Considering a 17-40L....questions!

TreInJapan wrote:

Thanks a lot Keith!

-Do you think the 24-105 that I already have is better for portraits than the 17-40? And then how about compared to a cheap 50 or 85mm?

I don't think I can swing the 16-35 as it is about 50% more than the 17-40. The Tokina 16-28 F2.8 looks great too, but I don't know if it will satisfy my requirements to take decent portraits...unless of course the 24-105 can do that already

Of course the 24-105 does that!    And yes, it would be better than an UWA lens.  The 24-105 is a good lens, weakest on the wide side, which is why an overlapping UWA there makes some sense if you don't mind carrying both around.  The beauty of the 24-105 is in it's versatility.

The 85 f1.8 is a very well regarded lens for portrait photography, and quite inexpensive.  I use the Sigma 50 f1.4 ex, Canon 70-200 f4 and the Canon 135L f2 for most of my portrait efforts, but the 24-105 certainly gets its fair share as well.  There are many pro photographers who use the 24-105 for studio portraiture.  The advantages of the primes are generally sharper images and the ability to use thin depth of field for subject isolation when you want.  But on a 6D you can achieve pretty good subject isolation even at f4 @ 105mm with good center sharpness.  When shooting in more controlled situations you don't need to worry about that so much anyway...just stop down the lens and have at it.

Here are a couple of portraits with the 24-105, some with studio lighting and some more PJ style.