If your photo biz (portraits) had to operate with ONLY one lense..........

[threeinthenest]

which lens would you choose??

[bieber]

70-200mm, hands down. I'd have to make the choice between an f/2.8 and f/4 based on whether or not we did a lot of low light stuff, but you can't beat the versatility of that zoom range

[Halliday]

Depends on the camera it's going on.
Crop camera: 24-70 2.8
Full frame: 70-200 2.8, but I'd complain about the size all the time :)

[Gary_Evans]

Depends on how you operate your portrait business.

Shoot families/full length you would need a big studio to use only a 70-200, and if you can afford a big studio you can afford a bigger lens. Outside, of course, you can use whatever you like.

Inside, I use a 24-105 F4, outside I really like my 300mm fixed

[Stime187]

It's "lens", by the way.

[threeinthenest]

It's "lens", by the way.


Okay, thanks for the spelling lesson, but you didn't answer the question. :)

[Zansho]

I would go for a 24-105 F4L

[threeinthenest]

I would go for a 24-105 F4L

really? I don't know much about that lens, how does is perform in low light?

[bieber]

really? I don't know much about that lens, how does is perform in low light?

I'd say like any other f/4 lens, which isn't exactly stellar. I've got the 70-200 f/4, and the only reason I'm able to get away with using it indoors so much is because I pretty much always use strobes...

[ssim]

It would depend on how you do your portraits, are you talking single persons, family groupings, there are alot of variables that factor in to the decision. No doubt the 70-200 is a great lens but if you want to do full length on multi-person groupings you will find yourself too far from your client.

I have both the 24-105 f4 and the 24-70 f/2.8. I do like the 24-105, it is very sharp but the f4 is somewhat limiting if you are shooting available light. Given that I don't shoot portraits with only available light I use this alot for my work in this area. I use fill flash alot in my portraits to give them that little extra pop to them. The 24-70 is also a superb lens and the extra stop can be beneficial in some cases. If I had to choose only one it would probably be the 24-70.

It's "lens", by the way.
Actually lense is also an acceptal spelling in parts of the world.

[threeinthenest]

Thank you, Sheldon. :) Also-your images are beautiful-nice!


Bieber-thats kinda what I was thinking on the lighting-thanks!

[jacobsen1]

Actually lense is also an acceptal spelling in parts of the world.

Definitions of lense on the Web:

* to film a motion picture; "The project will lense in Rome and New York." major -- one of the eight major film studios (Disney, MGM ...
www.hbo.com/docs/programs/boffo/glossary.html

* lens: a transparent optical device used to converge or diverge transmitted light and to form images
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
http://www.newschoolofphotography.com/forum/images/smilies/popcorn.gif

[Zansho]

If you were shooting with strobes, the 24-105 F4L is an excellent choice, and is a very sharp lens. I'd test it first by renting it from your local camera shop before purchasing. Actually, I'd test everything under the sun before I'd buy to make sure you like then lens prior to purchasing them. :)

If no strobes, I'd have to say a 24-70 2.8 or something along those lines. Again, it's still somewhat limiting, as photography itself is always about compromises. You're going to give up something to get something - low light photography usually means using a fast aperature or higher ISO just to be able to shoot hand-held. If hand held is your cup of tea and tripod isn't an option, I'd look into getting IS versions of whatever you're planning to buy - the Image Stabilization feature can be a real life saver at times.

[cdifoto]

24-70L.

[threeinthenest]

GREAT info, thanks.

[John Mireles]

I'm surprised that everybody is going with zooms. Actually, I'm not surprised - zooms are an easy way to go. I prefer fixed lenses for portraits. If I had to pick one lens it would be the 50mm 1.4. (I use the 50 1.2, but I'd use the 1.4 if I didn't spend so damn much money on the 1.2.) My other options would be the 85mm 1.8 or the 105mm macro.

I don't like zooms because it's too easy to be lazy and just zoom in or out. I like getting in close and mixing things up. I don't like the 70-200mm because you just can't get in close with it. The minimum focusing distance is something like 8 feet which is just too far away for an intimate portrait.

I happen to have the 24-70 2.8, 24-105 f4, 70-200 2.8 IS, and 70-200 f4. Of those, I'd go with the 24-105. If I had to pick one lens though I'd go with my 50mm.

John

[cdifoto]

I'm surprised that everybody is going with zooms. Actually, I'm not surprised - zooms are an easy way to go.

Easy? More like realistically practical. Your referenced laziness is a personality trait, not a lens function. By contrast, I can be more creative with a 24-70 than I can with a 50mm.

[bobbyz]

MFD of 8 feet for 70-200mm?

[threeinthenest]

MFD of 8 feet for 70-200mm?


is that right????

[cdifoto]

is that right????

No.

For Canon:
On the f/2.8L IS it's 4.6'
On the f/2.8L non-IS it's 4.9'
On the f/4.0L IS it's 3.9'
On the f/4.0L non-IS it's 3.9'

For Sigma:
On the f/2.8 EX it's 3.3'
On the f/2.8 EX II it's 3.3'

[airfrogusmc]

FF 85 1.2L...
Thats my portrait lens.

[Mike4BekA]

I have seen the 70-200mm L F 4 Non IS mentioned a bit here....could someone link me to actual portrait shots with this lens? I have searched the archive but it seems to be a lot of animals and sports posted with this lens.

Thanks if anyone can help.

[threeinthenest]

I have seen the 70-200mm L F 4 Non IS mentioned a bit here....could someone link me to actual portrait shots with this lens? I have searched the archive but it seems to be a lot of animals and sports posted with this lens.

Thanks if anyone can help.

ditto

[bwolford]

I didn't bother checking the others, but I offer one correction

No.

For Canon:
On the f/2.8L IS it's 4.3'
On the f/2.8L non-IS it's 4.9'
On the f/4.0L IS it's 3.9'
On the f/4.0L non-IS it's 3.9'

For Sigma:
On the f/2.8 EX it's 3.3'
On the f/2.8 EX II it's 3.3'