# The mighty 70-200mm f2.8 IS II lens



## ColeGauthier (Mar 28, 2012)

Hi there guys!

I am not here to ask a review on this lens because there is tons on Google but I am here seeking for advice, obviously. So here is my dilemma, I currently own a Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 lens but I shoot several concerts and indoor events and this summer I am getting into sports photography and lastly I do a lot of portraiture. I am starting to notice my small focal length on my Sigma, it's frustrating at times. The 70-200mm IS II is a wonderful lens for portraiture but a little short for sports but I have a 7D that magnifies it 1.6X already so that 200mm becomes a 320mm. Although that's great, the 70mm turns into 112mm and I am wondering if it's a tad long of a focal length for portraiture? 

Do I shell out the 2400$ for the 70-200mm IS II or do I just get a good prime lens such as the 50mm f1.2 and that turns into an 80mm lens which is near perfect focal length for portraiture... 

Ideally it would be great to have both in my bag but I really don't have the budget to spend over 4000$ in equipment, one step at a time. 

My opinion: I am pretty much set on the 70-200mm IS II, every pro has it and they swear by it, especially for weddings, which I might get into as well. I am very aware of the f2.8 aperture and I can work with in low light situations, that's what I do with my Sigma.

Any feedback is much appreciated 

Please tell me if you need clarification!  :thumbup:


----------



## jaomul (Mar 28, 2012)

70-200+50f1.4.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 28, 2012)

Well, if you're shooting low-light venues, I'd be thinking less about the lens and more about a camera that can handle high ISO.  While going to a wide aperture lens will certainly help, you'll also be dealing with the very thin DOF you get with very large apertures.  On the other hand, if you have a camera that is happy shooting high-ISO, you'll probably be further ahead, with more options on the focal lengths and apertures used.  That said, I don't know how well the 7D handles high ISO, so can't really say if changing the camera body is even necessary.


----------



## ColeGauthier (Mar 28, 2012)

I am very happy with my 7D's performance at 3200ISO, noise is easily removable in Photoshop.


----------



## hukim0531 (Mar 28, 2012)

jaomul said:


> 70-200+50f1.4.


+1


----------



## Robin Usagani (Mar 28, 2012)

I shoot portrait with 135  ... so for me... 70mm is not too short.


----------



## ColeGauthier (Mar 28, 2012)

Schwettylens said:
			
		

> I shoot portrait with 135  ... so for me... 70mm is not too short.



Thanks for the response! I will keep your focal length in mind!


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 28, 2012)

The 50mm focal length doesn't "turn into" an 80mm focal length. It stays 50mm but your FoV changes. There are very distinct differences between shooting a 50mm and an 85mm, even on a crop frame. 

IMHO, the 50 1.2 isn't worth it.


----------



## o hey tyler (Mar 28, 2012)

PS. If I were you, I'd look into the Sigma 85mm f/1.4. It's a great lens and I use it all the time (on a full frame), but I've seen a lot of good results come from it on a crop frame body as well. 

These are shot with the Sigma 85:


----------



## ColeGauthier (Mar 28, 2012)

Thanks for the reply! I will take a look at that lens! I knew the 1000$ price jump from the f1.4 to the 50 f1.2 wasen't worth it..


----------

