Author Topic: 24-70 vs 70-200 Lens for protraits (Read 19576 times)

tab62 · « **on:** April 28, 2013, 20:08 »

Hi MSG Folks,

Which lens do you like best for portraits and why? Or should I have both? The exact lens are the Canon EF 2.8 24-70 and the Canon EF 70-200 2.8 L IS II USM

Thanks.

T

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #1 on:** April 28, 2013, 20:19 »

Longer lenses are just about always preferred for portraits. Go with 70-200 unless you have limited space.

daniel hurst · « **Reply #2 on:** April 28, 2013, 21:31 »

Both are great lenses, but the 70-200 would be my first choice for portraits. Great lens .

tab62 · « **Reply #3 on:** April 28, 2013, 21:34 »

I will get is soon! Thanks

T

disorderly · « **Reply #4 on:** April 28, 2013, 21:55 »

I use the 24-70 (Nikon) for two reasons: first, because it keeps me closer to my subject and lets me interact without shouting; and second, because it weighs about half as much as the 70-200. That's enough weight to hurt after a while and give me trouble keeping it steady even before it starts hurting.

With that said, I'll often use my 105mm macro lens for portraits. It's light and it gives beautiful results. And I just bought the 70-200mm F/4 lens; it weighs only a little more than the 24-70. Still prefer being closer to my subject, and can't use the long lens in confined spaces. But your mileage may differ.

pancaketom · « **Reply #5 on:** April 28, 2013, 22:07 »

On a crop camera I'd want something in the 50-100 range for portraits I'd go with the 24-70 unless you have a lot of room to back up, with FF I'd probably go with the 70-200.

shotupdave · « **Reply #6 on:** April 28, 2013, 22:17 »

Quote from: tab62 on April 28, 2013, 20:08

Hi MSG Folks,

Which lens do you like best for portraits and why? Or should I have both? The exact lens are the Canon EF 2.8 24-70 and the Canon EF 70-200 2.8 L IS II USM

Thanks.

T

Are you shooting with a full frame sensor or ?

gillian vann · « **Reply #7 on:** April 28, 2013, 22:57 »

Quote from: disorderly on April 28, 2013, 21:55

I use the 24-70 (Nikon) for two reasons: first, because it keeps me closer to my subject and lets me interact without shouting; and second, because it weighs about half as much as the 70-200. That's enough weight to hurt after a while and give me trouble keeping it steady even before it starts hurting.

With that said, I'll often use my 105mm macro lens for portraits. It's light and it gives beautiful results. And I just bought the 70-200mm F/4 lens; it weighs only a little more than the 24-70. Still prefer being closer to my subject, and can't use the long lens in confined spaces. But your mileage may differ.

+1 I often shoot 3/4 and then make a head shot for a client, so my 24-70 is perfect for this. (This is fine if the head shot is only for web use, although I've had one client who used one of my cropped head shots on a bus stop and it's fine.)

I have an 80-200 (couldn't afford the 70-200 at the time) that I also use and love for portaits but it weighs a lot and i feel safest shooting at 1/250+ which usually means I'll have to push the ISO up a touch, fine for clients but not for stock. It's very nice but you do have to be at least 3m away for it to focus well, which doesn't always word for clients if I'm shooting in their board room or something. Technically you should use at least 80mm for portraits to get the perspective right.

And yes, I also have the 105 macro which I use for portraits, even though you're not supposed to (says my college book lernin'). It's trickier though cos I don't shoot wide open with this lens, due to way it focuses, so again, it's going to require pushed ISO if in low light.

I vote: get both

Xanox · « **Reply #8 on:** April 29, 2013, 01:37 »

actually 85mm F1.4 and 105mm F1.4 are the professional choice for portraiture, F2.8 zoom lenses are ok for random stuff, travel, and weddings.

or at least that's the marketing mantra, i even sold a few portraits shot in F8 with crap lenses and bad light, in the end it's really all about the image, buyers just dont care which lens you used.

all this technical talk about using F1.4 primes holds true for corporate portraits and wedding in my opinion, for anything else we're free to debate forever about the pros and cons.

Freezingpictures · « **Reply #9 on:** April 29, 2013, 02:14 »

As a wedding photographer I strongly favour the 70-200 2.8 Lens compared to the 24-70 for portraits. If I use my 70-200 for portraits I will use it mostly at the long end. My most used portrait lens ist the 85 1.4. Of course you will sometimes also do creative portraits with a wide angle lens but just not as often. At least that goes for me.

shotupdave · « **Reply #10 on:** April 29, 2013, 02:46 »

Quote from: Xanox on April 29, 2013, 01:37

actually 85mm F1.4 and 105mm F1.4 are the professional choice for portraiture, F2.8 zoom lenses are ok for random stuff, travel, and weddings.

or at least that's the marketing mantra, i even sold a few portraits shot in F8 with crap lenses and bad light, in the end it's really all about the image, buyers just dont care which lens you used.

all this technical talk about using F1.4 primes holds true for corporate portraits and wedding in my opinion, for anything else we're free to debate forever about the pros and cons.

When I was in school so many years ago we called the 85mm a short portrait, the 100mm the med. portrait and the 135mm the long portrait. But we were also taught to use a 200 to 300mm to shoot tight portraits, it created graphic compression, the nose is made smaller and the eyes larger.

gillian vann · « **Reply #11 on:** April 29, 2013, 03:53 »

Quote from: shotupdave on April 29, 2013, 02:46

Quote from: Xanox on April 29, 2013, 01:37
actually 85mm F1.4 and 105mm F1.4 are the professional choice for portraiture, F2.8 zoom lenses are ok for random stuff, travel, and weddings.

or at least that's the marketing mantra, i even sold a few portraits shot in F8 with crap lenses and bad light, in the end it's really all about the image, buyers just dont care which lens you used.

all this technical talk about using F1.4 primes holds true for corporate portraits and wedding in my opinion, for anything else we're free to debate forever about the pros and cons.

When I was in school so many years ago we called the 85mm a short portrait, the 100mm the med. portrait and the 135mm the long portrait. But we were also taught to use a 200 to 300mm to shoot tight portraits, it created graphic compression, the nose is made smaller and the eyes larger.

so true, versus seeing so many tout the 50mm as the "allrounder" but all it does it create horse face portraits IMHO.
what student can ever afford a 200-300mm lens? my teacher had a 400mm prime that he let me borrow once for a class shoot, I was waay back and had to keep asking everyone to move out of my shot. crazy heavy, would only use with a tripod.

Xanox · « **Reply #12 on:** April 29, 2013, 04:39 »

Quote from: gillian on April 29, 2013, 03:53

so true, versus seeing so many tout the 50mm as the "allrounder" but all it does it create horse face portraits IMHO.
what student can ever afford a 200-300mm lens? my teacher had a 400mm prime that he let me borrow once for a class shoot, I was waay back and had to keep asking everyone to move out of my shot. crazy heavy, would only use with a tripod.

technically, these are all things of the past if you can invest a lot of time in photoshop.

you can do wonders with a 36MP shot done with the cheapest second hand 300mm zoom and make it look like it was shot in F1.2 with a 5000$ prime.

it's really all up to you, how much time is in your hands, how good you are with PS, etc etc

buyers dont really give a sh-it about how made a shot, which gear you own.

modern lenses are a lot better than in the past, Sigmas in particular have not so much to envy from nikons now but they cost almost half, and the few aberrations and issues they produce can be easily fixed with PS if you're a perfectionist.

actually you could also do good stuff with Tamron lens but i just can't stand them, slow, ugly, plastic cr-ap.

Tokina are good and underestimated.

Zeiss nr.1 but overestimated and incredibly overpriced considering most of them arent even made in germany, they're built by japanese and chinese contractors !

tab62 · « **Reply #13 on:** April 29, 2013, 10:38 »

my camera has a 1.3 sensor. I feel the 70-200 will be great for outdoor portraits and my 24-70 for indoor studio. Last night I test the heavy 70-200 at F 2.8 at 1/50 hand held while shooting a wild rabbit. The photo came out awesome- eyes, nose and ears sharp. That IS must be very good because with my 24-70 I could shoot anything under 1/100 hand held without focus issues...

MichaelJayFoto · « **Reply #14 on:** April 29, 2013, 13:39 »

Quote from: tab62 on April 29, 2013, 10:38

my camera has a 1.3 sensor. I feel the 70-200 will be great for outdoor portraits and my 24-70 for indoor studio. Last night I test the heavy 70-200 at F 2.8 at 1/50 hand held while shooting a wild rabbit. The photo came out awesome- eyes, nose and ears sharp. That IS must be very good because with my 24-70 I could shoot anything under 1/100 hand held without focus issues...

If you have a crop sensor, look around for a 50mm. You can get a f/1.8 for below $100 and it could be working well. Personally I prefer shooting portraits with a 85mm/1.8 when in studio. In studio I'm in full control of the set, light, position etc. So a fixed lens is a great solution and you get them really cheap. A zoom is always a technical compromise, so it's hard to match the sharpness of a fixed lens.

The 70-200 (I have a Sigma instead) is my preferred choice outdoors when I sometimes need a bit flexibility. But it's pretty heavy, so you might feel your shoulders and neck for a few days if you shoot a whole day.

Also the 24-105 f/4 is a pretty good and versatile lens. It gives a full range between a wide angle and a good portrait lens on a full frame but might work well as a portrait lens on a crop.

LesHoward · « **Reply #15 on:** April 29, 2013, 23:06 »

It really comes down to your shooting style and the kind of 'look' you and your customers like. My studio specialized in weddings and portraits for many years and I used everything from 20mm up to 300mm. (That's DSLR full frame equivalent since I used 35mm, 6x6 and 4x5 for different projects). 95% of my portraits were done in the 50-100mm lengths using fixed focal length lenses.

Today, I shoot most portraits with a Canon 24-105 f/4L. I like this lens because it is light and versatile and it covers all of the portrait range I typically need so I'm not constantly changing lenses. Sometimes I use the short end of a Canon 70-200 f/4L, from 70 out to about 100mm. These lenses are both f/4 maximum aperture which are smaller and lighter than the corresponding f/2.8 lenses making them easier to use for extended periods of time. Both are fast enough for me since I usually shoot portraits at f/8 or f/11.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: 24-70 vs 70-200 Lens for protraits (Read 19576 times)

tab62

PeterChigmaroff

daniel hurst

tab62

disorderly

pancaketom

shotupdave

gillian vann

Xanox

Freezingpictures

shotupdave

gillian vann

Xanox

tab62

MichaelJayFoto

LesHoward

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors