Which Lens Suits me best?

[nathan cote]

<p>I already have a 85 1.8. I am trying to decide between 24-70 2.8 and the 24-105 f4. Both L series, canon lenses. I currently have the 24-70 sigma but i would like the extra zoom the 105 offers. I like the 2.8 as well. I mostly shoot portraiture and will have a few photojournalism projects coming up, most should be in the day light. I shoot the 5d mark II so if i am shooting 400iso it will still have great sharpness. Is there much of a difference between the operation of the two? Is mos tof the choice between the wider aperture vs the zoom? i have not really used either.</p>

<p>Thanks in advance!</p>

[marknagel]

<p>Yep, f/2.8 or 71mm-105mm and IS. Quality is about the same.</p>

<p>m</p>

[mwaks]

<p>Only you know what lens actually suits you. Nobody has a clue except the end user who forks over the money. Most everyone else will recommend the lens that most suits themselves. I suggest you strongly think about what it is you actually want to do and proceed from there.</p>

[heider]

<p>I totally agree with Michael Wakslicht, it is only you who can decide, most people tend to think about lens specifications while they should think about their needs. I think most lenses are made for a specific purpose, and unless you know what is you final product it’s difficult to make the right choice. Both lenses are very sharp with great built quality (the 24-70 is a bit sharper on f8 than the 24-105, but this is only visible to me on the monitor with 100% zoom and not when printed in medium formats). For the purpose of portrait I would use the affordable 85mm f1.8 and not think of getting a new lens. ( I think the 85mm performs better than the 24-105mm f4 when extended to 85mm f4, don’t forget for portraits you need a wider control over DOF and f1.8 means that you can shoot with faster shutter speeds under the same lighting conditions). I think maybe you don’t need a new lens for portraits your 85mm will do the job!. I have no good idea about photojournalism photography and what is required, but gain I think it might require a wider range of lenses due to the different situations that you might encounter in a very short time (photojournalist usually carry 2 bodies with totally different lenses), so maybe the 24-105 is a better choice for it can cover a wider range. I have used my 24-70 f.2.8 mostly for street photography and it’s very suitable for such need. I hope this can help you in making your mind. Regards</p>

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Only you know what lens actually suits you.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Absolutely right on the money. Personally, I'd take the 24-105/4 and add 50/1.8 (or 50/1.4 if funds permits) for shallow DoF indoor shots.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

[colin carron]

<p>For portraits you really need the f2.8 aperture or faster. So if you use the 24-70 Sigma for portraits then the canon 24-70 f2.8 would probably suit you best. But - as said several times above only you can decide.</p>

<p>For guidance as to how you use your lenses it might be worth your while looikin at the shooting information in your shots you particularly like. What settings did you use? Will f2.8 or faster be necessary? Will f4 be enough for your purposes?</p>

[markonestudios]

Wider apertures make for nicer bokeh and also aid focus in low light, but they are not really a 'necessity' per se, for portraiture. I've done a lot of portaiture and have got some great results (IMHO) with my humble 28-105 USM. Distance from subject to background is an important factor too. I just thought I'd address that :)

<p>RE the original question, I agree, Nathan you need to figure out what you're aiming to achieve and what focal length you feel you're missing. On a knee-jerk, I would say the 24-105L given the fact that you already have a fast prime and that you will mostly be working outdoors where fast glass isn't necessarily a priority. Also, the 105 end could help you get more discreet PJ shots...

[yakim_peled1]

<blockquote>

<p>Wider apertures make for nicer bokeh</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Not so. They make for a blurrier background but the quality of it is dependant on the lens itself.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>and also aid focus in low light,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Only when all else is equal. When it's not, it may not be the case. For example, The 70-200/2.8 IS focuses faster and more accurately than the 50/1.4. That is because the latter does not have ring-USM and IF design. These are enough to overcome that huge 2 stop disadvantage.</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but they are not really a 'necessity' per se, for portraiture.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Depends on what you define as 'necessity'. For me, faster aperture is a 'necessity'. That is because, when all else is equal, the faster aperture will enable me to achieve blurrier background. In my book that is certainly a 'necessity'.

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

</p>

 

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>

[ken schwarz]

<p>I am very impressed by performance of the 24-105. I briefly borrowed the 24-70 and found too heavy and bulky for travel. My thinking is if you want shallow DoF, you will want a fast prime, such as your 85/1.8. I've found the high ISO support of the 5Dmk2 to make an f/4 zoom very practical. At the long end, f/4 is not a lot of DoF, so you can get nice blurry backgrounds if they are not too close to your subject.</p>

[peter_wang6]

<blockquote>

<p>Wider apertures make for nicer bokeh</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Yakim pointed out, this isn't quite correct; to be more precise, wider apertures = shallower dof = oof range is larger = oof objects more blurry. But the shape of the blur which is part of what "bokeh" is, is partially determined by the shape of the aperture as well as the lens design itself. If the aperture is non-circular (e.g. few iris blades), this will be reflected in the resulting blur of bright unfocused point highlights. If the lens does not correct well for CA or lateral color, that could mean unpleasant fringing. Lenses with mirror elements can give ring-shaped bokeh.<br>

Broadly speaking, yes, larger apertures tend to result in more pleasing <strong>degree</strong> of blur. But simpler lens design increases the likelihood of better appearance of that blur, as does a more circular aperture.</p>

[nathan cote]

<p>whew, thanks for all of the responses! Im not sure what im going to do quite yet. I do utilize that 2.8! Im hoping to go spend some time in honduras in the spring(next spring) and volunteer for a month or so and do some PJ work for a nonprofit. I guess i do see myself utilizing the 2.8 more and i love being able to shoot at iso 50-100 :) thanks for the responses ill take them all into account!</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<p>Both are excellent zooms, Nathan, but obviously neither is quite as good as a prime. The advantage of the 24-70's wider aperture is cancelled out by the 24-105's image stabilization, unless you're shooting moving subjects. The 24-70 does have better bokeh, but the 24-105's is pleasing as well. If you're looking primarily for a walkabout lens, the 24-105 is more versatile. If I'm outdoors with only one lens, the 24-105 is the one.</p>

<p>And you already have a 24-70 anyway...</p>

[markonestudios]

Yakim, thanks for the clarification :)

[yakim_peled1]

<p>

<p dir="ltr">Always glad to be of service. :-)</p>

<p dir="ltr"> </p>

<p dir="ltr">Happy shooting,</p>

<p dir="ltr">Yakim.</p>

</p>