Here's a breakdown of the pros and cons and why it's so popular:
Arguments for needing (or wanting) a 70-200mm for portraiture:
* Compression: This is a key advantage. At longer focal lengths (especially above 100mm), the lens compresses the background, making it appear closer and often more flattering. This can help isolate the subject and create a sense of intimacy. It avoids the sometimes-distorting effects of wider lenses.
* Subject Isolation/Bokeh: The 70-200mm typically has a wide aperture (f/2.8 or f/4), allowing you to create a shallow depth of field. This throws the background beautifully out of focus (bokeh), further isolating your subject and drawing the viewer's attention.
* Working Distance: The 70-200mm allows you to stand further back from your subject. This can be less intimidating for some people, leading to more relaxed and natural expressions. It also allows you to shoot in tighter spaces while still achieving a full or half-body portrait.
* Versatility: While primarily used for portraits, the 70-200mm is also excellent for:
* Events: Capturing candid moments and performances.
* Sports: Action shots and capturing athletes.
* Wildlife: Bringing distant subjects closer.
* Landscapes: Compressing scenes and highlighting specific elements.
* Professional Impression: Let's be honest, pulling out a large 70-200mm (especially the f/2.8 versions) can project a professional image to clients. While not a substitute for skill, it can instill confidence.
Arguments against needing a 70-200mm for portraiture:
* Cost: Good 70-200mm lenses are expensive. This can be a significant barrier to entry, especially for beginners.
* Size and Weight: They are large and heavy, making them less portable and potentially tiring to use for extended periods.
* Learning Curve: While not overly complex, mastering a 70-200mm requires understanding focal length, aperture, and working distance. Slight movements can drastically change the framing.
* Alternative Lenses: There are other lenses that can achieve excellent portraits, often at a lower cost and with greater portability:
* 85mm: A classic portrait lens, often with a very wide aperture (f/1.4 or f/1.8). Provides excellent subject isolation and bokeh. Smaller and cheaper than a 70-200mm.
* 50mm: A versatile "nifty fifty" lens. Affordable and excellent for portraits, especially when you want to include more of the environment. Requires getting closer to the subject.
* 35mm: Great for environmental portraits, showing the subject within their surroundings.
* Not always ideal for indoor studios: In very small studio spaces, the minimum focusing distance of the 70-200mm might be limiting. You might not be able to back up far enough.
When a 70-200mm is *particularly* useful:
* Outdoor Portraits: Excellent for shooting in open environments where you have room to move and take advantage of the compression and bokeh.
* Candid Portraits: Allows you to capture natural expressions without being too intrusive.
* Professional Portrait Photography: Often considered a staple for professionals due to its versatility and the image quality it provides.
* Events (Weddings, Parties): Capturing portraits in dynamic situations.
In conclusion:
A 70-200mm lens isn't a *strict necessity* for portrait photography, but it's a highly desirable and versatile tool that offers significant advantages. Consider your budget, shooting style, and the type of portraits you want to create. If you primarily shoot in a studio or prefer environmental portraits, other lenses might be a better fit. However, if you frequently shoot outdoors, value subject isolation, and appreciate the compressed look, a 70-200mm is a worthwhile investment. Try renting one before committing to a purchase to see if it aligns with your needs.