Portrait Photogs:Would u pick this lens over the 24-105 f/4.0L IS?I shoot late afternoon portraits & light is an issue but 70mm is a bit short!
220605
Hi JohnDo yo have a FF or 1.6! This one is perfect for 1.6 crop and good for FF too. However it's not exactly a portrait lens {by definition}, you can look at 85mm f1.2 mkii for that if you want a perfect portrait lens.24-70 is far more sharper than 24-105 though.
220606
Zoom with your feet! Kidding aside, there are quite a number of factors you might consider in buying a specific lens. A few of which are (1) Aperture to address lighting, (2) 'Practicality' of a zoom reach, and (3) Price. I would only pick the 24-105mm if I don't have enough dough for the 24-70mm. But supposing money isn't an issue, it seems to me that your primary concern is lighting for taking portraits. Someone here already said the answer. Go for a prime. :) I personally sold my 24-105mm and got the 24-70mm because of that f/2.8 aperture. Point #1 above is on my high priority list. And I know it's redundant but I also have the 24mm f/1.4. Zoom with your feet! Kidding aside, there are quite a number of factors you might consider in buying a specific lens. A few of which are (1) Aperture to address lighting, (2) 'Practicality' of a zoom reach, and (3) Price. I would only pick the 24-105mm if I don't have enough dough for the 24-70mm. But supposing money isn't an issue, it seems to me that your primary concern is lighting for taking portraits. Someone here already said the answer. Go for a prime. :) I personally sold my 24-105mm and got the 24-70mm because of that f/2.8 aperture. Point #1 above is on my high priority list. And... » Read More Zoom with your feet! Kidding aside, there are quite a number of factors you might consider in buying a specific lens. A few of which are (1) Aperture to address lighting, (2) 'Practicality' of a zoom reach, and (3) Price. I would only pick the 24-105mm if I don't have enough dough for the 24-70mm. But supposing money isn't an issue, it seems to me that your primary concern is lighting for taking portraits. Someone here already said the answer. Go for a prime. :) I personally sold my 24-105mm and got the 24-70mm because of that f/2.8 aperture. Point #1 above is on my high priority list. And I know it's redundant but I also have the 24mm f/1.4. « Show Less
220607
Best lens may be your choice of focal length in a Prime lens... 135mm? Or, 70-200...
220608
The extra stop is amazing... 70mm frames a head and shoulders from 10 feet or so... Works great with my lighting set up and excels in low light... If you want tighter shots from longer distances, the 105 would be the pick! Most portrait photographers prefer 85mm to 105mm- the f/4 just may not give you the background blur you may want... the 70mm-200M f/2.8 L IS II is another awesome choice...
220609
Hi John,If light is an issue, you would definitely need a lens with f2.8 or less. and with 24-105 you can at best get f4.0 so I believe you will have to choose between quality and range.If you want quality in low light conditions then go for the 24-70 mm. If range is a greater priority then you can go for the 24-105 f/4.0 L IS
220610
Sorta depends on if you shoot full frame or crop camera. Frankly, I like to shoot tight portraits with a 70-200 with a full frame camera. Longer is better for head and shoulder portraits.
220611
it doesn't matter what you shoot with FF or crop camera body the 24-70 will will beat the 24-105 in every way but for zoom range and price,i have both and i sold the 24-105.
220612
Yes I would take the 24-70 2.8 because of the speed. This lens is my go to lens, it is a work horses. I back it up with my 70-200 2.8.
578411
What camera bodies do you currently own and for what type of shooting?? For portrait, people love the 85, some even say they prefer the 100mm. I own the 50L, the only thing I can say is that shooting at f1.2 takes practice, and the auto focus is a bit slower than most other modern day lens with AF.
861800
That's a tough one. My first thought is to go with the 24-70 since that rounds out your focal-length suite nicely. But as you know, the 70-200L IS (esp the f/2.8) would be a lot better for portraits, and the long shots you'll need during the wedding itself. It's close, but I think I'd go for the 70-200.
910055
if you are into portraits of children just like me, you might want to consider EF 50mm lenses. i also have EF 24-105 L, but i found myself using 50mm the most. 24-105mm is a versatile player that you can take everywhere w/ decent amount of light. however, for portraits, i would highly recommend 50mm. bokek in the background is just stunning. i personally have 50mm 1.2 L, and experiencing superb result.
143450
It wouldn't be my first pick for anything other than macro photography. f/3.5 is pretty slow for indoors (it's like looking into a cave), it isn't a zoom, it doesn't have stabilization, and focus is somewhat slow (comparatively speaking). For portraits, I would prefer the 70-200 f/2.8. It's a perfectly keen lens for macro, though; you can take pictures of the tiniest things!
1398788
It is a great lens for portraits. That's what I primarily use it for. Another good option is an 85mm.
352996
85mm is amazing lens, crisp images. Great for portrait shoots. The problem is it is a manual focus lens. It takes time to get good using it but its worth the price.
2028038
No. I have had no problems with lens setting at 24mm or 105 mm. My friend who has a canon 24-105 thinks my sigma is much better than his lens.
597333
Agreed with Tech Guy. 24mm on a crop (effectively 40mm) is just not wide enough for a general walk-around lens.That said, I do wish that Canon would have made the 15-85 a constant aperture lens like the 24-105 f/4L.
794545
I'd always prefer a more extreme wide angle... So the 24mm is my favourite. The f/1.4 aperture is all the more glorious when the angle is wider.
1773306
I have the Oly 45 and 75, and the panasonic 25 and 12. The 75 is regarded and one of the finest lens around, and its very sharp, but its $900, and the focal length isn't always practical. For the money, the 45mm is my favorite. Its inexpensive and very sharp. When you hold it in your hand, honestly, it looks a little cheep but the results are excellent.
342852
Overall I am delighted with the image quality of this lens. I'd prefer to use the 24mm setting to minimize distortion in a group of people (if conditions permit). I use it mainly as a landscape lens and still use it extensively.
419325
It's optically great for portraits but it hunts annoyingly at portrait distances (as someone noted, not good "on the fly"). When convenient I prefer my 70 2.4 or my 50 1.4 SMC M (manual focus)..both are more conventional portrait lengths than the 35's.
357725
To my understanding it is usually believed that 2470 is a better version than this one in the same focal length range. But there are other things to consider. How important is it for you to have the extra versatility, that is, the focal length of 70 to 120? How much do you care about the lost of aperture range? (And that depends on what you plan to shoot most often.) How important is the price difference to you? And weight differs, too. Actually, I envy the newest 750 model so much! lol. It certainly deserves good lenses.
1474695
Not that this will be of much help, but I'm with you. Ordered a 24mm 1.4 (later returned) expecting the same jaw-dropping results I get from the 85mm 1.4 and it's just not there that I can see. As far as your suggestion of getting closer to your subject for pop - sure, a wide angle lens will really exaggerate the perceived depth of a shot. That's how I'd roll with it for the most part; 2' from the subject (more for DX frame), avoiding top and bottom when shooting vertical (unless you want that edge distortion; maybe not so bad on DX). The sharpness you're looking for also won't exist until you get close enough to your subject to give eyelashes and things of that nature some pixels to work with. At 85mm, it pulls these details in and paints them across, say, 5% of the frame or more. With the 24mm you may be talking about less than 1% of the pixels dedicated to what you're looking for details in. I've seen some REALLY spectacular night landscape images that were made with this lens. Also, the bokeh that lens produces is right on par with the 85mm. The issues I had with the 24mm (and the reasons I returned it) were failure to find focus at 1.4 no matter how much I helped it along and a general lack of spectacular sharpness at 1.4. At this end of the price spectrum, this has to be gold. It's real close, and quite nice at 2.8, but so are lots of lenses at 2.8. That said, I've still got this lens on my mind. If it were a 20mm 1.4 I'd just suck it up and do it. At 24 there are some other close options out there.
2177809
I have several bodies including the 5D mk1 and mk2. I also have both lenses you mentioned. Without a doubt the 24 - 70 is a more useful lens. The 24 - 105 is soft at f4. I find it only to be super sharp from F5.6. The 24 - 70 is fairly sharp when wide open at 2.8. It creates a shallow depth of field where you can blur out your background and focus only on the couple. Remember for a wedding you often dont get to choose your backgrounds during the ceremony. For me I much more prefer to use the 24 - 70. Yes the 24 - 105 is a great lens, so much so that i have 2 of them. But since buying the 24 - 70 I think its better. See images made with it here www.visionphotographyinc.com most were made with the 24 - 105 but the last three I think at the bottom were the 24 - 70.
357723
I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it.... » Read More I spent many months comparing 28-300 and this 24-120 before I settle with this. I was looking for a walk around lenses for travel and family picture because I don't want my f2.8 lenses to take all the fun out of the trip as they are heavy and big. To my surprise, this 24-120 replaced my 24-70 f2.8 except for shooting sports as the AF is not as snappy as the 24-70 f2.8 and I need to shoot more frames to cherry pick the ones that are in focus. Other than sports, my copy of 24-120 f4 has taken over the job of 24-70 f2.8. I used it at weddings and senior pictures...... I am very happy with it. I got it in "brand new white box" for about half the price and that's even a greater deal. « Show Less