Any pro portrait photogs using 24-70 L 2.8 in studio full time instead of primes?

[cactusclay]

Sorry if this topic has been worn out, but I just can't seem to come to a decision about whether I should get a 24-70 L for shooting portraits in my small studio, or get a 85 1.8 and and climb out the back window, along with a 35/2 for the groups. I use a fifty for most things now and my 17-40, for the occasional wide shots, but the f4 is really pushing it, as my shutter speed is usually around 1/30 of a sec. at 400 iso. I did try out a Tamron, but the copy I got was soft on one side, which I probably could have exchanged for a sharp one, but the auto focus really seemed to have a difficult time and so I have scratched it off my list. Any pro portrait photographers using the 24-70 and if so do you ever find that the 2.8 is just not enough? I really appreciate the feed back and once again I appologize if this is a worn out topic. Thanks, Clay

[Longwatcher]

I use the 28-70/2.8L (not quite the 24-70) and find it works for almost evrything. It is very rare when I need more aperture then the 2.8 doing studio portraits. Wider then f4 and I start noticing that the DoF starts getting a bit too short. There are exceptions of course.

On the other hand, I eventually plan on getting the 85/1.2 and 135/2 so maybe you should ignore what I do now. I had strongly considered the 85/1.8 as well. For my 1DsMKII the 28-70 works great for full body to half body shots, but to get head shots I have to go to 70-200/28L now. When I was using my 10D though, the 28-70 was almost all I used.

Just my experience and opinion,

[cactusclay]

Thanks Longwatcher. I have to agree on the DOF I noticed that I have to have people pretty much parallel inorder to get everything in focus at 2.8 on my 50, which is starting to make me think I need to lose the softbox and put up a diffuser screen in order to get more light or add another light. I'm using the Alzo 2000 constant light with a reflector and a hair light now. I guess I was thinking that shooting at 3.5 would help for the wider shots,but like you said maybe that's just not enough DOF.

[Mike Panic]

the 24-70 is on my next lens buy list... as soon as i put enough $ aside.

i see nothing wrong w/ using it for portraits, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS lens is considered the staple in sports photogrpahy as the first lens to buy but its also a supurb on location fashion lens.

most people also will agree that no lens is its sharpest wide open, its usually 1-3 stops closed down from wide open

lastly - if your shooting in the studio, assuming you have lights, why shoot @ 400iso wide open w/ such slow shutter speeds? my thoughts are if you have a studio w/ at least one strobe you should be shooting either 1/90th or 1/125th and then adjusting apreture as needed to give the effect you want, all @ 100iso, unless you are relying soley on natural lighting

[Vegas Poboy]

I don't use primes for the studio, I like to move around my clients & the zoom gives me that advantage. My first choice of lens for head & shoulder shots is the 70-200 f/4 & I use f/5.6.
Just received the 24-70 f2.8 & that works great for full body shots.
I do own the 50 f1.8 & the 85 f/1.8 just hav'nt got around to using them yet.

[KevC]

How about the 50mm f/1.4? My f/1.8 is coming in the mail and I can't wait till I start shooting portraits with that..

[Mike Panic]

the 50mm f/1.4 is considered to be a better lens due to the supurb construction of it, the f/1.8 mkII is often refered to as a "toy" by most photographers, amature and pro.

in one of the photo magazines i was flipping thru at work the other day there was an interview w/ a well known sports photographer and they asked what he carries on the field. in his bag of trix is 4 (four) 1d mkII bodies, a barrage of white L glass (as expected) and a 50mm f/1.8 lens... which i thought was kinda ironic. having shot this lens myself for nearly 5 years now, i am extremely happy with it, although i would prefer the f/1.4 as i have broken an f/1.8 already