zoom for portraits - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

02/06/2014 02:13:51 PM · #1

right now i shoot with a 28/85/135 primes

im looking to streamline and go with a zoom.

basically i'm keeping my 5d2 to shoot portrait sessions. i love the 135/2, but honestly its a niche lens for me, albeit my favorite and simply fantastic, but its such a long lens for full body portraits.

im thinking about a selling the 135 and the 28 and getting a 24-70/2.8 (either picking up the canon mk1 brick or the new tamron IS.) i really need a zoom since the three prime system is too clunky and i find i'm breaking the flow or groove i get into by switching lenses. i rather just leave one lens on and work.

i really like the 85 and i hate to part with it since its so cheap and it works great for headshots so i'll keep it for now.

i know some folks are going to say im crazy for giving up the 135... i know...

so, thoughts on using either the canon or newer tamron 24-70/2.8 for portrait work? will i be happy with the sharpness for portraits, especially wide open?

Message edited by author 2014-02-06 14:19:09.

bohemka

Nikon D700

02/06/2014 02:22:48 PM · #2

My initial thoughts are that is a bit too limited at the top end. If you want one lens to do it all for portraits, I'd think you'd want to start at 70mm.

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

02/06/2014 02:31:15 PM · #3

Do you really want to do this? From what I understand, zooms, no matter how good, just don't stand up to primes...

(by the way, my lousy eyes read the title as poems for portraits. I thought it was an interesting challenge idea! Was kind of disappointed that it wasn't... ) :)

EL-ROI

Canon EOS-450D Rebel XSi

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

02/06/2014 02:43:31 PM · #4

If I were to choose a portrait lens kit. I would want to have these lenses in my bag:

Zoom Lenses:
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

Prime Lenses:
EF 85mm f/1.2L USM
EF 50mm f/1.2L
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Using this list, you can go down in price range or alternate manufacturers as suits your budget.

tanguera

Nikon D750

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED

02/06/2014 03:04:48 PM · #5

Without getting into the Nikon/Canon debacle, my 80-200 is DIVINE for portraits.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

02/06/2014 03:05:18 PM · #6

Originally posted by bohemka:

My initial thoughts are that is a bit too limited at the top end. If you want one lens to do it all for portraits, I'd think you'd want to start at 70mm.

i though about keeping the 28 and getting a 70-200/2.8 instead too...

bohemka

Nikon D700

02/06/2014 03:23:40 PM · #7

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by bohemka:
My initial thoughts are that is a bit too limited at the top end. If you want one lens to do it all for portraits, I'd think you'd want to start at 70mm.

i though about keeping the 28 and getting a 70-200/2.8 instead too...

If I were to get more serious about portraits, that's the route I would go. Throw in a cheap 50mm just for kicks, but the 70-200mm range would be excellent coverage for portraits.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

02/06/2014 03:29:08 PM · #8

My personal preference is always to shoot as long a lens as I can for portraiture. Of course, the limiting factor is space. With a 35mm sensor, no way I'd shoot wider than 50mm, so the 24-50 range only gets used for groups. The 70-200/2.8 makes a really fine portrait lens, if and when I have the room to shoot with it. For full-body portraits, even at 70mm you really need some distance.
If I were in your shoes, I might go with a 50/1.4 and the 70-200 for individual portraits, keep the 28 for group shots. It would break my heart to part with my 135/2 though, even though don't shoot with it as much as I'd like.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

02/07/2014 10:32:25 AM · #9

maybe the thing to do would be to sell all the lenses, get a 70-200/2.8 and a 17-50L or even use a nice 35 prime.

but then again, am i really gaining anything?

i wonder if all this is stemming from not having a solid indoor studio lens, 85 is too long and 28 is too wide.

i wonder how a 28-75 tammy will work on my 5d2 for portraits. i used to have one on my 60D and i really liked it, i know the corner and edge sharpness leaves a lot to be desired on a ff sensor but in most cases im shooting so shallow, corner sharpness means nothing to me.

Message edited by author 2014-02-07 10:37:05.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

02/07/2014 12:02:39 PM · #10

Originally posted by Mike:

i wonder how a 28-75 tammy will work on my 5d2 for portraits. i used to have one on my 60D and i really liked it, i know the corner and edge sharpness leaves a lot to be desired on a ff sensor but in most cases im shooting so shallow, corner sharpness means nothing to me.

With the glass you have gotten used to, I can't believe you would accept the results from the 28-75. It's going to be an eye-opener, and not in a good way, on FF. Unless some copies are a lot better than I have been led to believe they are. Heck, the Canon 24-70 (at least the 1st generation lens) will show some detectable issues at 70mm and wide open.

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

02/07/2014 07:36:05 PM · #11

There is no way I'd shoot an individual portrait or even a small group with a wide angle >50MM

My weapon of choice in the studio or outside is the Nikon(canon when I shot that brand) 70-200F2.8 lens. I also use my 200MM F2 at times.

And I agree with kirbic, no way I'd "downgrade" to the tamron lens.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

02/07/2014 09:16:38 PM · #12

FYI - If you're stupid enough to actually let go of the 135, please PM me first. ;)

..

In the end I think you just need to add in a 40mm pancake or a nifty 50.

Trotterjay

Sony Alpha NEX-7

Sony Sony / Carl Zeiss 24mm f1.8, e-series

02/07/2014 09:53:32 PM · #13

Originally posted by EL-ROI:

+1

You can't' go too wrong with that advice.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

02/07/2014 10:29:27 PM · #14

Originally posted by Trotterjay:

Originally posted by EL-ROI:
If I were to choose a portrait lens kit. I would want to have these lenses in my bag:

Zoom Lenses:
EF 24-70mm f/2.8L
EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II

Prime Lenses:
EF 85mm f/1.2L USM
EF 50mm f/1.2L
EF 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS USM

Using this list, you can go down in price range or alternate manufacturers as suits your budget.

+1

You can't' go too wrong with that advice.

I'd go for the 85 f/1.8 for almost all situations over the 1.2 - the 1.2 is bleeding S.L.O.W. to focus.

Message edited by author 2014-02-07 22:29:49.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24, S24+, S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/07/2014 10:42:22 PM · #15

Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS is a VERY acceptable portrait lens at a reasonable price, and it's stabilized. FWIW 24-105 and 70-200 cover the whole range of what you need for portraiture focal lengths. One word of caution, though: the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an absolute BEAST to use for a long period of time. It's HEAVY, it starts to stress your arms...

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

02/08/2014 01:01:17 AM · #16

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

You know, I hear people say this a lot. I'm really surprised when I hear it. I normally carry two pro bodies when I work. One thing I have NEVER said when working even long 10-12 hour tournament days is, "Man this 70-200 is heavy" of course my other lens is either a 200MM F2 or a 400MM F2.8, and the only lens that truly gets heavy after several hours is the 400MM and I use a monopod with it, but do hand hold it now and then.

Matt

Alex_Petrini

Sony Alpha a7R III

Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM

02/08/2014 02:25:14 AM · #17

Don't sell 135, it's the best you can have IMO. I have 105 f/2 Nikon and my only choice for portraits now. With these lenses you can have the whole subject in focus and a super shallow DOF. 85 f/2 and 50 f/2 or f/4 are stunning but in a different (and sometimes creative) way. But we really want to change and get a Tamron, you have 24-70 2.8 (you can see it in most of my photos and I'd never change it with the Nikkor one) or the new 70-200 2.8, stunning as well - it will my next lens.

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

02/08/2014 11:04:32 AM · #18

im not selling the 135.

i. just. cant.

actually ti just saw this:

anyone ever used it for portraits?

sigma 50-150/2.8

edit: nevermind, its crop only... wtf?

Message edited by author 2014-02-08 11:48:03.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

02/08/2014 12:10:35 PM · #19

Originally posted by Mike:

im not selling the 135.

i. just. cant.

actually ti just saw this:

anyone ever used it for portraits?

sigma 50-150/2.8

edit: nevermind, its crop only... wtf?

It's the crop equivalent of the FF 70-200.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

02/08/2014 12:14:42 PM · #20

Anyway, personally, I like primes for portraits, because they're small and light, and in portrait sessions, I have plenty of time to change lenses. I don't want to shoot with a big zoom unless it's really required for the task.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

02/08/2014 12:33:03 PM · #21

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS is a VERY acceptable portrait lens at a reasonable price, and it's stabilized. FWIW 24-105 and 70-200 cover the whole range of what you need for portraiture focal lengths. One word of caution, though: the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an absolute BEAST to use for a long period of time. It's HEAVY, it starts to stress your arms...

You know, I hear people say this a lot. I'm really surprised when I hear it. I normally carry two pro bodies when I work. One thing I have NEVER said when working even long 10-12 hour tournament days is, "Man this 70-200 is heavy" of course my other lens is either a 200MM F2 or a 400MM F2.8, and the only lens that truly gets heavy after several hours is the 400MM and I use a monopod with it, but do hand hold it now and then.

Matt

Mike's still young, and i assume fairly strong, so he might be okay with a 70-200, but I can't handhold a 70-200 f2.8 for more than about 5 minutes, and even during that 5 minutes, I don't control the weight all that well. I would never use a 70-200 2.8 for a portrait session, because I can get better results with lighter lenses.

I'm getting too old for the big camera, big lenses thing. Waiting impatiently for m4/3 to be viable for action shooting...

MattO

Nikon D4

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

02/08/2014 11:49:31 PM · #22

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by MattO:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS is a VERY acceptable portrait lens at a reasonable price, and it's stabilized. FWIW 24-105 and 70-200 cover the whole range of what you need for portraiture focal lengths. One word of caution, though: the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an absolute BEAST to use for a long period of time. It's HEAVY, it starts to stress your arms...

You know, I hear people say this a lot. I'm really surprised when I hear it. I normally carry two pro bodies when I work. One thing I have NEVER said when working even long 10-12 hour tournament days is, "Man this 70-200 is heavy" of course my other lens is either a 200MM F2 or a 400MM F2.8, and the only lens that truly gets heavy after several hours is the 400MM and I use a monopod with it, but do hand hold it now and then.

Matt

Mike's still young, and i assume fairly strong, so he might be okay with a 70-200, but I can't handhold a 70-200 f2.8 for more than about 5 minutes, and even during that 5 minutes, I don't control the weight all that well. I would never use a 70-200 2.8 for a portrait session, because I can get better results with lighter lenses.

I'm getting too old for the big camera, big lenses thing. Waiting impatiently for m4/3 to be viable for action shooting...

Still young? I will have to go back to the eye doctor I saw today and tell him that I could not possibly need bifocals, because I'm too young... LOL

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

02/09/2014 12:17:04 AM · #23

FWIW, you can get both the new and highly regarded Sigma 24-105 f/4 and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for $100 less than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 alone. I use my Canon 24-105 all the time for portraits, particularly in situations with lots of people and little time.