cheap studio lens

ok, i sold my 28mm, which was too wide, too much distortion for portraits.

i need some kind of zoom for indoor work to supplement my 85mm.

its mainly for indoor studio work, portraits.

tamron 28-75, canon 24-105, canon 17-40, looking to keep the price low, or else id just go for a 24-70/2.8

thoughts for a 5d2?

Upwards from 85mm is too long so I would say next one down.. 50mm 1.2

id prefer a zoom, primes can be difficult indoors with not much space to move.

Nick_Reading.UK wrote in post #16719017
Upwards from 85mm is too long so I would say next one down.. 50mm 1.2

I don't think that qualifies as cheap. Get the 50 1.4 (Canon or Sigma).

Not terribly cheap, but still a good value. I love the 24-105 for the studio. Its plenty sharp, gives you enough range for full body to headshots, and in a studio f4 isnt an issue.

I use the 28-75 which is my "studio" lens . I get great images from that

ps... I had the 24-70 , sold that and got the Tamron 28-75 instead along with 2 AB800's

For studio work, controlled conditions, lots of time to shoot, I never understood the need for a zoom. Portraits? Look toward Leica, Zeiss 50/1.7, and so many other choices I cannot think of them all. Look at my gear list. I have or have had all the best portrait lenses ever made.

I used to use a Tamron 28-75 in the studio, and now use a Canon 24-105. The reason I changed lenses was to get faster focusing for outdoor action shots; the 28-75 doesn't have USM. I also wanted weather sealing.

Had it not been for those two factors, I would have kept the Tamron. It does a wonderful job in the studio - terrific images, and a very useful range. The Canon, too, does a wonderful job. I would say image quality is comparable; neither lens really outperforms the other in a studio setting.

You'll be using the lens on a full frame camera whereas I have a 7D. In this case the added length of the 24-105 might be an advantage.

i used to own the 28-75 on my crop but i got rid of it when i got my 5d2. i figured it would be good for portraits since the outer edges tend not to be too important.

cannot beat the tamron 28-75 for CHEAP STUDIO shots

gasrocks wrote in post #16719505
For studio work, controlled conditions, lots of time to shoot, I never understood the need for a zoom. Portraits? Look toward Leica, Zeiss 50/1.7, and so many other choices I cannot think of them all. Look at my gear list. I have or have had all the best portrait lenses ever made.

The counter argument is there isnt much reason not to have a good zoom either. Stopped down many of the standard range zooms are plenty sharp enough. And why change lenses when you dont have to?

24-105 works great on FF or crop for studio

for indoor studio, correct me if I am wrong, you would mainly use from f5.6 - f8.0 or even f11.00 anyways. 50 1.8mm II or 40mm 2.8 would be good enough.

How big is the studio and are full length frames being shot?

While not exctly "cheap" the 70-200mm f/4L (non-IS) is an all around studio performer on my 1.6x cameras. I would expect that it might even be more versatile on a full-frame camera. I use it at all focal lengths between...
200mm

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …ional/n-LPGK4/i-LXnFVZC/A

IMAGE LINK: http://rpcrowe.smugmug​.com …ional/n-LPGK4/i-spnwpCd/A