Canon 24-70 or 24-105 as portrait lens

weka2000 wrote in post #2117564
Remember head to toe indoors with studio lights (woops forgot to add that ) . The range is 30-50 that I miss. I aslo hate swaping glass all the time. When I had the Sigma it was always used, I sold it and got the 50mm and 85mm.

I also do a lot of landscape/ waterfalls and the extra reach would come in handy. I tested a frenids 24-70 and found closeups to be soft i.e flowers may have just been his copy.

The IS will be turned off due to tripoding most of the time.

PS the 35mm "L" did cross my mind

Well, I think you have your answer

Much as I love my 24-105 as walkaround, general purpose omnirole lens (does Everything And Anything, maybe except photos of wolves at a few hundred yards), when interoperating with studio lighting, I would very much prefer the 24-70. The larger aperture can dramatically influence how you light. Shake is a non-issue since you will have all the light that you need and can generate. There was one event I was covering where I had to bump from 400 to ISO 1600, it had a big influence on ambient light. I would have killed to have two additional stops of aperture (was at f/5.6.. don't ask, I haven't ALWAYS had the nice gear that I do today). That's where I learned that one stop can make a big difference. Then again, the lens I wanted did not exist at that time - 17-55 2.8 IS. It would have allowed me a MUCH better ratio of ambient light to flash, rather than having my subject floodlit with the flash and the background dark. I guess we live and learn.

IS plays well with shutter speed, but since strobes basically 'ignore' shutter speed unless you're in the field and dragging the shutter to allow ambient light in, you don't need it.

Tripod - if willing to carry and deploy - IS is a non-issue either. I take my 17-40 out for low light work, park it on top of the tripod, trip the shutter open for 30 seconds.

Your profile seems to be almost a perfect match for that lens. If you need longer get a 85mm or 70-200.

weka2000 wrote in post #2117508
I had a sigma 24-70 F2.8 and I used it a lot for full body portraits. I sold it a while ago now im wanting to re get this time with canon.
My 2 options are the 24-70 or the 24-105. Im not fussed over the 1 stop difference or the IS.

What I need to know from others which is the sharpest and better optics.
There has been reviews I have read on FM regarding the 24-105 and getting a good copy.

Thoughts comments advice. It will be on my 5D.

i can only speak to the 20d. i've owned both lenses and i think the 24-70 is a better portrait lens.

my 24-70 has better bokeh and has better pop than the 24-105 that i owned for eight months.

how much of this can be attributed to copy variation i just can't say. i can say that my 24-105 was recalibrated by canon and the main reasons i sold it was the poor bokeh and it was an average portrait lens.

ed rader

rklepper wrote in post #2117727
If it is between those 2 lense definately the 24-70. There is nothing that the 24-105 does better, except go from 71-105.

the 24-105L has a two stop advantage over the 24-70L so i find you statement to be false.

i've owned both lenses and there are shots that i can't make with the 24-70L that i could have easily gotten with the 24-105L.

it's amazing to me that you can make that claim after owning both lenses.

well, wait....there's another guy here who agrees with you but like you he bashed the 24-105L before he owned it too .

ed rader

I don't know why there are so many people out there that just outright bash the 24-105.
With that said, I think for your applications the 24-70 would be the better lens.

If you are talking about me. I did not bash it.

FYI, for as many stops that the IS on the 24-105 gives you. It does not allow for DOF control that the 2.8 does.

I can personally attest for the pop on Ed's 24-70. Oh yeah.

Nope, not talking about you...

24-70 because i am in love with low light and better bokeh.

For portraits, that's simple. You don't really need IS for portraits. And 70mm is plently long on the 5D still. And then you have the 85 too. That makes a good portrait combo.

It's good to have 2.8 because isolating the subject isn't easy when you get higher up there. Heck, its even hard on 2.8 sometimes.

Dante King wrote in post #2118350
If you are talking about me. I did not bash it.

FYI, for as many stops that the IS on the 24-105 gives you. It does not allow for DOF control that the 2.8 does.

I can personally attest for the pop on Ed's 24-70. Oh yeah.

and the 24-70 will not allow you to handhold consistently at 1/8 so what's the point?

ed rader

ed rader wrote in post #2119585
and the 24-70 will not allow you to handhold consistently at 1/8 so what's the point?

ed rader

I think he is trying to say for portraits you need more DOF control than to be able to hand hold at 1/8 which is what this thread is about

Assuming a decent copy and use indoors on a tripod I would go for the 24-70mm. Otherwise, I'd prefer the 24-105mm L for general use. For portraits tho' where the situation is highly controllable I think I'd prefer a decent prime. Personal choice innit?

grego wrote in post #2118570
For portraits, that's simple. You don't really need IS for portraits. And 70mm is plently long on the 5D still. And then you have the 85 too. That makes a good portrait combo.

It's good to have 2.8 because isolating the subject isn't easy when you get higher up there. Heck, its even hard on 2.8 sometimes.

I think Grego has answered this question to perfection

calicokat wrote in post #2119620
I think Grego has answered this question to perfection

IS steadies the camera. period. and that goes for landscapes or portraits.

ed rader

Save your money and use 85 1.8 you already have; although I have no doubt you will love 24-70 and/or 24-105 just to have. I've even taken portraits with 70-200.

Yup, certainly seems to be a common repeater .

lostdoggy wrote in post #2117553
what is this Deja Vu??? wasn't this done just a few days ago???

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=226139