lot more shots out of it.

However, I am torn between the two lenses for portraits. Obviously clients would be more impressed with the 70-200 II thanks to its size and color. The 100L looks much less imposing, but is tack sharp and produces creamy smooth bokeh. I love using the prime because it draws less attention and I love moving around to frame my shots. The 70-200 II is so sharp and versatile that my 100L is really only being used for macros =[

Again, my question is which lens would you choose for portraits? Is there a benefit to using the 100L over the 70-200?

Canons 135mm f/2 and 85mm f/1.2 are considered their top portrait primes. The Sigma 85mm f/1.4 is also very good. I have the Sigma 85 and the Canon 135. If you're looking for a prime specifically for portraits, the 100L isn't the best of Canon's offerings.

If it was between the 70-200 f/2.8 or the 100mm f/2.8 I'd take the zoom.

 

[Michael_pfh]

70-200 2.8L IS II it is!

 

[MazV-L]

I've had both lenses for some time now, the 100L only gets used for portraits on the rare occasion I need a lightweight kit and space is a problem, I much prefer the 70-200L is ii.

 

[kirispupis]

I also own both lenses and strongly favor the 70-200 II for portraits. At 200mm and F2.8 the bokeh is hard to beat (without spending at least $5k). I use both lenses very often, but for people the 70-200 is my first choice.

 

[4jphotography]

I'm not really a portrait guy, but when I do I lean towards the 135. 70-200 is a fantastic lens though, and if you're spending the dough will be a more versatile tool as well. Not sure what you mean by "impressing the clients", shouldn't your work do that? I would assume you've already succeeded, as they've walked through the door and booked a shoot.

 

[Loswr]

Of the two, I definitely prefer the 70-200 II for increased versatility when shooting portraits, compared to the 100L. If I'm going to restrict my versatility by using a prime lens, I will put on either the 135L or 85 L II.