Let's break down the arguments for and against:
Arguments FOR needing (or heavily benefiting from) a 70-200mm lens for portrait photography:
* Compression: This is the lens's biggest selling point for portraiture. The longer focal lengths (135mm-200mm) compress the perspective, making the background appear closer to the subject and rendering features more flatteringly. This avoids the "wide-angle distortion" that can happen with shorter lenses.
* Background Blur (Bokeh): Longer focal lengths and wider apertures (typically f/2.8, which is common in 70-200mm lenses) create a beautiful, creamy bokeh, isolating the subject and drawing the viewer's eye. This is highly desirable for portraits.
* Working Distance: The 70-200mm allows you to work at a comfortable distance from your subject. This can be especially helpful when photographing children, shy individuals, or when you want to capture candid moments without being intrusive.
* Versatility: While primarily used for portraits, the 70-200mm is also a great lens for events, sports, and wildlife photography. This makes it a good investment if you plan to shoot other genres besides portraits.
* Professional Look: It's often seen as a professional lens. Clients often associate the size and quality of this lens with expertise and professionalism. This can indirectly help you in your business.
* Zoom Range: Having the flexibility to zoom from 70mm to 200mm allows you to quickly adjust your framing without physically moving, which can be advantageous in dynamic shooting situations.
Arguments AGAINST needing a 70-200mm lens for portrait photography:
* Cost: 70-200mm lenses, especially those with a constant f/2.8 aperture, are expensive. This can be a significant barrier for beginners or those on a tight budget.
* Size and Weight: These lenses are large and heavy, making them less convenient for travel or long shoots. This can be fatiguing.
* Not Suitable for All Situations: The long focal lengths can be limiting in small spaces. You need room to move back to frame your subject correctly.
* Alternatives Exist: There are many other lenses that can produce beautiful portraits. Prime lenses like 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, and 135mm can be excellent choices, often offering even wider apertures (like f/1.4 or f/1.8) at a lower price point.
* Requires Good Technique: Shooting at longer focal lengths requires good technique to avoid camera shake, especially in low light.
Alternatives to the 70-200mm:
* 85mm prime: Excellent for headshots and portraits with beautiful bokeh. Often more affordable and compact than a 70-200mm.
* 135mm prime: Provides even more compression and bokeh than an 85mm, and is also typically less expensive. Requires a longer working distance.
* 50mm prime: A versatile and affordable option for environmental portraits. Requires you to get closer to your subject.
* Zooms like 24-70mm or 24-105mm: Offer versatility but lack the extreme compression and bokeh of longer lenses. Useful for wider shots and groups.
Conclusion:
Ultimately, whether you *need* a 70-200mm for portrait photography depends on your shooting style, budget, and the type of portraits you want to create.
* If you prioritize flattering compression, beautiful bokeh, comfortable working distance, and versatility, a 70-200mm is an excellent choice.
* If you're on a budget, primarily shoot in small spaces, or prefer a lighter and more compact setup, consider alternative lenses like 85mm or 135mm primes.
* If you are just starting, start with a 50mm and learn the basics. Then, experiment with different lenses to find what works best for your artistic vision.
The best way to determine if a 70-200mm is right for you is to rent or borrow one and try it out. Experiment with different focal lengths and see if the benefits outweigh the drawbacks for your specific needs. Consider what you already own, and what kind of photos you want to be able to capture.