Canon 24-105mm or 24-70mm for portrait

I have a 50mm f/1.8 II on my 40D now. Thats all I got. I wanted to upgrade to either the 24-105mm or the 24-70mm. I do mostly portrait shots only. Will having the 50mm prime make the 24-70mm f/2.8 useless over the 24-105mm IS?

I personally would go with the 24-105 for the longer focal length. Although they are both great lenses.

If you mainly do portraits, have you considered another prime like the 85 or 100/135? The larger apertures would make for some pleasant background separation.

24-70 and 105 are both great len for potrait. 24-70 is slightly better and sharper then the 105. They all have their weakness somewhere. With the 70 you get no IS, heavier, not enough zoom, but you get nice color and 2.8 for low light shooting. 105 you have IS, longer zoom, lighter but no f/2.8. If you can live without IS and longer zoom 24-70 is the way to go. In the end they are both great lens.

Keep in mind that prime L glass are the best for potrait.

I used to have 24-105, sold it and bought 24-70. For me I made the right choice. If you want nicer bokeh, 24-70 is better. In low light conditions, sure the IS is a help when you shoot static subjects, but it wont help with stopping subject movement.

Have you considered the 17-55IS?

Megapixle wrote in post #8098001
Have you considered the 17-55IS?

For the price, IMHO, I'd rather have a 24 - 70 f2.8 L than the 17 - 55IS due to limitation with EF-S body only for the latter. Having said that, you can't beat the weight of the 17 - 55 IS. Although for portrait, it's often best to shoot at 70mm and longer.

Primes are still the way to go.

Primes! 50, 85, 100, 135 depending on the body and what kind of portrait (of that group, I prefer the 85L)

24-105 in studio, 24-70 out.

I use 100mm on a 5D for anything up to head-&-shoulders, which corresponds to about 70mm on a 40D. The extra stop on the 24-70 helps with separation, and it has better bokeh as well.

The 24-105 gives allows you to get tight headshots with a good working distance, if you'd like that. In a studio, bokeh and wide apertures aren't as important, so the increased versatility is useful.

kjclockplay wrote in post #8097552
I have a 50mm f/1.8 II on my 40D now. Thats all I got. I wanted to upgrade to either the 24-105mm or the 24-70mm. I do mostly portrait shots only. Will having the 50mm prime make the 24-70mm f/2.8 useless over the 24-105mm IS?

the bokeh of the 24-70L is far superior to that of the 24-105L, which would not make my short list for portrait photography. plus i'd take f2.8 anyday for portraits.

ed rader

btw, annie leibovitz used the brick to shoot the queen of england .... take a look beginning @ 1:22. also she clearly has a filter on the lens.

http://www.youtube.com​/watch?v=_LAY3qWFC8Y

ed rader

leibovitz also shot miley cyrus with the brick......

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FOTOTIME

LamontSanders wrote in post #8098319
Primes! 50, 85, 100, 135 depending on the body and what kind of portrait (of that group, I prefer the 85L)

+1
Cheers

Ed, I'm not sure about this, but I get the feeling you like the brick. However, I could be wrong.

Familiaphoto wrote in post #8100671
Ed, I'm not sure about this, but I get the feeling you like the brick. However, I could be wrong.

i have a love/hate relationship with the brick but for portraits i sure can't see favoring the 24-105L.

ed rader

The 24-105 is only superior from 71 - 105mm. The brick is superior in terms of f/stops, which no amount of PP can get you. I would say that the brick is the better for what you are looking for.