[jasonhh]

Dear all,

I'm considering 3 canon lens for my 350D to be used mainly for portraits

1. EF 70-200mm f/4.0 L USM

2.EF-S 17-85mm f/4.0-5.6 IS USM

3.EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

Please give some comments to how their quality compare?
Moreover, here are some quesions:

Q1. For 70-200mm, is it too 'tele' for shooting portaits ?
Will the small aperture of 4.0 creates too much inconvenience when not enough light?
Q2. Is the IS function that useful in the 17-85 or 28-135 range? is it worth to pay that money for the IS function?

Thx a lot!!!

[genewch]

1. There's no definite conclusion. Some people say this range is perfect for portrait. I think a moderate range, eg 70-135mm, is fine. At 200mm you have to walk so far away. If a large aperture with beautiful backgroung blur are what you need, a prime like 85mm f1.8 works fine enough.

f4 is not that small. Of course there may be inconvenience indoors.

2. Since the tele end of both lenses have small apertures, an IS can help to photograph still objects, and is useful for very long lenses. It's useless for fast moving objects.

[jasonhh]

dear genewch,

many thx for your kind input!

i still wonder if in moderate range of 17-85 or 28-135, is the help from IS so important? i know like 150mm or above with IS is gonna make a big difference so it worth to pay the extra money for the IS, but for these moderate ranges is it worth to pay extra for the IS? u know when it is IS it is not cheap

[jasonhh]

any more comments?

[Torbut]

would you consider Tarmon 28~75 as your protrait zoom lens?