DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> Help choosing my next lens
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
05/13/2010 06:47:19 PM · #1
I'm looking into buy a lens that would be good for portraits, from head shoots to full lenght. I'm considering between this two:

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

Which one do you guys think is the best option?

thanks in advance
05/13/2010 06:49:19 PM · #2
When I was in Canon world, I used to dream of the 2.8's. I seriously wonder why you would even consider a slower lens (price consideration apart).

ETA: Spell correction.

Message edited by author 2010-05-13 18:49:52.
05/13/2010 06:51:08 PM · #3
Originally posted by Prash:

When I was in Canon world, I used to dream of the 2.8's. I seriously doubt why you would even consider a slower lens (price consideration apart).

ETA: Spell correction.


that's an excellent point ;)
05/13/2010 06:54:48 PM · #4
I'm not a canon owner, but i've heard that the 24-70 2.8 is not so beautiful, the other I think is better even if is a f/4 "only"...
05/13/2010 07:05:14 PM · #5
If you are getting a lens specific for portraits you should look at some of the primes like the 85mm f2? I believe.
05/13/2010 07:12:46 PM · #6
Originally posted by jminso:

If you are getting a lens specific for portraits you should look at some of the primes like the 85mm f2? I believe.


I should have mention this before, yes the main purpose is portraits, but at the same time a kind of a walk around lens
05/13/2010 07:15:14 PM · #7
Why not the Tammy 28-75 f2.8? It's one of the best they have.. and it's cheap?
05/13/2010 07:18:12 PM · #8
Originally posted by Prash:

Why not the Tammy 28-75 f2.8? It's one of the best they have.. and it's cheap?


No kidding is cheaper...what about the quality, do you think is good?
05/13/2010 07:43:26 PM · #9
On a full frame lens the 24-70 is really wide at 24 and at 70 it's just not much of a telephoto. I love mine, but I won't use it for portraits because controlling the dof even at F2.8 is hard to do, just the nature of a wider lens. Even on a 1.3 crop I use a 70-200 lens for portrait work and when I was shooting my 1DsMKII I also used that lens as my main portrait lens. The Canon 85F1.8 is an amazing focal length for portraits on full frame, and is less then $400, but its also a prime. If I'm shooting adults who are going to be pretty much where I tell them to, I will use a prime, with kiddos who are more predictable I'll grab the zoom to be a bit more flexible.

Matt
05/13/2010 08:26:53 PM · #10
Originally posted by MattO:

On a full frame lens the 24-70 is really wide at 24 and at 70 it's just not much of a telephoto. I love mine, but I won't use it for portraits because controlling the dof even at F2.8 is hard to do, just the nature of a wider lens. Even on a 1.3 crop I use a 70-200 lens for portrait work and when I was shooting my 1DsMKII I also used that lens as my main portrait lens. The Canon 85F1.8 is an amazing focal length for portraits on full frame, and is less then $400, but its also a prime. If I'm shooting adults who are going to be pretty much where I tell them to, I will use a prime, with kiddos who are more predictable I'll grab the zoom to be a bit more flexible.

Matt


Then I think we have a winner!!!!

thanks Matt
05/13/2010 10:04:02 PM · #11
Originally posted by Maggye:

Originally posted by Prash:

Why not the Tammy 28-75 f2.8? It's one of the best they have.. and it's cheap?


No kidding is cheaper...what about the quality, do you think is good?


I have the Nikon version. Everybody will rave about it, and that's why I got one.
It's a love hate relationship;

Love- Color, Contrast, Sharpness
Hate- AF- it's slow, behaves rather strangely compared to my other lenses

Build quality isn't as high as Sigma EX series lenses or Nikon, but seems sturdy enough.

I love my 85 1.8 and that would be my go-to choice for portrait assuming I don't feel the need to get wide to get up close.
05/13/2010 10:13:06 PM · #12
FWIW, as I am from the *other* camp, I carry my most versatile lens, an 18-200mm with me as my walk-around lens, mounted up. The Sigma and my prime lens generally ridealong in my gear bag.

However...earlier today I was shooting macros with the 50 mm prime lens. Left it mounted up. Was driving home, saw a gorgeous redtail hawk perched atop a telephone pole, pulled over. But dang had to change lenses, I needed the magic setting of 170mm on the big lens. But by the time I had switched lenses, hawk gone.

So even though my 50mm f1.8 is my fastest lens by far, great for portraits and things that are more or less holding still, it is certainly not the most versatile!

Message edited by author 2010-05-13 22:13:42.
05/13/2010 10:13:40 PM · #13
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:

Originally posted by Maggye:

Originally posted by Prash:

Why not the Tammy 28-75 f2.8? It's one of the best they have.. and it's cheap?


No kidding is cheaper...what about the quality, do you think is good?


I have the Nikon version. Everybody will rave about it, and that's why I got one.
It's a love hate relationship;

Love- Color, Contrast, Sharpness
Hate- AF- it's slow, behaves rather strangely compared to my other lenses

Build quality isn't as high as Sigma EX series lenses or Nikon, but seems sturdy enough.

I love my 85 1.8 and that would be my go-to choice for portrait assuming I don't feel the need to get wide to get up close.


A good friend has the Canon version of Tamron 28-75. He swears by it. Of course AF is not quite like the branded lenses. If portraits are all you would do, a prime in the same price range may be a good option. Else the Tammy could be a good compromise.
05/13/2010 10:16:07 PM · #14
Njsabs uses the 24-105 almost exclusively for her portraits.
05/13/2010 10:18:02 PM · #15
Honestly on your full frame camera I think your best bet would be a prime like the 135mm 2.0L. It is a great price and honestly, I hate the 24-70 2.8. It isn't really long enough for good headshots on the full frame, it is enormously heavy and not my favorite. The slower lens won't get you the lovely depth of field that the 135 would get you but the 135 is restricting since it's a prime.
05/13/2010 10:39:24 PM · #16
Thankyou all for your help, the prime lens seems like the way to go, the only bad thing, is that in order to buy the new lens, I'm selling my 28-135, the Rebel 400d body and the lens that came with it 18-55, and since sometimes I seem to be working on limited spaces, I need something that is kind of a wide angle. But those primes lenses look great too, I'll do my homework and look into the tamron lenses.
05/13/2010 11:07:31 PM · #17
Originally posted by Maggye:

I'll do my homework and look into the tamron lenses.

It's not normally thought of as a portrait lens, but the Tamron 10-24 that I recently bought has been great for those sort of shots. At the wider end it gives people that fun bug-eyed look, but in the 20-24mm range it gives a normal look to people and works well in a small space.
05/14/2010 12:20:20 AM · #18
I used to have the 85mm f1.8 and love it. Very sharp and I have had great use out of this lens. You can't go wrong. Then I picked up a 80 200 f2.8L. The sharpness, bokeh and flexibility of the zoom, really sucked me in. Heck yeah it's big and heavy, but you get used to it. So the 85mm was eventually sold. I have not missed it yet. Both lenses, two thumbs up! Cost wise though, huge difference...
Another thought...Have you ever tried using your 100mm macro for portraits? Just dull down the sharpness accordingly.
05/14/2010 01:18:48 AM · #19
Originally posted by Magnumphotography:

I used to have the 85mm f1.8 and love it. Very sharp and I have had great use out of this lens. You can't go wrong. Then I picked up a 80 200 f2.8L. The sharpness, bokeh and flexibility of the zoom, really sucked me in. Heck yeah it's big and heavy, but you get used to it. So the 85mm was eventually sold. I have not missed it yet. Both lenses, two thumbs up! Cost wise though, huge difference...
Another thought...Have you ever tried using your 100mm macro for portraits? Just dull down the sharpness accordingly.


Yeap I've used the 100mm macro for portraits and the results are not too bad, but I was looking for something more on the wide end, eventually I would like to get more Prime lenses, but for now I decided to go with the 24-105... Now it's just matter of time waiting for that baby to arrive;) and hope that it does what I need.

Thanks again for the help, you guys are great!
05/14/2010 11:00:16 PM · #20
Personally, I would want a prime lens for portraits. If I was getting a zoom I would want something that covers 70mm to 125mm
05/14/2010 11:19:21 PM · #21
Originally posted by Zeissman:

Personally, I would want a prime lens for portraits. If I was getting a zoom I would want something that covers 70mm to 125mm


I want the primes too, but I cannot afford them for now, but at some point I want to trade my 100-400 for the 70-200 ;)
05/14/2010 11:57:56 PM · #22
I own both and in my personal opinion the 24-105 is not half the lens of the 24-70. The 24-70 is much sharper and of course faster and it's the lens I use the most. I use the 24-105 mostly when I go backpacking and I'm shooting landscapes, but I often lament the lack of sharpness through out the image with it. Could just be my lens, but that is my input.
05/15/2010 12:50:00 AM · #23
Originally posted by BaldurT:

I own both and in my personal opinion the 24-105 is not half the lens of the 24-70. The 24-70 is much sharper and of course faster and it's the lens I use the most. I use the 24-105 mostly when I go backpacking and I'm shooting landscapes, but I often lament the lack of sharpness through out the image with it. Could just be my lens, but that is my input.


How come you use it for landscapes instead of the 24-70?
05/15/2010 01:10:18 AM · #24
Depending upon how far he's going, I'd venture to guess he doesn't want to lug an additional 10oz along for the 24-70.
05/15/2010 01:14:14 AM · #25
Originally posted by Maggye:

Originally posted by Prash:

Why not the Tammy 28-75 f2.8? It's one of the best they have.. and it's cheap?


No kidding is cheaper...what about the quality, do you think is good?


The quality of this lens is amazing, but not for you.

On a clipped sensor it is just very slightly behind the much, much more expensive Canon model. Sadly it is famous for issues with edge sharpness and CA in the corners on a full frame sensor.

P.S. I had the Canon 24-105 once for a weekend. Its hard to slam a lens because any single purchase might be a bad build, no lens maker is perfect, but the lens I got was so soft nothing I took was usable. I returned it and took the same money and used it on a 200 prime, and am very glad I did. I love my zooms, but when you can use them, the primes make better images.

Message edited by author 2010-05-15 01:22:18.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:43:20 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 07:43:20 AM EDT.