basically i'm keeping my 5d2 to shoot portrait sessions. i love the 135/2, but honestly its a niche lens for me, albeit my favorite and simply fantastic, but its such a long lens for full body portraits.
im thinking about a selling the 135 and the 28 and getting a 24-70/2.8 (either picking up the canon mk1 brick or the new tamron IS.) i really need a zoom since the three prime system is too clunky and i find i'm breaking the flow or groove i get into by switching lenses. i rather just leave one lens on and work.
i really like the 85 and i hate to part with it since its so cheap and it works great for headshots so i'll keep it for now.
i know some folks are going to say im crazy for giving up the 135... i know...
so, thoughts on using either the canon or newer tamron 24-70/2.8 for portrait work? will i be happy with the sharpness for portraits, especially wide open?
My initial thoughts are that is a bit too limited at the top end. If you want one lens to do it all for portraits, I'd think you'd want to start at 70mm.
Do you really want to do this? From what I understand, zooms, no matter how good, just don't stand up to primes...
(by the way, my lousy eyes read the title as poems for portraits. I thought it was an interesting challenge idea! Was kind of disappointed that it wasn't... ) :)
My initial thoughts are that is a bit too limited at the top end. If you want one lens to do it all for portraits, I'd think you'd want to start at 70mm.
i though about keeping the 28 and getting a 70-200/2.8 instead too...
My initial thoughts are that is a bit too limited at the top end. If you want one lens to do it all for portraits, I'd think you'd want to start at 70mm.
i though about keeping the 28 and getting a 70-200/2.8 instead too...
If I were to get more serious about portraits, that's the route I would go. Throw in a cheap 50mm just for kicks, but the 70-200mm range would be excellent coverage for portraits.
My personal preference is always to shoot as long a lens as I can for portraiture. Of course, the limiting factor is space. With a 35mm sensor, no way I'd shoot wider than 50mm, so the 24-50 range only gets used for groups. The 70-200/2.8 makes a really fine portrait lens, if and when I have the room to shoot with it. For full-body portraits, even at 70mm you really need some distance.
If I were in your shoes, I might go with a 50/1.4 and the 70-200 for individual portraits, keep the 28 for group shots. It would break my heart to part with my 135/2 though, even though don't shoot with it as much as I'd like.
maybe the thing to do would be to sell all the lenses, get a 70-200/2.8 and a 17-50L or even use a nice 35 prime.
but then again, am i really gaining anything?
i wonder if all this is stemming from not having a solid indoor studio lens, 85 is too long and 28 is too wide.
i wonder how a 28-75 tammy will work on my 5d2 for portraits. i used to have one on my 60D and i really liked it, i know the corner and edge sharpness leaves a lot to be desired on a ff sensor but in most cases im shooting so shallow, corner sharpness means nothing to me.
i wonder how a 28-75 tammy will work on my 5d2 for portraits. i used to have one on my 60D and i really liked it, i know the corner and edge sharpness leaves a lot to be desired on a ff sensor but in most cases im shooting so shallow, corner sharpness means nothing to me.
With the glass you have gotten used to, I can't believe you would accept the results from the 28-75. It's going to be an eye-opener, and not in a good way, on FF. Unless some copies are a lot better than I have been led to believe they are. Heck, the Canon 24-70 (at least the 1st generation lens) will show some detectable issues at 70mm and wide open.
Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS is a VERY acceptable portrait lens at a reasonable price, and it's stabilized. FWIW 24-105 and 70-200 cover the whole range of what you need for portraiture focal lengths. One word of caution, though: the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an absolute BEAST to use for a long period of time. It's HEAVY, it starts to stress your arms...
Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS is a VERY acceptable portrait lens at a reasonable price, and it's stabilized. FWIW 24-105 and 70-200 cover the whole range of what you need for portraiture focal lengths. One word of caution, though: the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an absolute BEAST to use for a long period of time. It's HEAVY, it starts to stress your arms...
You know, I hear people say this a lot. I'm really surprised when I hear it. I normally carry two pro bodies when I work. One thing I have NEVER said when working even long 10-12 hour tournament days is, "Man this 70-200 is heavy" of course my other lens is either a 200MM F2 or a 400MM F2.8, and the only lens that truly gets heavy after several hours is the 400MM and I use a monopod with it, but do hand hold it now and then.
Don't sell 135, it's the best you can have IMO. I have 105 f/2 Nikon and my only choice for portraits now. With these lenses you can have the whole subject in focus and a super shallow DOF. 85 f/2 and 50 f/2 or f/4 are stunning but in a different (and sometimes creative) way. But we really want to change and get a Tamron, you have 24-70 2.8 (you can see it in most of my photos and I'd never change it with the Nikkor one) or the new 70-200 2.8, stunning as well - it will my next lens.
Anyway, personally, I like primes for portraits, because they're small and light, and in portrait sessions, I have plenty of time to change lenses. I don't want to shoot with a big zoom unless it's really required for the task.
Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS is a VERY acceptable portrait lens at a reasonable price, and it's stabilized. FWIW 24-105 and 70-200 cover the whole range of what you need for portraiture focal lengths. One word of caution, though: the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an absolute BEAST to use for a long period of time. It's HEAVY, it starts to stress your arms...
You know, I hear people say this a lot. I'm really surprised when I hear it. I normally carry two pro bodies when I work. One thing I have NEVER said when working even long 10-12 hour tournament days is, "Man this 70-200 is heavy" of course my other lens is either a 200MM F2 or a 400MM F2.8, and the only lens that truly gets heavy after several hours is the 400MM and I use a monopod with it, but do hand hold it now and then.
Matt
Mike's still young, and i assume fairly strong, so he might be okay with a 70-200, but I can't handhold a 70-200 f2.8 for more than about 5 minutes, and even during that 5 minutes, I don't control the weight all that well. I would never use a 70-200 2.8 for a portrait session, because I can get better results with lighter lenses.
I'm getting too old for the big camera, big lenses thing. Waiting impatiently for m4/3 to be viable for action shooting...
Canon's 24-105mm f/4L IS is a VERY acceptable portrait lens at a reasonable price, and it's stabilized. FWIW 24-105 and 70-200 cover the whole range of what you need for portraiture focal lengths. One word of caution, though: the 70-200mm f/2.8L IS is an absolute BEAST to use for a long period of time. It's HEAVY, it starts to stress your arms...
You know, I hear people say this a lot. I'm really surprised when I hear it. I normally carry two pro bodies when I work. One thing I have NEVER said when working even long 10-12 hour tournament days is, "Man this 70-200 is heavy" of course my other lens is either a 200MM F2 or a 400MM F2.8, and the only lens that truly gets heavy after several hours is the 400MM and I use a monopod with it, but do hand hold it now and then.
Matt
Mike's still young, and i assume fairly strong, so he might be okay with a 70-200, but I can't handhold a 70-200 f2.8 for more than about 5 minutes, and even during that 5 minutes, I don't control the weight all that well. I would never use a 70-200 2.8 for a portrait session, because I can get better results with lighter lenses.
I'm getting too old for the big camera, big lenses thing. Waiting impatiently for m4/3 to be viable for action shooting...
Still young? I will have to go back to the eye doctor I saw today and tell him that I could not possibly need bifocals, because I'm too young... LOL
FWIW, you can get both the new and highly regarded Sigma 24-105 f/4 and Tamron 70-200 f/2.8 lenses for $100 less than the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 alone. I use my Canon 24-105 all the time for portraits, particularly in situations with lots of people and little time.
My only problem with a f/4 is I like to shoot very shallow dof. Quite often. If it focuses fairly close than OK. The 50/1.4 was great indoors for that so i could stop it down and still get shalliw with it. The 85 is terrible focusing up close.
Its another reason I eyed up the 28-75 again. I know the new 24-70/4 focuses close but way out of my price range...
F/4 on a full frame camera is still quite shallow, sometime annoyingly so, and you still have those primes if shallow DOF is essential for a particular shot.
