New IS Lens

So after much consideration I've come to the conclusion that I need an IS lens to do portraits, my 24-70L is lacking IS and it's showing.

The question is do I jump right in with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, OR something else ? And if I were to get the 70-200 do I dump the 24-70 and get another wider lens to go with it ?

Decisions decisions......

If you need an IS lens to do portraits you probably shouldn't be doing portraits.

You might need to define portraits or describe what type you do. You shouldn't need IS to do portraits inside or out.

It does not matter what you shoot; getting the 70-200 mk II will make everything better.

huntersdad wrote in post #13568968
You might need to define portraits or describe what type you do. You shouldn't need IS to do portraits inside or out.

I would agree...if you are using a tripod you would be shutting off the (is).

What kind of portraits are you doing, and what problems, post a pic or two.

mark2009 wrote in post #13569027
I would agree...if you are using a tripod you would be shutting off the (is).

What kind of portraits are you doing, and what problems, post a pic or two.

I don't use a tripod for portraits. I found it too limiting.

OK maybe I need to clarify....because of the outdoor settings I am shooting in (uneven terrain, the beach, sometimes in tough positions, etc) a tripod isn't doable at all. Regardless my hands are not the steadiest for some reason so it's compromising my sharpness which I am blaming on movement.

Perhaps I am not 100% correct with this and maybe a faster shutter speed would correct this. I assumed lenses have image stabilization for a reason but I could be wrong here

You really should use a monopod if a tripod is not an option. Notice all of the NFL guys still use monopods even with monster lenses with IS (granted part of that might be due to weight but it still helps). You just miss too many shots shooting freehand even if you have fast aperature. Also primes are almost always sharper than zooms. Having said that the 70-200 is the best lens canon makes you should go for it.

Some people have conditions that cause hand tremors and such, so I try not to assume anything, even though personally I have no trouble handholding my own 24-70 without IS.

I'd suggest 24-105 IS, 28-135 IS... they offer pretty close to the same image quality (it would be hard to tell apart 11x14 prints from each), even if they lack the f2.8 aperture of your 24-70.

If you still need f2.8, you might look at third party lenses... Sigma has some fast ones with OS, their version of stabilization which is pretty comparable to Canon's IS. There are also some VC Tamrons and VR Tokinas, but I really don't know very much about them.

I'm afraid a 70-200 will simply be too long for a lot of portrait work on a crop camera.

Prime lenses really don't help, though they might have larger aperture that allows a slightly higher shutter speed.... Canon 50/1.4, 85/1.8 are very good portrait lenses. 100/2 is another possibility, though starting to get a little long on crop cameras for some portraits. There is also the Tamron SP 60/2.0 macro/portrait. But, there's no IS on any of these.

Shorter lenses that might work include the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS. The EF-S 15-85mm IS actually has a wider range of focal length than your 24-70, but is f3.5-5.6.

Yes, a tripod would be ideal... a monopod is a possible alternative. And, without knowing your level of experience, simple practice and working on hand holding techniques can make for a lot of improvement.

if you're taking pictures of things that move you'd want a shutter speed that wouldn't be affected by IS anyways on a 24-70mm...

Alex, Post a couple pics that think have compromised sharpness, so we can see the settings. If you're doing lanscape or macro stuff handheld, I can kind see the needing the IS thing handheld. For portrait work though, I can't see it being a benefit outside unless you are shooting in extreme shade.

Shooting at 70mm on a crop, your SS should be around 1/125 to prevent shake from showing. I'm assuming a crop because it only gets shorter from there.

So give us some examples.

post some samples along with their metadata....that way we can give some comments. I do portraits with my 24-70 all the time and it is an amazing lens. I don't think the lack of IS has limited me at all.

I love my 24-70..... Are you taking these at midnight or something? I imagine with the correct lighting gear you'd be fine in any situation for portraits.

alexxn wrote in post #13568935
So after much consideration I've come to the conclusion that I need an IS lens to do portraits, my 24-70L is lacking IS and it's showing.

The question is do I jump right in with a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, OR something else ? And if I were to get the 70-200 do I dump the 24-70 and get another wider lens to go with it ?

Decisions decisions......

Why do you need IS for portraits? Aparture good enouhgt for portraits so that shutter speed coming to quick not need IS in this case. 70-200f/2.8IS is best lens using in the critical light condition. If your budget are good the 70-200f/2.8IS is the best choice for portraits.

You need to know how tk use the lens. I think people misuse their lenses sometimes. I almost never have a problem with my 24-70, having non-blurry shots that is. However, I did have a problem with the original 70-200L I had. So I upgraded to a 70-200L IS II and it is a "WOW" lens!!
Use the right teqnique using your 24-70 and get a 70-200L IS II, that's all I can tell you. Believe me or not, I had KEEPER shots at 200mm at 1/20 of a second from the 70-200L IS II. You need steady hands to pull something like this. Some people need 1/30 or higher even with IS.