Portrait Lens EF2 24-70mm 2.8L vs 70-200mm 2.8L

04/01/2006 12:12:16 PM · #1

I have been doing some research for my next lens. I want to get a quality portrait lens. I am looking at these two and I see the 24-70 comes highly recommended for portraits. Yet I have always had a desire for the 70-200. I would be interested in your thoughts as to how these two compare in the portrait arena. Will the 70-200 carry the portrait load in studio as well as in the field, or for pristine portraits, is the 24-70 preferable. Or.. your thoughts on other possibilities.

*Ignore the extra numeral in the Topic.. snuck in there somehow.

Message edited by author 2006-04-01 12:13:26.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

04/01/2006 12:16:42 PM · #2

In full-frame equivalents, the 70-200mm is 112mm at its widest. This is about as LONG as you'd want a portrait lens to be, ever... So I'd consider it to be a long shot (pun intended) as a portrait lens. The 24-70mm makes more sense for this. Another option, optically in the same ballpark at a fraction of the price, is the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8. This lens is stunningly good, and it's a lot less bulk and weight to carry around than the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8...

Robt.

DanSig

04/01/2006 12:23:45 PM · #3

I second what Bear said.. until you get a fullframe camera the 70-200 is too long for portraits.

I have the 5D and both the 24-70 and the 70-200 and use neither for portraits ;)
I use the 100mm macro for portraits, the focus is easier to control, it's lighter and more managable.

to hold the 70-200L f2.8 IS attached to the 5D with grip gives you 4-5kg and I wouldn't want to do a full day in studio holding that ;)

if you are looking at a portrait lens the 50mm f1.4 is great, so is the f1.8, and if you got the $$$ then the new 85mm f1.2 is the best you can get :)

if money doesn't grow on trees at your home, then the Tamron is a very good option.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/01/2006 12:24:37 PM · #4

based on what you say you're using it for, I agree with Bear - the shorter zoom will be much more useful.

(or you could save $400 and get the 50mm 1.4 and the 85mm 1.8)

:)

TrollMan

Fujifilm X-T4

Fujifilm XF 35mm f/1.4

04/01/2006 12:25:51 PM · #5

If you want a dedicated porttrait lense it would be better to get a prime. EF 50mm f/1.4 or ay of the 85mm lenses.

On a 1.6 crop factor camera I prefer portraits at around 70-90 and find that this gives me better bokeh than the shorter lenses.

I use a 100mm 2.8 prime now for portraits and this gives by far the best result for me on a FF camera.

::are

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

04/01/2006 12:36:51 PM · #6

I think you'd be very satisfied with the 24-70 for portraits. Yes, the 85mm primes or the 100/2.8 are sharper, but I'd dare you to notice much practical difference, *unless* you're shooting the 24-70 at or near 70mm, wide open. That is it's weakest point.
I too think the 70-200 is too long. Not that it's a bad portrait lens, as a matter of fact it's a terrific portrait lens, but if you want to use it in the studio, it better be a big studio! For outdoor work or for candids where maintaining some distance from the subject is desirable, the 70-200 is an outstanding portrait lens.
Overall, my recommendation is the 24-70, unless narrow-DoF portraits are your style, in which case the 50/1.4 or 85/1.8 (or 1.2L) might be better choices.

Message edited by author 2006-04-01 12:37:48.

04/01/2006 01:16:10 PM · #7

Thanks for your responses. I just got the 50mm 1.8 so that will be a good start. I want to be able to have the ability to use a telephoto so I will do some comparisons on the options you mentioned. Anyone ever shot with both the Tamron 28-75 & Canon 24-70?

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/01/2006 01:38:59 PM · #8

Originally posted by rblanton:

I have. You'd have a hard time telling the difference between them. This was the "selling point" that got me into the Tammy for less bux...

Robt.

renefunk

Canon EOS-5D

04/01/2006 01:45:24 PM · #9

try the 135mm L cheap and very very sharp

abroken1

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

04/01/2006 01:57:57 PM · #10

I have the Tamron 28-75 also, and have used it for many portraits. I haven't had a Canon 24-70 of my own to try them side-by-side, but comparing to pictures online, I can get just as crisp, contrasty images for nearly 1/4 the price. You can get the Tamron for about $300 new, and get the Canon 70-200 f/4 L lens on ebay like new for $550 pretty easily (sometimes less) and try both for about $350-400 less than the Canon 24-70 lens alone. If you were wanting the 70-200 to be f/2.8 also, a good alternative is the Sigma 70-200 which can be found on ebay also, and is only around $700 new online.

I had some overlap in ownership of the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 IS L and the Canon 70-200 f/4 L. There was little to no difference between the two f/2.8 lenses when shooting on a tripod, the images looked great, then comparing to the Canon f/4 lens was amazed that I could actually tell that this "cheaper" lens was sharper and much more detailed on high magnification. I would think that individual portraits would come out great on this lens even though the deapth of focus is a little deeper than some like. I personally shoot most portraits at f/4-f/5.6 so that their whole face is in focus and not just their eyes.

I have the Canon 50mm f/1.8 and a Sigma 105mm macro and have used those for portraits too, and they work awesome, but I do like the composure flexibility of the zoom, especially if I'm not using a tripod in a pre-configured studio shot.

Message edited by author 2006-04-01 14:02:13.

Prof_Fate

04/01/2006 02:28:46 PM · #11

Depends on your style...

I was in school last week - the teacher I had loves the 80-200 IS canon lens. On a full frame (5D) it'd b emy #1 choice hands down. On my 1.6x crop, I have to stand back a bit too much.

FOr studio use where wide aps are umimportant, i like the tamron SP24-135 (35mm = of 36 to 200). It also focuses very close. My 70-210 tamron is great, but has a minimum focus distance of 5 feet.

I got to play with canon's 24-205 f4 - nice lens. i may add it to me wish list, for when i hit the lottery LOL

Technically and theoretically speaking, there is an optimum focal lenght for each stype of shot (full, 3/4, head an shoulders, head shot). So it somewhat depends on what you're shooting, indoor or out, your style, etc.

these are both with my 70-210 (the indoor one was DARK, so fogive less than perfect sharpnes)

Message edited by author 2006-04-01 14:30:03.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

04/01/2006 02:48:10 PM · #12

i think you mean the canon 135mm SF (not the L, which costs $900)

still, you're right, it rated to be an extremely sharp lens

Originally posted by renefunk:

try the 135mm L cheap and very very sharp

TroyMosley

Canon EOS-5D

04/01/2006 02:52:41 PM · #13

every photo on my website is all canon 24-70 L f/2.8

its the only lens i have and its amazing, works great for portraits,

but i would love to have the 70-200 f/2.8 its my next purchase.

//www.tmosleyphotography.com

hankk

Canon EOS-5D

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

04/01/2006 04:25:34 PM · #14

Originally posted by DanSig:

if you are looking at a portrait lens the 50mm f1.4 is great, so is the f1.8, and if you got the $$$ then the new 85mm f1.2 is the best you can get :)

if money doesn't grow on trees at your home, then the Tamron is a very good option.

the 85mm f1.8 is reported to be a good lens also, and is significantly less expensive than either of the f1.2s

You may want to use a shallow DOF. Remember that most lenses are not at thier sharpest wide open, so an f1.4 prime at f2.8 will be sharper than the 24-70 f2.8 when its wide open.

04/12/2006 02:54:31 PM · #15

So now that I have put the 70-200 on the back burner.. how would you compare the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 both have macro capabilities.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

04/12/2006 03:05:17 PM · #16

Originally posted by rblanton:

So now that I have put the 70-200 on the back burner.. how would you compare the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 both have macro capabilities.

The 100mm f/2.8 is a true macro, it focuses down to 1:1 (life size). The tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 is a "semi macro"; it goes down to 1:2 (half life size). I have the Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro, which is also a true macro at 1:1 and every bit as sharp and crisp as the 100mm f/2.8, and I find I rarely use it as I rarely go quite that close and the 28-75mm is much more versatile. It's plenty sharp enough, that's for sure, although the true macros are arguably a bit crisper.

Bottom line; if you're not into EXTREME closeup, the Tammy works fine when shooting in tight, and zooming-to-frame is a LOT easier than moving the tripod back and forth...

Robt.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

04/12/2006 03:08:35 PM · #17

Originally posted by rblanton:

So now that I have put the 70-200 on the back burner.. how would you compare the Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 with the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 both have macro capabilities.

The Tammy is by all accounts a very good lens (I haven't owned one). The 100 macro is also a very good lens, will definitely be sharper at f/2.8, and with 1:1 macro capability. The Tammy's macro capability should more accurately be referred to as "close-up," but it's good enough for many purposes.
They are very diffent lenses from a focal length perspective, so not sure that broad comparisons are valid.

04/12/2006 03:17:38 PM · #18

Well, I am looking to harness whichever for both macro work and portrait work. Hence the comparison.