The 70-200mm f/2.8 lens is the workhorse of choice for a wide variety of photographers, but given its size and cost, creatives who do not need the f/2.8 aperture may opt for the lighter and cheaper f/4 version. If such a lens sounds right for your work, check out this great review of the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM.
Coming to you from Christopher Frost Photography, this great video review takes a look at the Canon EF 70-200mm f/4L IS II USM lens. 70-200mm f/2.8 lenses are typically fantastic tools, but they also normally cost somewhere between $2,000 and $3,000 and are quite bulky and heavy. Canon's 70-200mm f/4L costs anywhere between $599 and $1,299 (depending on whether you get the IS version or not) and is also much lighter and smaller, making it a great alternative for any photographer who does not need the extra light-gathering abilities or narrow depth of field provided by the f/2.8 version (landscape photographers, for example). In addition, you also get excellent image stabilization capabilities that offer up to five stops of compensation along with excellent weather-sealing and quick and quiet autofocus. Check out the video above for Frost's full thoughts.
My fav lens is the 2.8 for portraits. People are nervous enough without me right in their face and from a distance I can shoot full body to head shot without moving. People can get self conscious when you say you are taking a close up so this is a great way to have the option without announcing it. I got the 2.8 but could've gone with f4 since I'm in a studio shooting f8 mostly.
I had the 70-200 f/4 L for quite a while. I sold it when I got the 100-400. It's probably the best bang-for-the-buck for Canon when it comes to lenses.
No doubt 70-200 is the best lens but it’s expensive for beginner like me. I use 70-300 it’s cheaper and works for my necessities
so far , tmy best lense for portrait is my 70/200 2.8 .. its the mk1 , but my fav choise for portrait