Portrait prime / Zoom. ?

..MD..

..MD..

Helen Shapiro
Suspended / Banned
Messages
10,257
Name
MonkeyDave
Edit My Images
Yes
As a few members on here might have noticed. I like to take a few portraits:D
Anyhow I have a 24-105 and a 50mm prime. The 24-105 live's on the camera I rarley use the 50mm. I have been thinking for a while now about getting a 70-200 f4 for making the close up shots in the studio/garage easier. Without getting into peoples faces. But at the same time i see lots of threads about the primes i:e 85mm 135mm and so on

Now the 70-200 would be great for out and about use also.Which makes me think this would be the better option for me. But as i am slowly making a few quid from my portraits should I invest in lenses that will help me make more .As if I make more money I can always get zooms later..

Over to you guys to hepl with the decision :shrug:


md:thumbs:
 
as you already have 105 at the long end dave,i would say your probably better off getting the 70-200,as you said nice lens for out and about aswell as in the studio.

btw i'm not trying to spend your money,i know how you like to keep hold of it:lol:

hth

sean:thumbs:
 
fast 85 or a 2.8 zoom, f/4 is not what I'd choose if there were no budget constraints.
 
The definitive portrait lens for Canon is the 85mm f/1.2.
It's stupidly expensive now, but it really is special. Having said that, the 85mm f/1.8 is a truly excellent lens in it's own right, and a LOT more affordable even at todays crazy prices. You could do a lot worse than either of those. If you were closer I'd let you try the f/1.2 version. It's genuinely the last lens I'd ever think of parting with.
 
ed34 said:
as you already have 105 at the long end dave,i would say your probably better off getting the 70-200,as you said nice lens for out and about aswell as in the studio.

btw i'm not trying to spend your money,i know how you like to keep hold of it:lol:

hth

sean:thumbs:
Click to expand...

I am saving hard mate I had another little order today...:D
But as i said which way to go..


md:wave:
 
joxby said:
fast 85 or a 2.8 zoom, f/4 is not what I'd choose if there were no budget constraints.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:

Cheers and yes price is a issue. but I have been told " by a canon rep" that the f/4 is a fantastic lens and could be sharper than the 2.8

I have used both and had good results with both. I would rarley need the 2.8 for what I do :thumbs:

As i do most my work in the studio enviroment:thumbs:


md:thumbs:
 
Bill Roberts said:
The definitive portrait lens for Canon is the 85mm f/1.2.
It's stupidly expensive now, but it really is special. Having said that, the 85mm f/1.8 is a truly excellent lens in it's own right, and a LOT more affordable even at todays crazy prices. You could do a lot worse than either of those. If you were closer I'd let you try the f/1.2 version. It's genuinely the last lens I'd ever think of parting with.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comment mate. At the moment a lens like that is so far out of my league it is unthinkable. I would like to try one . One day i will:D

I take it in a studio at around f/8 - f 16 this is a very very sharp lens

md:thumbs:
 
Unless you are doing lots of natural light work, the f/2.8 70-200 is probably overkill. I've just got rid of mine as I wasn't using it much.

Sue has the f/4 IS and it is a cracking lens. Its easily a match for the 2.8 IS at the same aperture and my even slightly pip it.

I think I'd be tempted by zoom first, see what ranges you use and then get a prime later when the wife ain't looking!
 
grumpybadger said:
Unless you are doing lots of natural light work, the f/2.8 70-200 is probably overkill. I've just got rid of mine as I wasn't using it much.

Sue has the f/4 IS and it is a cracking lens. Its easily a match for the 2.8 IS at the same aperture and my even slightly pip it.

I think I'd be tempted by zoom first, see what ranges you use and then get a prime later when the wife ain't looking!
Click to expand...

Cheers paul I think you maybe right.

And good advice on the wife:D


md:thumbs:

looks like i should borrow some primes off GOOD mate's I have :whistling:
 
Its not always about sharp, bokeh and oof depth can be more important, maybe not so much in studio on plain backgrounds.
Personally, I have a higher regard for that than sharp, but its not everybody's deal breaker.
 
joxby said:
Its not always about sharp, bokeh and oof depth can be more important, maybe not so much in studio on plain backgrounds.
Personally, I have a higher regard for that than sharp, but its not everybody's deal breaker.
Click to expand...

Cheers I realise its not all about the sharpest shot in the world .But as i mainly shoot with lights at the moment and mostly kids I tend to just try and get a sharp image showing the child at there best..:thumbs:


md:thumbs:
 
Over the last year I've managed to aquire the 70-200 IS 2.8 and the 35mm 1.4 prime with a view to getting more and more into portraits and weddings. I find that I actually prefer using the 70-200, I find the bokeh on it great, it has decent low light performance and I find it puts my subjects at ease because I am still a reasonable distance away from them rather than initially sticking the 35mm in their faces!!!! If I were choosing again, I would still get the zoom first and the prime second.

I have another portrait session tomorrow, and will start with the 70-200 to put the couple at ease before I get up close and personal with the 35mm.

I would also still choose the 70-200 f2.8 over the f4, it just gives you more options if you get a request for or start to offer outdoor portrait sessions for example.
 
Im having a similar thought pattern, for me the low light capabilities and DoF would make a prime f1.8 a nice candidate but 50-150 (on crop) f2.8 have been fun today.

Hire for a shoot or a play and see what you prefer?
 
Take a look HERE to see what can be done with 70-200 f4 L. I have that lens and like it alot.
 
Thanks for the replies guys. And thanks for the link:thumbs:



md:thumbs:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top