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

24-70 of course...(if i were u).

Def' the 24-70....

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?

For protrait, definitely 24-70L. IMO, F4 lenses (up to 200mm, no experience with longer) on crop body don't give nearly enough DOF control. For normal range, F2.8 barely cut for protrait. 24-105L on crop body is at most a above average lens, especially for protrait use.

I don't do portraits in studio with the 24-70 as most. I like primes, but if you have to have one of these, I chose the 24-70 for the f2.8, in dim light. It's s huge lens, but the light comes in perfect for what I need it for.

Do yo plan to go FF in some foreseeable future ? If so get 24-105 if not 24-70.
A cliche advise is to get the 17-55 but that is unusable for portraits.

I'm doing a graduation with my 24-105 today hope it don't fail me.

vadim_c wrote in post #8102237
A cliche advise is to get the 17-55 but that is unusable for portraits.

Huh?!?

kjclockplay wrote in post #8097552
Will having the 50mm prime make the 24-70mm f/2.8 useless over the 24-105mm IS?

Only at 50mm, but then again... at 50mm it makes the 24-105mm IS useless.

Look at the similar threads near the bottom of the page. Seems like your question has been asked at least a few times.

vadim_c wrote in post #8102237
A cliche advise is to get the 17-55 but that is unusable for portraits.

Sorry but
Why do you say this?
A 17-55 behaves as a 27-88, pretty much work as a 24-70 on a full frame
I've used the 17-55 many times for different portraits
The 17-55 might not be right for Your style , but I wouldn't use the word "Unusable"

To the OP I would look into the 24-70 for portraits use, but I've seen many wedding photog with 24-105 with marvelous results.
Cheers

borism wrote in post #8102401
Sorry but
Why do you say this?
A 17-55 behaves as a 27-88, pretty much work as a 24-70 on a full frame
I've used the 17-55 many times for different portraits
The 17-55 might not be right for Your style , but I wouldn't use the word "Unusable"

To the OP I would look into the 24-70 for portraits use, but I've seen many wedding photog with 24-105 with marvelous results.
Cheers

+1

Cheers!

I love the 24-105 and if you said general photography including holidays etc i would recommend it in a heartbeat.

Portraits on the other hand - 24-70 all the way. Especially on a 40d. The increased DOF your fighting (for same framing) puts you shooting at 2.8 alot to get the background to melt away. Wanna make sure you have a good copy wide open- mine on the 40d isnt too good - on the 5d2 and 1d3 it looks 10x better -

I think im at the point whereby if it wasnt for IS video and being my #1 travel lens - id be selling my 24-105. I always reach for the 24-70 for people and faces shots.

For portraits I'd imagine a gearbag filled with primes would work well due to the luxury of having a tad more time to compose.

I think if a zoom is required the 24-70L is a nice bokeh machine. Stopping down a lens regardless of 24-105L or brick would give excellent results.

The brick is a nice lens but I think theres more people justifying the cost of the lens rather than the true performance. I too have a love/hate relationship with the lens. The USM, colours, build and all those L characteristics is what draws me to this lens. I'll use the brick for those times I want quick versatility when things happen quickly. If you look at many/majority owners of Micro AF adjust alot of them tweek to achieve favourable results. My brick is supposedly well within specs yet I need +3 micro AF adjust (still tweeking) on my 50D for pixel pleasing sharpness at f/2.8. My 5D seems to be more forgiving and is decently sharp wideopen but NOTHING to rave about. I see many examples of sharp wideopen photos with the brick but typically they are couple feet away. I can replicate photos like that but my other zooms are equally as good as the brick.

Higher percentage of my favourite photos are with my primes. I do admit the FF makes the 24-70L into a different lens compared to the crop. Much more creamy bokeh is achieved with a FF.

borism wrote in post #8102401
Sorry but
Why do you say this?
A 17-55 behaves as a 27-88, pretty much work as a 24-70 on a full frame
I've used the 17-55 many times for different portraits
The 17-55 might not be right for Your style , but I wouldn't use the word "Unusable"

To the OP I would look into the 24-70 for portraits use, but I've seen many wedding photog with 24-105 with marvelous results.
Cheers

Totally agree with this.

For full frame cameras, 24-70 for portrait work, 24 - 105 for situations where you won't need the wider aperture of the 24-70, just to get the addl length.

I shot this one with 24-105. Exelent bokeh, don´t you think?

http://farm4.static.fl​ickr.com …82710148_92ec57​c711_b.jpg

AlanU wrote in post #8102934
For portraits I'd imagine a gearbag filled with primes would work well due to the luxury of having a tad more time to compose.

I think if a zoom is required the 24-70L is a nice bokeh machine. Stopping down a lens regardless of 24-105L or brick would give excellent results.

The brick is a nice lens but I think theres more people justifying the cost of the lens rather than the true performance. I too have a love/hate relationship with the lens. The USM, colours, build and all those L characteristics is what draws me to this lens. I'll use the brick for those times I want quick versatility when things happen quickly. If you look at many/majority owners of Micro AF adjust alot of them tweek to achieve favourable results. My brick is supposedly well within specs yet I need +3 micro AF adjust (still tweeking) on my 50D for pixel pleasing sharpness at f/2.8. My 5D seems to be more forgiving and is decently sharp wideopen but NOTHING to rave about. I see many examples of sharp wideopen photos with the brick but typically they are couple feet away. I can replicate photos like that but my other zooms are equally as good as the brick.

Higher percentage of my favourite photos are with my primes. I do admit the FF makes the 24-70L into a different lens compared to the crop. Much more creamy bokeh is achieved with a FF.

This is a pretty damn spot on review of the characteristics of the brick from my experience too.... not forgiving AT ALL on 40d especially at 2.8 - always looked soft. Looks alot nicer on FF. Same goes for my 100-400. So ive either got unusually soft L glass - which works ok with me moving away from xxd bodies and both my cams have microadjust.

24-70 (+2 on 1d3 and +3 i think on 5d2)
100-400 (+7-11 on 5d2 @400 and cant seem to suss it out with the 1d3 yet - sometimes dead on - sometimes about a bit of backfocus.. )

If your on the move i would go a zoom... on location and what not..

even in a studio -your often stopped down so much it can negate the need for a prime - depending on how you shoot of course.