24-70 for portraits

I have decided to get a full frame body. I have been building up my

lenses to do this. The two main lenses I use are the 24-70 and a 70-

200 2.8 is.

I have done a few weddings and the 24-70 was on my camera 80% of

the time.

But it has suddenly hit me that I will be losing the long end of my 24-

70, and might end up with me losing time changing to my 70-200 for

portrait shoots. The 70-200 is quite a heavy lump to keep changing in an

environment where speed is essential, or to have it hanging around you

on another body just for those portrait shots, I only brought the 70-200 out

when I knew I would need it.

I know that 85-135 mm is the ideal length for head and shoulders

shots, but I also know that a 24-70 is the main lens used by wedding

photographers, and portraits are done quite a lot in a wedding.

So I was wondering has any one used a 24-70 for head and shoulders

shots, is it ok to use now and again so you don't have to keep swapping

equipment.

I did think about using the lens at 70mm but not to get to close to the

subject, so I get more of the body in the shot and maybe this wouldn't

distort the features and crop it latter. Does anyone think this will work ?

Thanks.

<p>I use the 24-70 for portraits all the time with a 1.3x body. I don't sit at 70mm, especially indoors. I do use the 70-200, but I'd say that's about 10% of the time, not enough that I would worry about. I also use the 17-40 for portraits on a 1.6x body. I've had no complaints about "distortion," the only problem I have is that at events, it isn't always wide enough.</p>

<p>how about the 24-105 on an extra body?<br>

I always use the 70-200 2.8 Lis for head shots. love it. You get used to the weight, Time to hit the gimm..</p>

<p>I find the 70-200 F2.8 is a better portrait lens on full frame than my 24-70 F2.8 but the 24-70 does produce good results. If I change lenses then the 85 F1.8 or the 100 F2.8 LIS Macro are better lenses than either of the F2.8 zooms. My 70-200 F2.8 is the older Non IS version.</p>

<p>I personally am very happy with my EF 24-105mm L on a 35mm-sensor camera (so-called full frame or FX). It is only f/4 however, but the IS compensates by steadying <em>your</em> hand a little, in effect. It does cover the range to "portrait" focal lengths better than the 24-70mm. It's also a little more compact.<br>

Only you can answer the question about what focal lengths <em>you</em> use the most and translate that into 35mm sensor terms. And only you can say how much lens-swapping you can tolerate. I don't care to do it so much and that is another reason for liking the 24-105.</p>

<p>I use the 24-70/2.8 a lot on FF, and love it. But if you look through your existing portfolio, and see the vast majority of your shots (on the crop) @ 45-70mm then you certainly have something to be concerned about. The switch to FF will impact your shooting. As well, a quick look will show you if you need the speed of your f2.8 lens. </p>

<p>While I (personally) find the 24-70/2.8 vastly superior to the 24-105/4, I shoot FF, have for awhile, and spend a lot of time @f2.8-f3.5. If the majority of <em>your</em> shots are @ f4+, <em>and</em> a significant percentage (on the crop) are @ 45+mm (~ same FOV as 70mm FF) Then you may very well benefit from using the 24-105/4 instead, as it will give you a much similar effective range to your current setup. Plus, it's cheaper, so you can transition to FF faster.</p>

 

<p>I agree with Marcus: see how you shoot now. I have a crop and a Tamron 28-75, and I find I shoot most people shots (mostly candids, not portraits) in the range of 45-75. So for me, the 24-70 would be too short on a ff. (the classic FL for portraits with 35mm film SLRs was in the range of 90mm), for you, however, it may be fone.</p>

Don't sweat it and don't miss shots changing lenses, just shoot as you do and crop, it will give you exactly the same picture you are used to getting, DOF, FOV, perspective, etc etc.

<p>The 24-105 is certainly an option for such photography using flash. One possible downside for your work is that bokeh isn't necessarily really lovely with this lens - for that the 24-70 is better. But, as you point out, 70mm is perhaps not as long as you would like for "portrait" on full frame. </p>

<p>Frankly, I'd probably just slap that 70-200 on there for this sort of thing, unless you want to get some prime or primes just for this purpose.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>The hand of Rodin's sculpture. StL Art Museum with the EF 24-105mm lens at 98mm FL:</p><div></div>

<p>I recommend you look at people's portraits before taking advice. Should be easy to find, click on their name and then look at their web site or photos posted here. It will give you some insight into where the advice is coming from.</p>

<p>Most of my wedding shots show people together, and I've always imagined that this is why the 24-70 is considered the "wedding photographer's" lens--it's a good range for that. I usually stop down to f/5.6 however, because I want all the faces to be in focus. Depth of field is still plenty shallow to blur the background and with a bit of fill flash using a flash card I can get the people to stand out nicely without looking artificial. Back in the manual focus days, I wouldn't have considered an f/4 lens--it would be too hard to focus, but AF is reliable so who cares? For artsy, abstract shots of details that depend on very shallow depth of field to isolate the subject, I get in close and use a prime, such as the 50/1.4 at f/2.</p>

 

<p>I don't post my images on Photo.Net and I don't link to my website via this site either, take from that what you will.</p>

<p>Besides, I have a real problem with the idea that seeing how good somebody else is will tell you the best equipment choices for yourself. Why should it? Some of the best photographers I have seen have used the most inappropriate equipment that the majority of us would be incapable of getting anything like their results with. A sports coach almost certainly can't compete with the athlete he is training but he can tell them how to perform better, on the flip side of that being a good athlete doesn't make you good coaching material.</p>

<p>Sure you need to be mindful of the comments on here but like most things in life, they are worth what you paid for them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I have a real problem with the idea that seeing how good somebody else is will tell you the best equipment choices for yourself. Why should it?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Would you buy a photo technique book without photos? Attend a class, seminar or workshop without examples? Of course not, nobody would dare put that on. It's only on web forums where you can have people pontificating about things they don't actually know much about because they haven't really done it. Would you learn skydiving without some real knowledge of the instructor's experience?</p>

<p>I recently saw what was quite possibly the worst photograph ever posted on photo.net. I looked at the poster's profile, it was the first photo he had posted, but he had dispensed tons of advice, mostly re-runs of what was posted or read elsewhere.</p>

<p>Advice is only valuable because of the experience used to give it. Without some understanding of the experience, it's just chatter.</p>

<p>But you have to pay for books and classes. I am happy to teach for money and show my resumé to the attendees or organisers; I am happy to mentor and give talks at my local camera club for free, I'll show people examples of what I am illustrating but not my portfolio, they want to learn not see how good, or not, I am. I often illustrate with images along with my comments in threads, I just don't post images to a gallery here, or Flickr, or Facebook etc etc.</p>

<p>With regards skydiving, I had no idea of my instructors experience, I relied on the club, the pilots and the jump masters adherence to protocol to make my jumps as safe as regulation dictated. Besides, once you have pulled the cord and are floating 4,000 feet above the ground on your own with only a radio to listen to ground instructions, the experience of your instructor is, quite frankly, irrelevant.</p>

<p>I 100% agree that there is a lot of rubbish talked by many on the internet, I was only pointing out a couple of potential problems with putting too much weight into seeing what posters themselves produce and how that might not be beneficial in determining your own needs.</p>

<p>Advice is only valuable because of the experience used to give it, agreed, but having images posted on Photo.Net, or not, is not necessarily a measure of that experience.</p>

<p>But all that aside I'd love to know the gossip on the poster you are talking of ;-)</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>I apologize. I missed the part where you had to be a wedding photographer to post in this thread.</p>

<p>Do you still have the crop body? If you do, I would put the 70-200 on that, and the 24-70 on the FF. It is a heavy rig, but I have a 5D with a 70-200 f2.8 that I carry in a Spider Holster on a Lowepro S&F belt, and a 5D MarkII with a 24-70 that i carry with a regular shoulder strap. I prefer the 70-200 for shooting at 70mm, and I tend to do a lot of headshots around 135mm or so. But the 24-70 is very useful when a large group corners me and wants their photo taken. <br>

I'm not a big guy by any stretch, about 5'5, 135 pounds, but I can manage two cameras pretty well. <br>

And yes, I am fully qualified to give advice on the internet, or at least as qualified as anybody else is to give their opinions. (i.e., I have a pulse)</p>

I don't put people up on PN because the majority of my studio PR and wedding work was with paying clients. I would never post any of that work without permission. I did most of my wedding head shots with a 70-200 2.8. The clients liked them. I do a lot of sports head shots as well as active competition shots that are done for my sports organization. I don't post those here generally either. These are people I swim with and I respect their privacy. I have a couple though in my PN gallery. I do have about a hundred pictures on PN so I think one could judge my credibility from those pictures. I would like to post people but don't do much ad hoc street work that I think is of any value. Having had my own wedding business in the past I have experience but do not consider myself having done more than an average job. Scott as an eight thousand hour pilot who used sit on an ejection seat I can tell you that jumping out of an airplane is something that you have to do right the first time so I preferred to wait until my ass end was on fire to get it right. I did have excellent training. At least in the USAF the riggers were trained and closely supervised.The only person that you need trust before jumping is the trained rigger that packed your parachute and yourself to do a reasonable PLF. As for the subject I stated in another forum yesterday that I thought 70mm was a little short to get head shots at a wedding having had a 28-70 2.8L. That thought is from experience. Outside of protecting clients and friends I don't have a hell of a lot to hide.

Thanks for all the advice. I looked back at a lot of my wedding shots

and yes I did use the 24-70 at 70mm but it wasn't a vast majority , a lot

of the shots were 24-50mm. One thing that came back to me was how

much of a pain it was to use the 70-200. While I have shots at 200mm I

remember how I needed a range ( on a crop camera ) of 50 plus

because I found 70mm to long to start at on a crop camera. Except for

group shot because I wanted more DOF a vast majority of my photos

were taken at f4 or faster. I liked to keep my aperture as fast as I can

to give a shallow DOF I found it gives a better look and stands out

from consumer lenses because a few guest are carrying slr's and fast

aperture's help the photos look different.I don't think I could manage

with a f4 lens that's why I sold my 70-200 f4 is and got the 2.8 is, also

when I tried the 24-105 in a shop on a FF I noticed more vignetting at

24mm and more distortion and at these kind of focal lengths I'll need

to be shooting at a minimum of 60th - 80th , is isn't here nor there for

me.

I think when I go FF I'll learn to work with what I've got. I just wanted

to see if any wedding photographer went FF and realy missed the

70mm on a cropped.

<blockquote>

<p>Would you buy a photo technique book without photos? Attend a class, seminar or workshop without examples? Of course not, nobody would dare put that on. It's only on web forums where you can have people pontificating about things they don't actually know much about because they haven't really done it. Would you learn skydiving without some real knowledge of the instructor's experience?<br>

I recently saw what was quite possibly the worst photograph ever posted on photo.net. I looked at the poster's profile, it was the first photo he had posted, but he had dispensed tons of advice, mostly re-runs of what was posted or read elsewhere.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I totally agree, Jeff. Your reasoning is exactly why I have an issue with, and seldom pay any attention to those P.net members who regularly spew out photography related advice in the forums...yet never post a single picture for years at a time.</p>

<p>24-70mm is a good lens for portraits, I can't imagine why you think it won't work for headshots at 70mm. Another thing is, obviously, is that you can simply move forwards a little to frame closer - this is particularly true if you are THE wedding photographer. It's not like you are be nailed to the ground.</p>

I use full frame. The problem with headshots at 70mm that in shooting multiple head shots at weddings or swim meets I don't want to stick my camera in someone's face to get the head shot. When I did weddings I did not want to be in the middle of the post wedding festivities and found that I could stay unobtrusive with a longer lens. A lot of those headshots were intentionally candid not posed

.

<p>So John,</p>

<p>By that reasoning do you have an issue with me and should there be an image qualifying procedure to post replies?</p>

<p>First, there can be very legitimate reasons for people to not post their images here, Dick gave one, I have a completely different one.</p>

<p>Second, being a good photographer does not make you a good teacher. Being able to work with the equipment you have doesn't make you a rational arbiter of what might work better for somebody else.</p>

<p>Third, style and skill take time to learn, you might love Jeff Ascough's very narrow depth of field low ambient light style, but to advise a newcomer to get a couple of 1D MkIV's and a plethora of ultra fast primes would be doing them a huge disservice. </p>

<p>Sure some peoples advice is obviously flawed, but having their own images up here is not the best determining factor of the value of that advice.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>there can be very legitimate reasons for people to not post their images here, Dick gave one, I have a completely different one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Dick does post photos. He doesn't post portraits. But he does post photos.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p> being a good photographer does not make you a good teacher</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While this is true, one cannot even ascertain if someone is a photographer by their written posts here. At least if someone shows photos somewhere, there is evidence of some experience level.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But you have to pay for books and classes. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>We have this thing here in San Francisco called the public library. Takes care of paying for books. However, what you seem to be saying is that you get what you pay for, which would make forum advice totally lacking in value.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I don't want to stick my camera in someone's face to get the head shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't get this really, everyone else will be with their P&S etc etc. If you are the photographer it's expected isn't it? Certainly the difference between 70 and 100 mm would not be significant to me with respect to the distance to the subject at this kind of event.</p>