what lens do you use most for home studio shots

  • Thread starter Thread starter stupar
  • Start date Start date
S

stupar

Guest
I have decided to go down the home studio avenue after much comment and support from family and friends.

At present I am just getting my lighting and backdrop organised.

My question to those who have home studios is what is your most used lens?
My working space is going to be approx 8ft wide by 12ft long. At present I have a canon 17-40 but I don't think this is the most suitable lens for the job.

Any recommendations that I should look at as an alternative?
Thanks in advance

Stu
 
stupar said:
At present I have a canon 17-40 but I don't think this is the most suitable lens for the job.
Click to expand...

I agree. When I was Canon, the 24-105 was always my go to lens for indoor portraits.
 
having already asked the question recently.. the many replies are.... not too short.. not too long... the 85m 1.8 gets most votes with the 135f2 and a 50m getting other votes.. not much else gets a look in.. all answers are prime lens and 85 takes the vote .
 
Interesting view points from opposite ends of the spectrum.
I used to have the 24-105 which wax a great all round lens portraits and landscape.
I've also had the 85mm f1.8 which was dreamy to say the least. I'm just wondering if it is too long for my studio size setup.
Plus it would be nice to have a lens that can still be used as a walkabout landscape lens.
My mind says go back to the 24-105 but my wallet says it can't be done on proceeds of sail from the 17-40
Hmmmmm........
 
depends on the body you're using - mine would be 5D & 24-70
 
The 24 - 105 is undoubtedly the best option for you, try digital rev for best price somewhere around £500 - £600 new.
 
buckas said:
depends on the body you're using - mine would be 5D & 24-70
Click to expand...

I'm using a 5D2.
24-70 would be nice but the price is out of reach for official canon glass and I have no experience of the 3rd party alternatives.

I might just have to re consider going back to the 24-105. I've noticed 2nd hand prices on here dipping below the £450 mark.
 
yeh 24-105 is a very good lens for the money, nice and light too!

check out MPB as they've usually got some
 
Cheers drew will do that.

Will consider my options re the 17-40mm. Should still get a good price for it when the time comes which will put me a good wedge towards something more suitable.
 
I got a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM supposedly as a stop gap until I could afford a Canon MkI (MkII was/is way out of my budget and I'm so pleased with it I've not even bothered thinking about getting a Canon.

IQ for indoor with with a 5D3 and 580EX II flash is very good and should be better in a studio setup with better lighting. The Sigma 24-70 and my Canon f2.8L IS MkII dominate my line up for event shooting for indoors and out. I also use an 85 f1.8 and 50 f1.4 for portraiture on the 5D3. The pair have almost made my 24-105 redundant as I only occasionally use it with my 7D now, but it is a cracking lens on a 5D2 or 5D3. I do prefer the 24-105 over the 17-40 as a walkabout lens as the reach is more useful to my style of shooting.

I've now got a 1D3 to play about with and a 7D if I need the reach, however with the announcement of the 70D today I've a feeling my 7D (maybe the 1D3 as well) may be leaving soon, depending on how good the 70D actually is in real world shooting and how much it is.
 
Trusty canon 100mm F/2 was a cracking lens aswell, but if on a budget then the 85mm F/1.8 would do the job, a few years back I had the Canon 135mm F/2.8 Soft focus lens, that was a cracking bit of kit but only good for outdoor portraits because of the blush effect it gave people.
24-70 f/2.8L will always be my favourite, seconded by the 85mm f/1.2L (They sell for £900 ish on a certain auction site)
 
stupar said:
I'm using a 5D2.
24-70 would be nice but the price is out of reach for official canon glass and I have no experience of the 3rd party alternatives.

I might just have to re consider going back to the 24-105. I've noticed 2nd hand prices on here dipping below the £450 mark.
Click to expand...

What about the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8? Loads of fantastic reviews of this lens, its been around for years, and its a lot cheaper than the 24-105.

I had one, and IMO/IME it was sharper than the two copies of the 24-105 i had during that time.
 
modchild said:
I got a Sigma 24-70 f2.8 HSM supposedly as a stop gap until I could afford a Canon MkI (MkII was/is way out of my budget and I'm so pleased with it I've not even bothered thinking about getting a Canon.

IQ for indoor with with a 5D3 and 580EX II flash is very good and should be better in a studio setup with better lighting. The Sigma 24-70 and my Canon f2.8L IS MkII dominate my line up for event shooting for indoors and out. I also use an 85 f1.8 and 50 f1.4 for portraiture on the 5D3. The pair have almost made my 24-105 redundant as I only occasionally use it with my 7D now, but it is a cracking lens on a 5D2 or 5D3. I do prefer the 24-105 over the 17-40 as a walkabout lens as the reach is more useful to my style of shooting.

I've now got a 1D3 to play about with and a 7D if I need the reach, however with the announcement of the 70D today I've a feeling my 7D (maybe the 1D3 as well) may be leaving soon, depending on how good the 70D actually is in real world shooting and how much it is.
Click to expand...

Any chance you could show me some sample shots from your siggy Stuart?
 
dave_bass5 said:
What about the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8? Loads of fantastic reviews of this lens, its been around for years, and its a lot cheaper than the 24-105.

I had one, and IMO/IME it was sharper than the two copies of the 24-105 i had during that time.
Click to expand...

Hmmm, food for thought cheers, will look at that as a contender too.
 
Morning folks,
I received a suggestion from a colleague at work this morning re a suitable replacement lens for home studio work.
They suggested the 28-135mm Is USM.
I have no experience of this lens.

Thoughts?
 
hmmm, its not a lens i would ever buy again. I know some like it but i found it too soft at the longer end and really not a great lens compared to others in that price range.
I think you will notice it as well, especially as you have a 17-40L already.

If you are going to look at something like that how about the 18-135 STM? This is much nicer
 
dave_bass5 said:
hmmm, its not a lens i would ever buy again. I know some like it but i found it too soft at the longer end and really not a great lens compared to others in that price range.
I think you will notice it as well, especially as you have a 17-40L already.

If you are going to look at something like that how about the 18-135 STM? This is much nicer
Click to expand...

Will can that one then :D
As much as the 18-135 is nice I think my 5D2 would have something to say about the pairing.
 
99% of my stuff is shot on a 70-200 f2.8.

The only time I use my 24-70 is for shooting babies from above. :)
 
dave_bass5 said:
Ah b****r, sorry i forgot you were FF :-)
Click to expand...
No worries :D

Mank said:
99% of my stuff is shot on a 70-200 f2.8.

The only time I use my 24-70 is for shooting babies from above. :)
Click to expand...

Cheers for the input rob.
When using your 70-200 what is your working distance to the subject and what range of the zoom are you predominantly shooting at.
 
The 24-70 would be ok for full length shots but if you want to get in close for tight head and shoulder portraits 70mm is still too wide IMO. The 70-200 would be better or a prime like the 135.
 
ryanyboy said:
The 24-70 would be ok for full length shots but if you want to get in close for tight head and shoulder portraits 70mm is still too wide IMO. The 70-200 would be better or a prime like the 135.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input Ryan.
I take it that scenario still applies given the working dimensions I have and that most of my subjects will be kids?
 
It varies really on the shot I want, I'd say I mostly shoot around 5ft away and around 105mm-ish range. But I use all the zoom, 70 & 200mm and can be as close as 3-4ft to about 6-7ft away depending on subject and shot.
 
For people my 85mm f/1.8. For objects I'm quite enjoying my recently acquired 105mm f/2.8 macro
 
24/105
Rob
 
70mm is too short on full-frame, at least for solo head & shoulders. You'll be right on top of them, uncomfortable for the sitter and also risk of perspective distortion creeping in. Suggest 85-135 on FF, though you don't want to be so far back that communication is difficult.

I use 24-105 mostly. Zoom range covers groups, full-length, up to head/shoulders. Or 70-200 around the shorter end. Shooting distance is the key IMHO - not too close that the camera feels invasive, not so far that the process becomes less 'involving' for both sitter and photographer.

Also consider the effect shooting distance has on the background. Closer distance with shorter lens includes a lot more of it.
 
HoppyUK said:
70mm is too short on full-frame, at least for solo head & shoulders. You'll be right on top of them, uncomfortable for the sitter and also risk of perspective distortion creeping in. Suggest 85-135 on FF, though you don't want to be so far back that communication is difficult.

I use 24-105 mostly. Zoom range covers groups, full-length, up to head/shoulders. Or 70-200 around the shorter end. Shooting distance is the key IMHO - not too close that the camera feels invasive, not so far that the process becomes less 'involving' for both sitter and photographer.

Also consider the effect shooting distance has on the background. Closer distance with shorter lens includes a lot more of it.
Click to expand...

Taking that into account and the fact that most of my subjects will be kids it sounds as though the 70-200 may be the best solution.
70mm could potentially cover full length shots of young kids whilst say 135mm would cover tiny babies etc and 200mm for head/shoulders.

Should I move towards adult head and shoulders work then the lens will still be useable.
 
stupar said:
Taking that into account and the fact that most of my subjects will be kids it sounds as though the 70-200 may be the best solution.
70mm could potentially cover full length shots of young kids whilst say 135mm would cover tiny babies etc and 200mm for head/shoulders.

Should I move towards adult head and shoulders work then the lens will still be useable.
Click to expand...

Lens choice also depends on how much room you've got. If kids are mobile, moving back with a longer lens will stop you running out of background width so easily.
 
HoppyUK said:
Lens choice also depends on how much room you've got. If kids are mobile, moving back with a longer lens will stop you running out of background width so easily.
Click to expand...

The plan is to work with babies in the first instance as they are relatively immobile.
I have a working length of 12 feet to play with and a width of between 6 and 8 feet max.

On a different note my lencarta smart flash arrived today. Nice piece of kit :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top