| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/13/2005 09:07:28 PM · #1 |
I'm in the market for a new lens. I have two purposes for wanting to get a new lens. First, I really want to get into portrait shots (long story). And secondly, I'm going to going to Africa in February and really want a lens that has a very good - relatively good wide angle capability. I'm debating between these three lenses:
1. EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM
2. EF 17-35mm f/2.8L
3. EF 17-40mm f/4L USM
Any thoughts? If there are any other good lenses out there that are just as good ("L") quality, let me know. Thanks a lot!
|
|
|
|
12/13/2005 09:31:01 PM · #2 |
On your second choice, did you mean the 16-35/2.8 L or the older 17-35? I believe the 16-35 is rated better, and would be a good choice for WA on a 1.6-crop cam, but expensive, of course. The 17-40 is also great on a 1.6-crop cam (less so on FF), at less than half the price of the 16-35, trading off 1mm and 1 stop (do you NEED f/2.8 at 17mm?)
For portrait, IMO either is too wide; the 24-70 is a stellar performer, but the wide end doesn't really qualify as wide on a 1.6-crop cam. Overall, if you want a great zoom for portraits, and 38mm-like FoV (50 degrees W x 35 degrees H) is "wide enough" then that's my recommendation.
Edit... did you mean "Tough Decision?" Shall I correct the title?
Message edited by author 2005-12-13 21:33:00.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 12:48:26 AM · #3 |
I'd say the 17-35 f2.8.
It's wider than 24-70, which isn't wide at all on a cropped sensor.
Although the 17-40 is a very nice lens, I think having a f2.8 would be nicer for portrait work. A wider angle lens maybe a good idea if you work in a small studio. Plus if you want to you can get a 50mm f1.8 or 1.4 if you want to get in a bit closer and want a more normal perspective than what the 17-35mm provides. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 11:25:50 PM · #4 |
So 17-35 f2.8 is too wide for portraits? What would be the ideal lens for portrait work in a relatively standard sized living room (20' x 20')? I'm also buying a 70-200mm f2.8...but that's not going to work for indoor portraits with the room I've got...so I need to decide between the other lenses...for portrait work (anywhere from 1 to 7 people at a time).
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 11:27:15 PM · #5 |
| 50mm comes to mind for a good portrait lens. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 11:34:38 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by chafer:
So 17-35 f2.8 is too wide for portraits?...so I need to decide between the other lenses...for portrait work (anywhere from 1 to 7 people at a time). |
Well, for GROUP portraits in a room that size, you WILL need something fairly wide, so perhaps the 17-35 would be a viable choice. I was thinking more about individual portraits, where 50mm would be a good place to be.
|
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:10:40 AM · #7 |
| I think the 50mm you have would be good for indoor portraits |
|
|
|
12/15/2005 12:39:04 AM · #8 |
Primes are a great choice for portraits.
Generally speaking a good prime will beat a good zoom for sharpness, contrast and bokeh.
The focal length depends on the type of portraits you want to do, ie. headshots, head and bust, head-to-toe, and also the working space you have available in your studio. The more area you have the longer th lens you can use.
Once you can answer these you'll have a better idea of what focal length well suit best.
bazz. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 07:34:32 PM EDT.
