24-105 / 70-200 f/4 is ?

..MD..

..MD..

Helen Shapiro
Messages
10,257
Name
MonkeyDave
Edit My Images
Yes
hi i have had my eyes set on a 24-105 for doing my portraits and walking around with.. but mainly in my little studio.
anyhow i borrowed a mates 70-200 f/4 non is for the weekend and i am very impressed with the results..

http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/gallery/data/861/frame3.jpg


now the question is would the "is" version be the better option / or stick with the 24-105

i realise this is a personal thing so i thought id see what the thoughts where of people who use these lens alot..

thanks for looking


md:thumbs:
 
That's one tough question. The 70-200 f4 non IS is probably the best lens canon make in terms of image Q for the price. As you'll have found out, it's small, light, quick to focus and brilliantly sharp.

IS is bloomin good though and on either lens will let you hand hold at surprisingly low shutter speeds. Which won't make any differnce at all in the studio though, so you need to work out if it's worth the ££'s to you.

I have the the non IS 70-200 f4 and the 24-105. They are both great but if for whatever reason I could only keep one, it would be the 70-200 every time. It's just so good.
 
thanks for that thought mate.
i forgot to mention all shots taken in my studio have been handheld as i am always moving about trying different angles..

i dont like shooting on the tripod " strange i know but thats me"

forgot to mention the price difference is around 80 quid..

md:thumbs:
 
I always shoot portrait stuff handheld too, I think most people do really but the point I was making (not very well obviously :lol:) is that when shooting in the studio with flash, the speeds are above the range where you'd need IS.

Outside of a controlled environment though, IS will definatley get you shots you wouldn't have a prayer of without a tripod.
 
dazzajl said:
I always shoot portrait stuff handheld too, I think most people do really but the point I was making (not very well obviously :lol:) is that when shooting in the studio with flash, the speeds are above the range where you'd need IS.

Outside of a controlled environment though, IS will definatley get you shots you wouldn't have a prayer of without a tripod.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: sorry mate thought about that after replying
yes i understand what your saying..
the thing swaying me at the moment is the length 200mm over 125..


:bonk: choices choices
again thanks for taking the time

md:thumbs:
 
I keep debating buying the 24-105 as a walkabout lens.


I've got a 17-85 EFS and its IQ is poor. So I replaced it with the 17-55 f2.8 EFS which pretty top notch. Yes I've more money than sense, but its a pretty common failing.

You'll probably know that I have the 70-200 f2.8 IS L, and might guess that it will only leave my possession when prised from my cold dead fingers. However its naffing heavy and isnt something I want to take on a 2 day hike in my rucksack with sleeping bag and tent.

I cant reconcile having another 70-200 as well as the 2.8 IS so I keep tossing around the idea of getting the 24-105 f4 as I could pop it in my rucksack, but like you I want to know what the IQ is like and I debate if I could live with f4... f2.8 + IS has sooo many advantages.

Not helping am I?
 
MD, if it's for the studio shots, the 24-105 is THE lens for you, anything longer is a waste of time - IS or not is irrelevant as studio flashes fire at well above 1/1000th sec most of the time so any stabiliser effect won't ever be noticed

'Portrait' shots were always taken at 75mm length in the old school and film use

I don't have a 75mm option in my studio and generally shoot from 18-70mm (mostly around 25-50mm it seems - though with a 1.5 crop... you figure it out)

Buy gear for what you want from it - a 600mm L f4 is a fab lens, but will earn you NOTHING in your studio - nor will the 700-200 you fancy either

Get the wider one, earn some money, and buy the other from the proceeds as a 'fun' lens for everything else you want to shoot

BTW - are you registered as a 'Pro'? If not, everything you buy is costing you too much!
 
:thumbs:
yes paul makes sense to me

i brought a 70-200 for my old man " he paid" but i used it for the day at chester zoo.
and yes to hand hold it for the day its a fair lens similar to my old 300mm f/4 prime
where as the f/4 looks like a baby..
as for walking about the 200 mm is pushing me.

i have been happy with my sigma 18 - 125 which all portraits untill today have been with.so its a humdinger..



ps donna nook ? any more thoughts


md:thumbs:
 
It's a very good lens the 24-105 but it does nothing brilliantly. It's not got a fast aperture, it's not lightning fast to focus, you wont bruise your jaw on the floor from the image quality and you wont be marvelling at the bokeh.

What it will do is quietly go about it's business of getting you perfectly good shots in all manner of shooting situations and have a damn fine of go of making sure you can shoot wide variety of stuff when it's all you take out.
 
DiddyDave said:
BTW - are you registered as a 'Pro'? If not, everything you buy is costing you too much!
Click to expand...

:naughty: look at my sig mate



good advice taken on board mate..:clap:

thanks


dave:thumbs:
 
will earn you NOTHING in your studio - nor will the 700-200 you fancy either
Click to expand...

Well just to muddy the waters, the 70-200 is my most used portrait lens. On a 1.3 crop camera.

All depends on the working distance but at 135 or 150 the perspective is kinda nice.
 
dazzajl said:
Well just to muddy the waters, the 70-200 is my most used portrait lens. On a 1.3 crop camera.

All depends on the working distance but at 135 or 150 the perspective is kinda nice.
Click to expand...

MD works in his garage - 70mm is rarely going to be used - 200mm would have him 20 yards up the street :lol::lol::lol:
 
To add to what dazzajl says I use the 70-200 for ALL my portraiture and peeps since I bought it.

I think it does an excellent job (the primate behind the lens :shrug:)

1423853523_49333bbf75.jpg


943009030_9e909d3b1d.jpg


512569503_08542b52d7.jpg


I guess it depends what and where you shoot, but if you want top IQ then any of the 70-200 seem to knock the spots of the other zoom lenses with "similar" ranges.

[edit] I almost never shoot indoors
 
Seriously, working with teles in the studio can be really good. My studio is only small and about 9 meters from the back wall to where I'd shoot from and I often use the 300 too for stuff like this.


picture-2.jpg
 
dazzajl said:
Seriously, working with teles in the studio can be really good. My studio is only small and about 9 meters from the back wall to where I'd shoot from and I often use the 300 too for stuff like this.


picture-2.jpg
Click to expand...

Nice - but which account for how much of your sales?

My full length shots can be cropped this tight and still have 3mp (enough for a 10x8 at least), by starting off that tight you're losing the chance of many sales where people want something that bit wider

Many of mine go for the 30x40" canvas (massive) a tight crop would be up to 10x life size and frankly scary! :lol:
 
Nice - but which account for how much of your sales?
Click to expand...
Well naff all but that's because I don't have any time for portrait work these days. When I started out I ran the commercial and portrait stuff side by side and figured I'd go whichever way fate took me. Commercial won out.

When I was shooting portraits I'd sell a large number of shots just like that one. People seemed to love them almost because they were so unrealistic when printed really big.

That one is my daughter (I tend to never show client work on forums) and I have a 12 x16 which looks almost as good as film. ;)
 
I don't really do portraits and certainly have never been in a studio.

In normal light the 70-200 f4 that I had was good but not special. Get it in some good light and it produced the L wow factor. If studio lighting gets you into that wow zone then maybe it is the best choice.

I planned my lens purchases towards the 5D and full frame and got the 24-105 when I saw a good offer. It was good on the 20D but when I got the 5D it just seemed a perfect match. I sold the 70-200 when I got the 100-400 but I can't see me selling the 24-105.
 
Almost as good as film?

Accidental digital slur there m8? :lol:

Why did you light it from below? That's not 'normal' - if there is such a thing in this creative/subjective field - pretty girl though

And what sort of commercial stuff do you do?
 
RobertP said:
I don't really do portraits and certainly have never been in a studio.

In normal light the 70-200 f4 that I had was good but not special. Get it in some good light and it produced the L wow factor. If studio lighting gets you into that wow zone then maybe it is the best choice.

I planned my lens purchases towards the 5D and full frame and got the 24-105 when I saw a good offer. It was good on the 20D but when I got the 5D it just seemed a perfect match. I sold the 70-200 when I got the 100-400 but I can't see me selling the 24-105.
Click to expand...

thanks for that robert . as to be fair at this time the 5d would be my next camera. not for a long time or lotto win to be fair but thats what i can see myself getting.

md:thumbs:
 
monkeydave said:
thanks for that robert . as to be fair at this time the 5d would be my next camera. not for a long time or lotto win to be fair but thats what i can see myself getting.

md:thumbs:
Click to expand...

In which case the 24-105 will be even more relevant

Just wondering why you need more mp?

Most of my clients order prints less than 12x18inch, or they order canvas mounts up to 30x40in (which print at 150dpi and are thus 15x20in equivalent) - any 8mp camera is easily capable of that
 
DiddyDave said:
Almost as good as film?

Accidental digital slur there m8? :lol:

Why did you light it from below? That's not 'normal' - if there is such a thing in this creative/subjective field - pretty girl though

And what sort of commercial stuff do you do?
Click to expand...

Ok, I don't want to drag this too far off topic :whistling:

Firstly, we all know film still has better subtlety for things like skin tones and obvioulsy, skin tones are quite important to shots like that printed big.

It's lit with a sofbox below and to the cameras right and a brolley just above to cameras left. I like to allow alot of movement and freedom when I shoot kiddies so the lights have to be in a fairly general, cover all setup. The softbox is on a swiviling boom arm thingy so at least I can move that around as the shoot moves.

What work, I do quite a bit of high end properties for estage agent brochures, I do product shots and the occasional exciting stuff like the stuff I do for Castle Combe circuit and race school. All in all, I'm pretty mercinary but I wont do weddings. :D
 
5d :thumbs:
well for what i know at the moment.. this would do me well for portrait work " which im sure you know thats where my interests lie"

high iso low noise

full frame

and price to name but a few

my 10D is not the best at high iso the mp is not great 6mp

but dont get me wrong i love it..

md:thumbs:

aww monkey" personal joke"
 
DiddyDave said:
BTW - are you registered as a 'Pro'? If not, everything you buy is costing you too much!
Click to expand...

What do you mean by this? How do you register as a 'pro' and what benefits does it give?
 
I own both lenses and I feel the 70-200mm F/4 IS gives the more consistent images. The 24-105mm is a very nice kit lens, but IMO it cannot match the contrast, pin sharp resolution or bokeh of the 70-200. Whether the 70-200 is too "long" for portraits depends on your personal shooting conditions.

Sure an F/2.8 lens can provide better DOF but I think this is less relevant within a studio environment than in the outside world where you more often need to remove distant distractions.

Many togs use 85mm Primes so 70-200 is not outside of the normal portrait range. If I could only keep one lens it would be my 70-200mm F/4 IS, and I would not swap it for even the F/2.8 IS (which I have also used).
 
70 - 200 is an amazing portrait lens - combine it with the 50mm 1.4 for some flexibilty out of the studio
 
I guess he's probably made up his mind though, since it's 2 years from the original post....
 
pearce_jj said:
I guess he's probably made up his mind though, since it's 2 years from the original post....
Click to expand...

Yes i did i got the 24-105 and i now have a 70-200 2.8 siggy..

md
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top