Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS USM a good first lens including portraits VS. the EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM

[jdodge]

I'm looking to purchase my first serious camera and think I've decided on the

30D. Now I'm trying to decide on my first lens. I'm looking at the Canon EF

24-105mm f/4 L IS USM. I understand that one lens will not cover EVERY

situation but I can only afford to buy one at the moment. With the 1.6x

conversion this 24-105mm is now 38.4-168mm. So my questions are: Is a max

aperture of f4 wide enough to get a good shallow DoF for portraits and is 38.4mm

wide enough for group shots? This EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM would seem to be my

next choice for a larger Fstop but is it worth trading in the IS and extra focal

length of the first?

[sattler123]

Do a search - this is the most asked question on the EOS Forum.

[lester_wareham]

True, but more helpfully.

 

The 24-105 is a very sharp lens but for portrait the 24-70 has better bokeh I understand.

 

To be honest I would suggest the 85/1.8 as an ideal portrait lens, should be sharper and have better bokeh than a zoom.

[robin_sibson1]

That's true, but each question is a bit different. I have the 24~105, and it is a great lens on 1.6-factor, but (a) I wouldn't want it as my only lens (I use it alongside the 10~22), because it does not go wide enough, and (b) you may want a wider-aperture lens to control DoF. Why don't you consider the EF-S 17~55/2.8IS?

[images_in_light_north_west]

This is not really a great lens for portaits but same with the 24-70, this is a fantastic lens, stays on my 30D most of the time, i would suggest a fast prime for portrait, although this will work in bright light

[patrick_wong2]

I debated over the 24-105 vs 24-70 for the logest and i went to B and H with my mind set on the 24-105 till the rep asked me some questions...some which listed below changed my mind:

 

- What are you going to be shooting? i said my kids and landscape and other things for vacation and party use

- Are your kids or subjects going to stay still? i said mostly not

 

Then the rep saids get the 24-70....and then i did in December and brought it to Spain and Paris and was very happy with it...the weight was not as bad, it is just slightly heavier than the 24-105 IMO.

 

I really like the 24-70, dont get me wrong, i have tested the 24-105 also and its great but the 24-70 is really what i needed to freeze action...and it seems like the AF is abit faster too.

 

I currently have: Canon 20D, 50mm 1.4, 100mm Macro, 10-22mm (very nice for 1.6), 24-70 and the kit lens 18-55 that is not touching my 20D anymore.

 

Patrick

[lester_wareham]

As Robin Sibson said, I also have the 24-105 and as I say it IS a very good lens, but not ideal for portrait.

[william_fong]

For the cost for either one of those L lenses, you can buy three or four primes that would be perfect for portraits. It would depend if you want to "specialize" in portraits, or have a more general purpose lens. Many people recommend the 50mm for portraits, but I personally prefer to stay a little farther back. To me, an 85mm F/1.8 is a better portrait lens. You could get the 28mm, 50mm, and 85mm (all USM) for less than $1000.

 

I bought the 24-70mm just yesterday myself. While I like to do some portraits, I do other types of shooting, where I wouldn't have time to change lenses. If I were to do a "portrait session", I would switch to the 50 or 85mm prime.

 

I've been using this guide to determine DOF: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

 

I have a Rebel XTi.

[abqnmusa]

I had a 24-70 F2.8L but sold it for the 24-105 F4L IS. I found the 24-70 images to not be all that great at F2.8. There is just not enough depth of field at F2.8. So I did not see F2.8 an advantage over F4.

 

The IS on the 24-105 is very good and I prefer the IS advantage over the F2.8 on the 24-70. The 24-70 was too heavy and bulky for me.

[jim_larson1]

Going on vacation. . . .where you have a huge variation in photography, and you cannot always use flash -> the 24-105/IS is a clear choice. For GENERAL PURPOSE work, image stabilization is more important than large aperture.

 

HOWEVER. . one of the big compromises you make with this lens is that F4 simply DOES NOT cut it for portraits. Frankly, F2.8 does ok, but is still a compromise. The 24-70/2.8L is a zoom lens of choice for wedding photography because it offers the flexibility of a zoom and a reasonably fast aperture for impromptu portraits. In most cases, the photographer at a wedding will have access to flash.

 

Also. . .image stabilization in the 24-70 range simply is not useful for photographing people. Think about it. You can handhold 1/50th in this range. Image stabilization allows you to take images down to 1/8th or so. . .but any living, breathing subject will show motion blur at that kind of shutter speed, unless you freeze motion with a flash.

 

I would avoid the 17-55/2.8-IS for reasons too numerous too mention.

 

But . . .have you considered the 17-85/IS? It is image stabilized. Image quality is good for everything but pro-grade work. Build quality is good enough for everything short of a safari or war. And it is cheap enough to leave money for a two great portrait lenses: the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8. (or maybe just get the 50/1.8 along with the 70-300/IS telephoto).

[john_sarsgard1]

I use the 24-105 f/4 L all the time for portraits, but I have a full frame 5d. I usually shoot at

f/5.6 or f/8, but these are not the kind where extremely shallow DOF is needed. I think the

IS is great. I handhold 1/15 sec all the time. I will add the 85mm f/1.8 for situations where I

need more light and/or less DOF. But my answer would be different with the 30d. You won't

have much wide angle capability with either of your zoom choices. If you like zooms, I would

go with the 17-85 IS and add the 85/1.8 if you find you need the extra stops or want less

DOF.

[beauh44]

Hi Jason, I would agree that the 24-105mm, while a very good lens, might not be the best *portrait* lens in Canon's lineup. It'll do of course, but if you can scrounge up the extra dough, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS, IMHO, is "duh bomb". You can make Dick Cheney look good with that thing.

 

OTOH, if you don't mind "zooming with your feet" a 50mm f/1.4 with the "crop factor" taken into account, would give you ~80mm equivalent FOV on your 30D, cost MUCH less, and if you're shooting under studio lights, you're not likely to miss the IS too much.

 

And again - just my opinion - but no, the f/4 isn't wide a enough aperture to get a good shallow DOF unless you zoom all the way to 105mm and your subject is very far from the background. Now the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS absolutely kills in that regard - at quite a few more buckaroos; but the 50mm f/1.4 shot at or nearly wide open will do pretty darn good too and won't cost you an arm and a leg. Just my .02 cents. Good luck!

[wingell]

What Beau said: the 70-200 2.8L IS is the quintessential portrait lens--worth every penny.

[jim_doty]

Jason,

 

I like the 24-105mm lens for portrait use. For all around use, I find the IS (image stabilization) feature to be very useful. This photo was taken at f5.6 and 1/40 second (ISO 400) with IS turned on.

 

http://www.blog.jimdoty.com/wp-content/uploads/06H27L01_111C_9757_wc3.jpg

 

It isn't very wide on a 30D. If you want to shoot wide, the Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens is a good choice for a second lens.

 

Jim

[william_fong]

Why is the 70-200mm the best for a portrait? I've read that it was in many places (forum, tutorials, etc.) but it was never explained why. Is it because you are farther away from the person, so features like the nose are flat? If so, why wouldn't say a 100mm prime work just as well? Thanks.

[mjc photographic images]

I have taken some stunning portraits with the 24-70, and looking back at them nearly all the best ones are taken at f2.8. I also was in two minds about the 24-105 or 24-70 but having already purchased the 70-200f2.8L non "IS" (even better portraits)I knew I would miss the f2.8.

 

I saw a thread on here a couple of weeks ago regarding a previous thread where someone had taken a photo of the same image using the same settings with both lenses, IMO the 24-70 was sharper and richer in colour. So personally I am glad I traded "IS" for f2.8.

[andrew robertson]

Why not all these: 24 f/2.8, 35 f/2, 50 f/1.8, and 100 f/2 for about the same price?

[david_lau3]

I have 20D and 5D, and 24-105. On FF (5D) 24-105 is the ideal single lens solution but it is not wide enough on 1.6X (20/30D). If you want a single lens solution for 30D you should look at 17-55/f2.8

[alam eldin]

Hi Jason,

 

I have both lenses and they are great as every L single lens.

 

But 24-70 f2.8 for me is heavy for travel and short when end with 70.

 

when travel or spend a day for photography you should consider weight, distans, myself prefer 24-105 f4( wights 670gm) for the focal distance and the ability to have picture in 105mm in low light at 1/15 wich is imposible for me to have it with 24-70mm f2.8 at 70mm (wieghts 950gm.

 

Also why not portrait with f4, I use my 70-200 f4 L for portrait and every one knows its repuaion, however you can buy 24-105 and 50mm 1.4 or 1.8 which will be about 80mm and that is a portrait lens.

 

whatever you choose I hope you good shootin

 

Mohamed Alam Eldin

[William Michael]

> Is a max aperture of f4 wide enough to get a good shallow DoF for portraits

 

IMO No. As a general thought:

 

On a 30D for portraits, when employing Shallow D of F, I would rather use F4 on the 24to70 F2.8 than F4 on the 28to105 F4L.

 

It goes without saying you void the choice of using a larger aperture than F4 if you do not have it.

 

> and is 38.4mm wide enough for group shots?

 

IMO Usually, if the people are arranged correctly and you have the availability of distance needed, for your viewpoint.

 

> This EF 24-70mm f/2.8 L USM would seem to be my next choice for a larger Fstop but is it worth trading in the IS and extra focal length of the first?

 

IMO Yes. As a general thought:

 

You cannot open F4 any bigger than F4, you can support 1/30th second.

 

> Now I'm trying to decide on my first lens.

 

If forced to choose between the two you mention, I would opt for the 24 to 70 F2.8.

 

With clean slate, if portraiture and groups is your passion, I would seriously look at what primes I could buy with the same money.

 

Thought starter: 50mmF1.4, 85mm F1.8, 35mmF2

 

Regards

 

WW

[jdodge]

Thank you all for your great input. I won't say I'm set in stone yet but I love the experienced feedback. I'll probably be changing my mind up till I send out the order. lol I'm thinking I'll choose the zoom I see will fit me style in most situations and when I can get a great prime for portraits.

[anson_ko]

travelling - 28-300IS 24-105

portaits - 50 1.4 85 1.2 70-200 2.8 300 2.8

 

depends on your budget and how much you can carry.

[5d_user]

Jason,

 

I agonized over the same decision for 4 months. Like you I examined the pros and cons.

 

I just want to say, you are in the same boat as a lot of folks but I have used my 24-105 now at a low light wedding reception and used it next to the older 28-70 2.8 L. No difference in low light focusing (on the 5D or 30D anyway), speed of focusing, or depth of field when both are extended to max zoom. How you tell which will have better depth of field is by dividing the longest you can zoom by max aperture. Hmmm, let's see here...70 divided by 2.8 is 25 and 105 divided by 4 equals 26.25 about the same number for about the same depth of field at the long end of these lenses. One advantage for me when shooting a wedding or something low light is that I have mistakenly shot at 2.8 or something near there and got one person in focus and the rest of the people were out. I must remember to always shoot 5.6 or better. With that in mind I can never screw up and go larger than f/4 which will help me eliminate the "things to keep in mind" while shooting an event. The more I can eliminate or make automatic, the better. We compared the sharpness of the 28-70 2.8L to the 24-105 4.0L and couldn't tell them apart, really!

 

At the last wedding recptioon we shot, we had the 5D and 30D using 16-35 2.8 L, the 28-70 2.8 L, and the 24-105 4.0 L IS in the mix. The 30D had mainly the 105 and the 5D traded between the 16-35 and the 28-70 because I couldn't get my boss to let me have my 105 back! He is not easily impressed but I think he is convinced now. He liked the reach from 38mm to 168mm in the 30D. I covered all of the wide shots and he grabbed the long ones at the reception.

 

Prior to this wedding reception, I started to regret buying the 105 over the 70 at times. But not now, I am firmly behind my buying decision and I think you will too.

 

Cheers.

Myron

[lester_wareham]

It is not so much the relative DOF more the quality of the bokeh.

 

I am very impressed with my 24-105 but it does not have the best bokeh. I understand the 24-70 is better in that respect.

 

However zooms in general will be inferior to primes for bokeh.

 

This is why I would say if you main application is portrait then bokeh would be a key issue. I would suject the 85/1.8 or 85/1.2 depending on the depth of your pocket.

 

If you want a walk around lens then the 24-105 is ideal.