Which lens?

[lowfatgraphics]

Hey people, Im into portrait photography mostly but not restricted too it only, I can't decide between a Canon

EOS EF 28-70/2.8 L or the 70-200

2.8L? Any recommendations? It's my first lens purchase so im scared a bit. my only issue with the 70 - 200 is

the size, incase I wanted to do street shots or whatever. And with the 28-70, my issue is 70mm enough for

portraits with a 1.6? Any input would be helpful.

 

Side note: I'm using a 40d

[brianurbano]

if you can get the 28-70 2.8 at a good price i say go for it, the focal length might be a little short for street shooting but for portraits its great. The 70-200 2.8L would be great for street shooting and candids, though the white lens is conspicuous, it will definitely get the job done, it works also great as a portrait lens if you dont mind shooting far away from your subjects. I personally prefer to shoot portraits from a distance as it gives a sense of ease to the subject and they dont feel intimidated with a photographer up in their face. If you can afford it, get the IS version of the 70-200 2.8L

[brianurbano]

with the 1.6x crop in mind

 

28-70 = 44-112

 

70-200 = 112-320

[nathan_meador]

The 28-70 is your best bet. 70-200 on a crop camera is (I think) way to long for casual portraits, plus it is huge.

[mark u]

I'd far rather do portrait and street work with a small selection of primes. For a 40D the Sigma 30mm f/1.4, Canon 50mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 make an excellent little set that will allow you more creative freedom than is possible with an f/2.8 zoom (especially on a crop body).

[ben_quinn1]

I would get the 50 f/1.4 and the 85 f/1.8 to get the shallow DOF effect and allow you to use natural light for portraits. The 24-70 is great though and is definately long enough for portraits, its heavy though and large especially with the hood and you can't really shoot portarits with it wide open so aperture is sometimes too small especially indoors where you'd probably need a flash.

[KenPapai]

I hope you know the 28-70 2.8L lens is very old already and you'll be buying a used one should you take that route.

 

I have a 40D and the 24-70 2.8L and yes, it can make a great portrait lens if you require a zoom in the focal range.

[lowfatgraphics]

opps sorry i ment 24-70mm not 28.

[aubreyp]

For portraits on a 40D I'd get the 24-70 between the two. They are both heavy, but the 70-200 is a monster. Not something you want to haul around all day. People notice it, and it can be intimidating. It's also probably a bit too long to make a good portrait lens on a crop body.

 

I'd say grab the 50mm 1.4 (or 1.2) and the 85mm 1.8.

[lowfatgraphics]

well any indoor shoots will me done in a studio ill be renting, I'm trying to build a portfolio so figured i'd slowly build a good collection of lens and lights. The only lens I have at the moment is the 50m 1.8. and the freebie that game with the 40d, the 28 to 135 USM IS

 

Yeah forgot to mention, I'm trying to shoot more artsy conceptual shots not weddings or family pictures or events

[JDMvW]

I'm with Mark U and the others suggesting a selection of primes. All due respect to the quality of the zooms you mentioned, but portraiture is surely one place where the distances will be established by the studio, etc. If studio work is where you're going, then the zooms would seem awkward and intrusive to me.

 

On the other hand, if you are thinking about ever taking your subjects out to the park or woods for environmental portraiture, that's another story. For myself, I still think I'd stick with a selection of primes, however.

 

I actually went so far as to buy several manual focus prime lenses that I use on my EOS camera. I got a couple of gimmicky "soft-focus" lenses that I really do like, heaven help me. Best of all, however, I got a lovely Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 that I use with an adapter. It's a little on the long side on the crop body, to be honest, but it is widely considered to be one of the best lenses ever made by Nikon, and produces wonderful effect on the sensor.

[matthijs]

... is the deciding factor here.

 

 

Personally I love tight portraits, headshots and pictures with not much more in it than two eyes. For me a 200mm is a perfect portrait lens. (Used on a crop body! On FF I'd want a 300 probably...)

 

 

Others like full body portraits, portraits showing a lot of the background, putting people in a place which tells something about the subject. (Like a captain on the bridge) To them a 35mm on a FF might be the perfect portrait setup.

 

 

So, what do you like most? Quality wise both are great lenses so that's not an issue.

 

Plus: What are you using now? What are you missing?

 

 

Regards, Matthijs.

[manuel barrera houston,]

I have both and the 24-70 is much more useful. Wish it had a tripod ring, as it is heavy, but not as heavy as the 70-200. However, if you are doing head shots, outside, the 70-200 is the better of the two, a much sharper and contrasty lens. In doors, primes are better, with the 85 L sitting on top by itself.

[alan_myers]

I have both lenses, but neither would be my first choice for portraiture.

 

Whenever the pace of shooting allows, my favorite portrait lenses are primes: 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. Occasionally I'll use 28/1.8 for groups, fill length portraits and "environmental" portraits. Oh, this is on 1.6X D-SLRs, same as yours.

[focuslightstudio]

Go with the 24-70mm just because of the size compared to the 70-200mm. 112 (crop factor) is a ideal focal length for portraits. Like another poster mentioned if you got the 70-200mm it would have to be the IS version. That's what you'll need for that beast and to counteract the "camera shake". Plus, it's quite a bit more $. You won't regret the 24-70mm it's a sharp bugger.