Portrait Lens

Paul Tomlinson

Paul Tomlinson

Messages
400
Name
Paul Tomlinson
Edit My Images
No
Can anyone give me any feed back on a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens please, any pics if possible. i am thinking of buying one.

Paul
 
Paul Tomlinson said:
Can anyone give me any feed back on a Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM Lens please, any pics if possible. i am thinking of buying one.

Paul
Click to expand...

Hi Paul,

Whilst the 24-105 is a very good lens for portraits (see the studio stuff in my gallery) I have been reliably informed that on a crop body, the 24-70 is a far superior lens.

I intend to hire the 24-70 this weekend to give it a serious once over.

Steve
 
Loco.jpg


And a crop

Loco_crop.jpg
 
Jelster said:
Hi Paul,

Whilst the 24-105 is a very good lens for portraits (see the studio stuff in my gallery) I have been reliably informed that on a crop body, the 24-70 is a far superior lens.

I intend to hire the 24-70 this weekend to give it a serious once over.

Steve
Click to expand...


Wouldn't say "far superior". It's just a different lens. The wider aperture does allow a nice bokeh, but the 24-105 at the long end also produces a nice bokeh even at f4.

The IS on the 24-105 makes the lens a very useful and versatile lens. Both are amazingly sharp and colour and contrast are excellent.

I use the 24-105 on a crop body and love it although I do weddings now and again and am actually thinking of going for the 17-55 f2.8 IS.

Whatever you choose from the two you noted, you'll not be disappointed.Here's one of my favourites with the 24-105.

2039559698_96b5bbd8de_o.jpg


PS it's also a great landscape lens :)

2038762531_e82c762369_o.jpg
 
Jelster said:
Hi Paul,

Whilst the 24-105 is a very good lens for portraits (see the studio stuff in my gallery) I have been reliably informed that on a crop body, the 24-70 is a far superior lens.

I intend to hire the 24-70 this weekend to give it a serious once over.

Steve
Click to expand...
Hi Steve,

Can you tell me what a crop body is ??. Are the portrait pics taken with that 24-105 lens,

iam i right in saying that a f2.8 in that magnification range would be better for potraits than the f/4.

Paul
 
Lovely walkaround lens, particularly on a 5D. But I often find myself wanting the extra stop, particularly for indoor stuff, and for the shorter DoF, and so I tend to favour my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 instead for some situations.
 
marky_h said:
Lovely walkaround lens, particularly on a 5D. But I often find myself wanting the extra stop, particularly for indoor stuff, and for the shorter DoF, and so I tend to favour my Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 instead for some situations.
Click to expand...


I think i should choose a f/2.8, but what focal range would be better something like a 24-70 ish.

Paul
 
If you're specifically going for a portrait lens, have you considered a prime instead? Perhaps Canon's 85mm f/1.8? In answer to your earlier question, a crop body is one such as a 350D, 400D, 40D etc - it has a smaller sensor, and so this effectively increases the focal length by the crop ratio. So on the bodies mentioned, the crop factor is x1.6, which means a 24mm lens produces the same frame size as a full frame camera (such as a 1Ds or 5D) would do at 38mm. What camera body do you have?
 
Hi Paul, a crop body is a camera that has a "crop" sensor i.e. not full frame. The NikonD3 Canon EOS5D and (I think) one of the EOS1D's are the full frame ones. All the other Canon and Nikon are a crop sensor. What that means is that full frame has a sensor the same size as 35mm film. The others are smaller so they record the central portion of whatever the lens is pointed at, the clever electronics then blow it up to the same size as full frame. The overall effect is to make lenses appear to be longer. The amount of magnification you get depends on the camera. Some are 1.5x and some 1.6x. As a rough guide a 100mm lens would appear to give you 150mm on a crop body.

Just be careful that you are comparing apples with apples with lenses on different bodies. As for the 24-105mm? I have one on a 5D and I really like it. The image quality is superb, I use it a lot for studio portraits so f4 is not a problem for that. I do also use a 100mm macro f2.8 and a 70-200 f 2.8 when I need to go below f4. If you do find f4 a little limiting (and it can be) then there is also the little nifty fifty f1.8 that is really cheap for the quality. Might be a good one to supplement the 24-105mm.

Hope that helps.
 
marky_h said:
If you're specifically going for a portrait lens, have you considered a prime instead? Perhaps Canon's 85mm f/1.8? In answer to your earlier question, a crop body is one such as a 350D, 400D, 40D etc - it has a smaller sensor, and so this effectively increases the focal length by the crop ratio. So on the bodies mentioned, the crop factor is x1.6, which means a 24mm lens produces the same frame size as a full frame camera (such as a 1Ds or 5D) would do at 38mm. What camera body do you have?
Click to expand...

I use the 40D
 
Cheers Ali B,

Loads of info guys, on my 40D i use the standard lens the 17-70 but i also use the 70-200mm f/2.8 L lens,

i would like to use a smaller lens for the portraits as well,

Paul
 
I own the 24-105 and love it. I use it with a 400D. The IS helps a lot as I have shaky hands.

Every forum has always had arguments as to which one is better, but it really depends on you and what you intend to use it for. I once had a Sigma 24-70 but I returned it because my hands shake a lot- too much coffee. And I always had blurry pics because of camera shayk. The IS of the 24-105 is very effective and increased my keeper rate, and it also has a longer range, and it is lighter. The only + point of the 24-70 is its f2.8.
 
Paul, a couple of people have confirmed what the "crop body" is, so I won't elaborate further. Almost all of the photo's in that selection were on the 24-105, I think I may have done a couple on my 70-300.

I have read that the 24-105 does suffer from "barrel distortion", and that the 24-70 is a better performer. That said, I really loved the 24-105 on my 350D, this weekend I'm going to be running the 14-70 on both the 350, and the new 40D that I have.

I like the idea of the extra speed from the 24-40, and I think it's a little shorter in physical length too.

Steve
 
Paul

Are you thinking of using the "new" lens just for portraits. If so the 85mm or similar on a cropped sensor camera (provided you've the room) would make a great portrait lens . The 40D does deserve a good lens.

At the end of the day every one will have their own opinion, but the final choice is up to you.Do what Jelster is doing and hire your shortlist for a few days. That way you'll know you've made the right choice, when you buy it
 
Thanks for all your help on this subject of the portrait lens there is a lot of information you have all gave me to think about,

I do want a lens just for portraits work, i am not wanting to pay anymore than say £800 i think this should be enough to pay without going over the top.

I am interested in landscapes and sports and this is were i use the 70-200mm f/2.8L and i am very satisfied with this lens.

So would a 85mm do the job in mind.

Paul
 
Paul Tomlinson said:
I am interested in landscapes and sports and this is were i use the 70-200mm f/2.8L and i am very satisfied with this lens.

So would a 85mm do the job in mind.

Paul
Click to expand...

A fixed 80mm lens wouldn't be the best for landscapes as well. I got a price from a guy of about £650 for the 24-70. Hopefully I'll run with it after I've tried out one of StewartR's next week :thumbs:

Oh and Stewart, I've had one in my hand, it must be all that exquisit glass that makes it so heavy ! :lol:

Steve
 
Paul Tomlinson said:
am i right in saying that a f2.8 in that magnification range would be better for potraits than the f/4.

Paul
Click to expand...

Depends on what you are shooting and the effect you want.

f2.8 allows faster shutter speeds and also provides less depth of field (good for blurring the background - but sometimes you may find you need more of the image in-focus).

Learn how to control aperture and the effect that you require.

f2.8 is not necessarily better......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top