Canon 24-105mmL v Canon 50mm EF 1.8 for portraits
- Thread starter markimage
- Start date
woof woof
I like a nice Chianti
- Messages
- 39,716
- Name
- Alan
- Edit My Images
- No
I've never used a 24-105mm but I'd guess that at 50mm it'll be pretty free from any nasties associated with the wider end of its focal length range so I guess that the advantages the 50mm offers are compact size and weight, the ability to shoot at wider apertures than f4 and any advantage between f4 and some smaller aperture of your choosing.
So, would these advantages and/or differences be significant enough to matter to you?
So, would these advantages and/or differences be significant enough to matter to you?
- Messages
- 343
- Name
- Rick
- Edit My Images
- Yes
ive owned both, I would say use both, the 1.8 seemed sharpest around f2 and up. If your body is the original 1d it will be cropped and more suited to head and shoulders shots.
The 24-105 (aka the wedding lens) is more than capable of producing amazing shots, the 50mm is nice for getting shallow depth/bokeh images..and for the money, everyone should have one in their bag.
my 50mm f1.8 rarely gets used..mainly because I'm an idiot and purchased the f1.2
The 24-105 (aka the wedding lens) is more than capable of producing amazing shots, the 50mm is nice for getting shallow depth/bokeh images..and for the money, everyone should have one in their bag.
my 50mm f1.8 rarely gets used..mainly because I'm an idiot and purchased the f1.2
- Messages
- 636
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Only problem with my 50mm f/1.8 is the slightly unpredictable focussing, but for money it's still a great buy.
I've owned both. Personally I didn't think there was much in it for IQ and colour accuracy.
Key difference (excluding the ability of the 24-105 to zoom) was in the DOF opportunities that the prime provides. My 50mm was dead sharp from F2.5 (not so hot at F2.2 or lower). For all that, I didn't find my 24-105 to be pin sharp until F5.6. Implications for myself were several stops of difference on lighting options and MUCH more important were the much shallower depth of field capabilities for the 50mm. That's why I now use just 2 lenses for walkaround purposes, both of which are primes.
Key difference (excluding the ability of the 24-105 to zoom) was in the DOF opportunities that the prime provides. My 50mm was dead sharp from F2.5 (not so hot at F2.2 or lower). For all that, I didn't find my 24-105 to be pin sharp until F5.6. Implications for myself were several stops of difference on lighting options and MUCH more important were the much shallower depth of field capabilities for the 50mm. That's why I now use just 2 lenses for walkaround purposes, both of which are primes.
LongLensPhotography
Th..th..that's all folks!
- Messages
- 17,633
- Name
- LongLensPhotography
- Edit My Images
- No
Not much wrong with 24-105 at 105mm f/4. I rather hated the cheapo 50mm. It is too short and produces horrible bokeh if unreliable noisy focusing isn't enough. I'd get 85mm f/1.8 for those creamy shots.
