Bitten by the upgrade bug

Ok, here's what I'm thinking of. Need some help deciding what to do.

1, was thinking of upgrading my 70-200 f4 to the IS version. It's about twice the cost, but from what I have read the IS is just as sharp if not sharper & the IS is a big plus towards the long focal lenths..............

or

2, Selling my 24-105 f4 & getting a 24-70 f2.8. I seem to be doing alot of portraits lately & although the 24-105 yields very nice results, the brick seems to be the lens of choice for this kind of shooting. I have read alot of the threads between these 2 lenses, and love my 24-105, but have the itch & looking to try something different.

Which way would you go & why??

TYIA

Mark

With your 24-105 how often are you shooting at f/4 and how badly do you need that extra stop? If the answer is always and need, then the 24-70 is a good way to go.

For the 70-200 how often are you loosing a shot because of motion blur? If it's often then the IS version is also a good upgrade. If it's rare then maybe another lens migh be a better option.

But the 24-70 IS has bokeh that blows away the 24-105...

Be sure to take that into account for portraits...

Bryan

But 105mm at F4 looses the background more than 70mm at F2.8... having used both the 24-105's IS was more useful than the F2.8... 24-70 was built much better...

I am very happy with my 24-105 for portraits & as a general walk around. I have read alot of the 24-105 / 24-70 threads & for what I like to shoot, don't think I want to give up the extra focal lenth, or add the extra weight of the 24-70 since this would be the lens that is on my camera most of the time.

With the 70-200 I have shot portrait but mainly use it for equestrian events. Get a very high % of keepers, but again at times the IS would be nice.
Trying to justify another $500 for IS driving me crazy.

Now I find myself leaning towards a 100mm f2.8 macro. I have a 50mm f1.4 that I just don't use so I could blow it out to help fund the 100mm.

The macro could open up a whole new world to my addiction.

Man, when this bug bites, it's deadly.

Thanks for the replies

Mark

So are you just looking to try something new or is there something you can't do with what you have?

For portraits, the 50 f1.4 will do even better than the 24-70 assuming 50mm works. The 85 f1.8 and 100 f2 are pretty good portrait lenses, the 35 f2 is decent as well and all are relatively affordable.

Personally, I don't fancy the 24-70 range on a crop camera. That lens was designed for FF. The equivilent range for crops is the 17-50. I find that range very useful for portraits and walk-around - the 17-55 is on my camera about 80% of the time. The Tamron 17-50 f2.8 is another good lens in this range.

Yeoer wrote in post #6730825
But 105mm at F4 looses the background more than 70mm at F2.8... having used both the 24-105's IS was more useful than the F2.8... 24-70 was built much better...

Very true! I'm fairly certain this is why the age-old debate of "Which one is better: the 24-70 or the 24-105?" will never end!

Bryan

The only reason I would make this switch is if you find yourself frequently shooting in situations where your shutter speed does not equal 1/focal length. If you are always outside shooting at 1/800, then you don't need the IS. If you are often inside shooting 1/100 at 200mm, then the IS may benefit you.

I wouldn't really suggest that you do this. Your gear list shows that you have the 70-200 f/4 and the 50mm f/1.4. These are both excellent portrait lenses. I also went to your gallery and looked at your portrait collection and a few others. What I saw here was alot of direct flash, red eyes, harsh shadows, and photoshopped backgrounds.

It is my opinion that you would benefit more from learning and practicing better technique than you would from buying an f/2.8 lens. Spend some time bouncing your flash, learning the rules of and experimenting with DOF, and keeping an eye out for appropriate backgrounds and portrait settings. You can do all of these things with the gear you already have and it won't cost you a thing.

I am certainly not an expert photographer, but I used to take portraits and blur the backgrounds in Photoshop just as you have done. I don't need to do that anymore and I have some of the same lenses that you do.


.

Mark-B wrote in post #6731608
The only reason I would make this switch is if you find yourself frequently shooting in situations where your shutter speed does not equal 1/focal length. If you are always outside shooting at 1/800, then you don't need the IS. If you are often inside shooting 1/100 at 200mm, then the IS may benefit you.

I wouldn't really suggest that you do this. Your gear list shows that you have the 70-200 f/4 and the 50mm f/1.4. These are both excellent portrait lenses. I also went to your gallery and looked at your portrait collection and a few others. What I saw here was alot of direct flash, red eyes, harsh shadows, and photoshopped backgrounds.

It is my opinion that you would benefit more from learning and practicing better technique than you would from buying an f/2.8 lens. Spend some time bouncing your flash, learning the rules of and experimenting with DOF, and keeping an eye out for appropriate backgrounds and portrait settings. You can do all of these things with the gear you already have and it won't cost you a thing.

I am certainly not an expert photographer, but I used to take portraits and blur the backgrounds in Photoshop just as you have done. I don't need to do that anymore and I have some of the same lenses that you do.

.

You are so right.............I am learning all the time. Here's a link that has some other portraits, but still not close to being there yet.

http://www.modelmayhem​.com/pics.php?id=66170​0

I do need to get the flash off the camera & try using some sort of diffuser. Most of my shooting (lately) has been outdoors which makes it hard to bounce the light.

I know I have a decent lens line up for what I want to do, just trying to satisfy the "shutter bug" craving of something new I guess...............

if you are shooting equestrian events, then you are probably shooting at shutter speeds that don't require IS. You would probably get more for your money if you bought the 70-200 2.8 since action requires high shutter speeds, and the 2.8 non-IS version will give you that, especially if the sun is starting to fall.

And I'd pick the 24-105 over the 24-70 any day. The 24-70 is by far my least used lens in the bag.

I love my 70-200 f4 L IS.

Really fantastic lens.

handyhaver wrote in post #6732275
I do need to get the flash off the camera & try using some sort of diffuser. Most of my shooting (lately) has been outdoors which makes it hard to bounce the light.

I know I have a decent lens line up for what I want to do, just trying to satisfy the "shutter bug" craving of something new I guess...............

How about some Pocket Wizards, Skyports, or other device to remote trigger your flashes? Light stands, umbrellas, softboxes, or other modifiers? Books on photography or portrait photography in particular? There are lots of places to spend money!

Yeoer wrote in post #6730825
But 105mm at F4 looses the background more than 70mm at F2.8... having used both the 24-105's IS was more useful than the F2.8... 24-70 was built much better...

True, but keep in mind that at 105mm your subject will me much larger in the viewfinder, and if you move back to get the same subject size, the 2.8 aperture gets back the edge.

I agree however that you shouldn't consider the "upgrade" to the 24-70 just for portraits. While I really like the versatility and portrait ability of this lens, I prefer to use my 50 1.4, or even my 70-200 2.8 for portraits.

IMHO, none of the two upgrades you suggest are really worth it for the uses you describe.
I agree with Mark-B. Buy a 430 or 580 EX and improve your flash technique, the pay off will be higher.

handyhaver wrote in post #6729630
Ok, here's what I'm thinking of. Need some help deciding what to do.

1, was thinking of upgrading my 70-200 f4 to the IS version. It's about twice the cost, but from what I have read the IS is just as sharp if not sharper & the IS is a big plus towards the long focal lenths..............

or

2, Selling my 24-105 f4 & getting a 24-70 f2.8. I seem to be doing alot of portraits lately & although the 24-105 yields very nice results, the brick seems to be the lens of choice for this kind of shooting. I have read alot of the threads between these 2 lenses, and love my 24-105, but have the itch & looking to try something different.

Which way would you go & why??

TYIA

Mark

I would go the f4 IS route, the one and only single thing that annoyed me about the non IS was low light shooting. You really need the higher shutter speed at the long end, but with the IS you can shoot 2, maybe 3 stops slower.

I tried the 2.8 ( several versions) next to the f4IS and it just was not as sharp wide open at all, and that is what you buy it for presumably, that extra stop, not the whight thats for sure!

There are conflicting reports about whether to use a flash for portraits or not. For family I personallay hate flash, it's a mood and light killer IMO, others will disagree vehemently- I have a 580 and never use it ( along with a few others things like the eye level finder!:lol

I much prefer to use a really fast lens(f1.4 -1.2) for portraits but do so few of them it's not worth paying so much. I mainly use the 50f1.4 nowadays but the lens I used most for portraits was the 135L. If you don't feel like getting a fast prime then the 70-200f4L IS wil get you more reach than the others with the best IQ

handyhaver wrote in post #6729630
Ok, here's what I'm thinking of. Need some help deciding what to do.

1, was thinking of upgrading my 70-200 f4 to the IS version. It's about twice the cost, but from what I have read the IS is just as sharp if not sharper & the IS is a big plus towards the long focal lenths..............

or

2, Selling my 24-105 f4 & getting a 24-70 f2.8. I seem to be doing alot of portraits lately & although the 24-105 yields very nice results, the brick seems to be the lens of choice for this kind of shooting. I have read alot of the threads between these 2 lenses, and love my 24-105, but have the itch & looking to try something different.

Which way would you go & why??

TYIA

Mark

I would go the f4 IS route, the one and only single thing that annoyed me about the non IS was low light shooting. You really need the higher shutter speed at the long end, but with the IS you can shoot 2, maybe 3 stops slower.

I tried the 2.8 ( several versions) next to the f4IS and it just was not as sharp wide open at all, and that is what you buy it for presumably, that extra stop, not the whight thats for sure!

There are conflicting reports about whether to use a flash for portraits or not. For family I personallay hate flash, it's a mood and light killer IMO, others will disagree vehemently- I have a 580 and never use it ( along with a few others things like the eye level finder!:lol

I much prefer to use a really fast lens(f1.4 -1.2) for portraits but do so few of them it's not worth paying so much. I mainly use the 50f1.4 nowadays but the lens I used most for portraits was the 135L. If you don't feel like getting a fast prime then the 70-200f4L IS wil get you more reach than the others with the best IQ

I would say that wouldn't I as I'm selling mine but even if I werent that is still what I'd recommend