Paul Dold
Senior Member
What shall I buy for portraits 24-70 or 24-105. Want the best possible IQ.
Most of the pro's seem to use the 24-70?.
Most of the pro's seem to use the 24-70?.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
24-70 or 24-105 for portraits
- Thread starter Paul Dold
- Start date
BatuKMan
Leading Member
For the shallow DOF the 24-70.
Paul Dold
Senior Member
Thanks BatuKman. Good point!
BatuKMan
Leading Member
Nothing to thank for. But if your're doing just portraits I would recomend a prime, the 85 f1.8 and the 24-105 as more versatile choice. The price of them combined is about the same as the 24-70L.
Just an ideia.
Regards
RVB
Just an ideia.
Regards
RVB
Joerg-Engel
Forum Enthusiast
Of cause, this depends on your camera.
If you work with a FF, the 24-70 would be a little bit too short and too soft on the long end in my opinion and I would also recommend the 1.8/85.
Joerg
If you work with a FF, the 24-70 would be a little bit too short and too soft on the long end in my opinion and I would also recommend the 1.8/85.
Joerg
Paul Dold
Senior Member
Thanks for the excellent suggestion of the 85mm. Is this 1.8 the best 85mm in terms of IQ? What about the DOF with the 1.2. I know there is a huge price difference!
BatuKMan
Leading Member
If money isn't a problem than go for the 1.2L but putting money into the equation I don't think the extra-bucks will give you a much better lens.
Hi Joerg, you mentioned that the 24-70 was too soft on the long end for FF. How do you mean? Do you mean that the 24-70 is not sharp at 70mm on a full frame camera?
The 85/1.8 is a very sharp lens. No need for concern over its image quality. For an extra degree of DOF control, there's the f/1.2L. But you pay a lot more for that extra bit of DOF control. If you're shooting with FF, you'll be better off. I shoot with the 85/1.8 which forces me to stand back a lot farther from my subject in order to get the desired framing, and that greater distance dimishes the degree of background blur a bit. On a FF body, you're going to be able to shoot a lot closer, and the background blur will look a lot better, so you'll do fine with "just" the f/1.8.
Here's a shot with the 85/1.8 on my 20D.
Paul Dold
Senior Member
-- --
If you're considering 135mm, also don't forget the very sharp and often-overlooked Canon 135/2.8 SF (Soft Focus). It has an adjustable Soft Focus effect, but you can set the effect to zero and it's just a very sharp prime. I have this lens. It's way too long to use for portraits on a 1.6x body, and maybe even too long for a 1.3x body too, but it's fine for a FF body. Priced at about $339-$369, it's a very good buy.
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=35&sort=7&thecat=2
http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=35&sort=7&thecat=2
I think that 135mm F2 for portrait will be better, than 85mm F1.2 ..
And 85/1.2 have very slow autofocus .... 24-70mm seems better
than 24-105mm F4L .. this lens remind me 28-135mm
Ou
Bernard O Brien
Active member
--
Bernard Ireland
Hi there you got some great advice there I think any of the lenses mentioned will give outstanding results .A lot of it is being aware of the various factors when shooting i think we are down to splitting hairs lol
I use an EF 24-70 1:2.8 usm on on eos 1 mark II N and lets just say if the quality isint there its my fault actually I am heading off to do a shoot on a couple for a wedding invitation layout in a couple of hours I will post one of them to show the capeability of this lens
Bernard
Bernard Ireland
Hi there you got some great advice there I think any of the lenses mentioned will give outstanding results .A lot of it is being aware of the various factors when shooting i think we are down to splitting hairs lol
I use an EF 24-70 1:2.8 usm on on eos 1 mark II N and lets just say if the quality isint there its my fault actually I am heading off to do a shoot on a couple for a wedding invitation layout in a couple of hours I will post one of them to show the capeability of this lens
Bernard
From B&H, the 24-70L is $1149, the 24-105L is $1249. So combining the latter with an 85 f1.8 (or 100 f2, my personal favorite) exceeds the price of a 24-70 by a comfortable margin.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
I've not found the 24-70 to be soft at the long end, at all. And you don't want a lens to be too sharp when shooting portraits, flaws are to thoroughly reproduced for most people's taste, as it is.
Example of portraits shot with the 24-70 and 5D:
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/54962124
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/54962125
http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/55549517/large
No USM was applied to any of the above images.
--
Skip M
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
T3,
At what aperture was the portrait shot at? The out of focus highlights in the bg have a strong angular look. If this was shot wide open or only slightly stopped down I'd say the aperture blades on the 85/1.8 aren't flattering for portraiture. It is a mighty sharp lens though =)
On the newer L lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200IS the blades are slightly rounded to render bg highlights in a smoother way up to f/4.5 (if I'm not mistaken). The OP might want to take that into consideration as well.
Just my two cents.
--
An image is only as good as everyone says it is
At what aperture was the portrait shot at? The out of focus highlights in the bg have a strong angular look. If this was shot wide open or only slightly stopped down I'd say the aperture blades on the 85/1.8 aren't flattering for portraiture. It is a mighty sharp lens though =)
On the newer L lenses like the 24-70 and 70-200IS the blades are slightly rounded to render bg highlights in a smoother way up to f/4.5 (if I'm not mistaken). The OP might want to take that into consideration as well.
Just my two cents.
--
An image is only as good as everyone says it is
Peter186710
Forum Enthusiast
I wouldn't buy the 24-105 because of maximum aperture f4.
The 24-70 is a bit short. You could add a 70-200 f2,8 (IS) or a prime as others suggested.
The 24-70 is a bit short. You could add a 70-200 f2,8 (IS) or a prime as others suggested.
Steve Balcombe
Forum Pro
I've just checked a couple of major UK suppliers and the opposite is true. At list price the 24-105 is cheaper, by almost enough to buy an 85/1.8. At street price the difference is less, but the 24-105 is still significantly cheaper.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum