Is anyone using this lens for portraits indoors? I am contemplating between this and the 24-70/2.8. The latter lens would be great for the 2.8 aperture and seems to be lens of choice for wedding/indoor portraits. I assume this is because of the bokeh and extra stop for low light conditions. But, with the IS on the 24-105mm, does this make up for the f4 aperture? I do not think it would be such an issue with studio lighting, but what about with just flash on camera? I'd sure like to get opinions as I'm leaning towards the 24-70/2.8 but IS and extra reach on the 24-105 would be nicer options if it serves as a good lens indoors. Thanks,
Kevin
TomRittenhous wrote:
The extra stop is very handy for indoor available light stuff. You have to realize it gives you a brighter viewfinder as well as that extra stop.
However, if I wanted a vacation/carry-around lens I would go with the 24x105. Also, I think I would prefer it if I had a full frame sensor camera.
But, I am the kind of guy who actually prefers primes and would get a fast 35mm and 100mm instead.
+1 on using primes for portraits. A faster lens will be more versatile. I prefer the 85 or 135 because a longer focal length can be slimming and more flattering. Also, the short telephotos provide distance so you are not right on top of the subject.
I have both and use them indoors and out.
The only knock on the 24-105 is focusing in very low light.
Ironically, the 24-70 is a bigger lens than the 24-105.
24-70 is just barely long enough for head and shoulder portraits on my 5D. I like something around 85-100 mm of portraits. I also have the 100 F2 but don't use it much. No real advantage over the 24-105 accept for aperture.
Some people claim they are more creative using foot zoom with primes, but there are walls in the world that limit where you can move, so there are advantages to twist zooming too. Although it does change perspective and foreshortening.
On a full frame, the 24-105 is a handy all-purpose lens. I really like the 85 f1.8 for head and shoulders. It's nice and bright, too. I like even better, the 70-200 F2.8 IS, when space permits. The longer focal length helps eliminate distortion, which can be a real problem with shorter focal lengths for portraits.
On a crop sensor, the 50mm f1.4 approximates the angle of view of an 80mm and gives a nice bright viewfinder. Good for head and shoulders. Even on a crop sensor, though, the 50mm is marginal, and if I can back up enough, a longer lens is still preferable. The 24-70 F2.8 might work on the smaller sensor with its approx 39-110 equivalent field of view. Of course, you could buy the 50 f1.4 AND the 85 1.8 for a lot less than the 24-105 or 24-70.
I use a 50D and own the 24-70mm f/2.8. I also have the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS, 50mm f/1.4, 85mm f/1.8 and 10-22m and have used the 24-105mm IS. I shoot with studio lighting and PJ/editorial style with available light and a pair of 580ex flashes.
I bought my 24-70mm before the 24-105mm was available. For me either of the two lenses would work for studio portraits. I use the 24-70mm most of the time now and in the studio the difference between it and the 24-105mm the difference wouldn't be significant. For the candid shooting with flash the 24-105mm also wouldn't make much difference because I rarely shoot below f/4 with flash because because of DOF requirements. Where the scale would tip towards the 24-105mm for me would be shooting in ambient light indoors. I shoot stage performances for my church and have used the 24-70mm without IS and the 70-200mm with IS side-by-side an would take the IS capability of the 24-105mm over the faster aperture of the non-IS 24-70mm.
Here are some other factors about lenses in general to consider:
For portraits there are three variables in play: perspective, in-camera crop, and DOF.
Shooting distance affects near/far perspective with any lens. In a portrait the shooting distance will control the rendering of the shape of the face and how big the nose looks relative to the ears. Faces come in different shapes and finding the most flattering distance is a matter of trial and error comparison: looking at the face through the lens at various distances. Then with a zoom lens you can adjust the focal length to get the desired in camera crop.
The differences are subtle and more easily seen if you take a lens like a 50mm and shoot a person from 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 feet then crop the resulting shots in Photoshop so the heads are the same size. By the time the camera moves into 6ft. I'll start to notice perspective changes which aren't typically flattering because what happens is that the nose starts to get larger than the parts further back. That's particularly noticeable in oblique views. But some faces which have prominent noses, are narrow or asymmetrical (including mine on all three counts ) will be flattered more by increasing the shooting distance which makes the parts further back look larger.
I find the most flattering distance for most faces is 8ft. so I use that as my starting baseline for evaluation. The distance variable is the same regardless of sensor size. Over the years I'm used 35mm, med. format, and various size digital sensors, currently using a 50D. The 85mm - 150mm rule of thumb for portrait lenses originated in the days of 35mm file cameras because when shooting from a distance of around 8ft that range of lenses will allow the photographer to capture in-camera crops ranging from a loose H&S to a tight facial close-up.
Indoors in the studio backgrounds which are smooth or painted to look out of focus are used so Bokeh really isn't a factor. I like to keep the entire head in focus because too much softness looks unnatural and anything which looks unnatural in a portrait becomes a non-productive distraction. Selective DOF and Bokeh is more of a factor outdoors where its needed to keep natural backgrounds from being a distraction. Whenever is see the comment "great Bokeh" in the C&C for a portrait I cringe because if its noticed more than the faces or pulls attention off the face it is a counter-productive distraction.
I appreciate the comments. I currently have the 50/1.8 (metal mount) lens and a 70-200/2.8 non-IS (I really wish it had the IS) lens. Additionally, I also have the 135/2. I love the 135 but I find that it is often too long indoors. I am shooting a 1D MkII body. The 50 is great indoors but sometimes I need a little extra reach. I think the 70-200 if it would have been IS version would solve my issues. I guess either the 85/1.8 or perhaps replacing my 70-200 with an IS version is a possibility. In studio, I have what I need. It's the indoor, event, where I sometimes wonder if the zooms I mentioned would be a good option. Currently I have a 550ex flash I shoot with indoors.
Gyrine wrote:
I appreciate the comments. I currently have the 50/1.8 (metal mount) lens and a 70-200/2.8 non-IS (I really wish it had the IS) lens. Additionally, I also have the 135/2. I love the 135 but I find that it is often too long indoors. I am shooting a 1D MkII body. The 50 is great indoors but sometimes I need a little extra reach. I think the 70-200 if it would have been IS version would solve my issues. I guess either the 85/1.8 or perhaps replacing my 70-200 with an IS version is a possibility. In studio, I have what I need. It's the indoor, event, where I sometimes wonder if the zooms I mentioned would be a good option. Currently I have a 550ex flash I shoot with indoors. ...Show more →
So finally we know what camera we're talking about. The 1.25 crop factor on your 1D changes things a bit. I think the 50 would be a horrible head and shoulders lens, causing the nose distortion cgardner was discussing. Your 70-200 F2.8 is a good bet, although the 85 F1.8 is a bargain and works nicely on a crop camera. It would cost you only a fraction of a 70-200 F2.8 IS lens, and it is much lighter and compact, which can make a difference in long sessions. If you have busy and bright backgrounds, the 85's bokeh can be problematic with CA issues appearing. On a seamless white or black, it is no problem, though.
I don't shoot a lot of head and shoulders portraits, mostly shooting catalog fashion in my little studio. In cases where a whole outfit is supposed to show--head to toe--I still use the 70-200 and back up enough to fill the frame. With full length it is really easy to make the head too big (shooting from a standing position), feet and rear too large (shooting from the floor), or the stomach too large (shooting from a low stool) when shooting with a shorter lens.
So I shoot a full frame (5DMkII) with the 70-200 at around 125mm for full length, back about 18-20 feet (fortunately, the back of my studio is double doors, so I can back into the next room as far as 35 feet or so if necessary). F10 or F11 is my aperture to get the front edge and back edge of the garment in focus. With the goal of making women's fitness clothing look good, I simply cannot use the 24-105 without some distortion. On a 1D it would be marginal. On a 50D or 7D, I think it might work OK.
