Portrait Photogs: Would u pick this lens over the 24-105 f/4.0L IS? I shoot late afternoon portraits &amp; light is an issue but 70mm is a bit short!
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...
725615
I am a professional photographer. Portrait mostly but some weddings. This is my go to lens. I love it. Great build, sharp, fast, quiet great lens in my opinion. For a point of reference you can check out my website with pics mostly taken with this lens. www.lbd-studio.com Hope that helps. Amanda
1337629
Image quality between the 24-70 and 28-75 is leaps and bounds. The 24-70 is just as sharp as Canons 24-70 version. Not to mention having VC. Definitely worth it if you have the money. I owned the 28-75 and it was a great lens for what is was but the 24-70 is such a step up in my opinion. Cheers
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!
294922
Mindy,I have this lens, and it's my favorite piece of gear I own. It's sharp at 1.4 (no other lens I own is as sharp as this one wide open) and it has sick contrast. I found that the 24/1.4 was too wide and added distortion and the 50/1.4 was too tight. The 35/1.4 is my go-to for any portrait session. It would be great for a newborn session because you could use it to capture the whole nursery, and you could shoot portraits without distorting the baby too much. I wouldn't recommend shooting super close to someone's face with this lens because you will see a little bit of distortion, but take a step back and you're golden. Mindy,I have this lens, and it's my favorite piece of gear I own. It's sharp at 1.4 (no other lens I own is as sharp as this one wide open) and it has sick contrast. I found that the 24/1.4 was too wide and added distortion and the 50/1.4 was too tight. The 35/1.4 is my go-to for any portrait session. It would be great for a newborn session because you could use it to capture the whole nursery, and you could shoot portraits without distorting the baby too much. I wouldn't recommend shooting super close to someone's face with this lens because you will see a little bit of... » Read More Mindy,I have this lens, and it's my favorite piece of gear I own. It's sharp at 1.4 (no other lens I own is as sharp as this one wide open) and it has sick contrast. I found that the 24/1.4 was too wide and added distortion and the 50/1.4 was too tight. The 35/1.4 is my go-to for any portrait session. It would be great for a newborn session because you could use it to capture the whole nursery, and you could shoot portraits without distorting the baby too much. I wouldn't recommend shooting super close to someone's face with this lens because you will see a little bit of distortion, but take a step back and you're golden. « Show Less
465323
The 10-22 on you 70D is going to closely match the 17-40 range after adjusting for crop. It really is a personal choice. I stayed away from EF-S lenses because I knew I would eventually get a full frame camera, but if you really need the ultra wide of 16mm the the 10-23 is the only thing to get you there.
357731
I have never used a 24-70, but have seen good images made by it. For me, 70mm is too short a tele. I have a 24-85 which is not bad, also a 24-120 VR f/3.5-5.6 which is much better then the 24-120 f/4 I purchased.
1150472
"Nick Kovacs says:way too slow...I tried it and quickly purchased a 70-200 2.8"LOL, how can the 24-70mm f/2.8L be slower than the 70-200mm f/2.8L which is equally "fast"? I own both and I notice no difference between the two, other than their reach of course.
608746
I have both of these and they are excellent lenses. This is my profession and it I were to choose go with the 17-70, unless you don't need the extra reach and you mostly work in low light.
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.
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.
1936776
I've had absolutely no issues. This is my second most go to lens when shooting portraits. I prefer the 70-200 more, but that's just my style.
597331
Why would one choose the 15-85 over the 24-105? Despite the relative ratio differences it seems as though the 24-105 is so much more of lens for not much more money. Any thoughts?
1484430
Very good lens but you better be close because 24-70 on a full frame camera is jut that. If you are on an APSC censor that's about 36-105 but is the camera fast enough to frame a capture the image(s)? As a back up it would suffice but not as a principle lens. I use mine on a Nikon 750 as a walk around lens for candid photos and street photo along with landscape and it could not be a better lens.
1784423
The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a... » Read More The 24-70 is great for family portraits on the wider end. For individual portraits, and this may sound counter-intuitive, a 70-200 is better for the bokeh and getting in tight on your subject, but that's if you're shooting full frame. If you're using it on a DX body like the D5000, I think the range is ideal. As for the lens, it is an incredibly high image quality optic that can potentially stay with you forever as you upgrade from camera to camera. Good lenses are an investment. Mediocre lenses get replaced as your skills improve, pretty much like dslr bodies. I bought this to replace a Nikon 28-105, which I've happily retired. So, in short, buy this great lens if you plan to stay with Nikon bodies. « Show Less
1891735
I love this lens for portraits. The focus may be a little slower than a dedicated 105mm being that its macro but there's a switch you can hit to keep the lens from searching for focus in the macro regions. That allows it to focus a little faster for portraits and other non macro work.
1864061
Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are... » Read More Although this is an old post, I am going to reply anyway. I owned the 28-135 and was quite happy with it. I still have a lot of photos I took with it. However, when I bought the 24-105 I quickly discovered the joys of a newer lens. Shorter on the long end, the 24-105 is outstanding for almost everything you will want to do. It is definitely worth the extra $ if you are semi-serious. If you are primarily looking for photos for yourself the 28-135 does a great job and has that extra 30mm...useful. So the answer is...what do you need? If you are going to insist on the best possible, you are going to have to get the 24-105. Either way, you will be happy. « Show Less