Portraits - Which Lens to Use?

MDalby

I have only been using my 70-200 2.8 VR II for senior portraits and most other portrait work, mainly because I didn't have another lens that was high IQ.

I just bought a 24-70 2.8. Besides the obvious times when you have a group shot that would require a wider lens, what other scenarios would warrant using the 24-70 rather than the 70-200? For individual shots, and great bokah, use the 70-200? Candids might be better with the 24-70?

I haven't received the lens yet (12/05) but will I be able to get as good a bokah as my 70-200?

Thanks,

MD

Islandcrow

What camera do you have? Specifically, is it a cropped sensor or a full size sensor. For single person portraits, I would usually use my 50mm f/1.4 with my Canon 40D (crop sensor), but favored an 85mm lens when I shot film as well as now that I have a 5DMII. If you're talking Canon, I know from personal experience that both the 24-70 and 70-200 are great lenses. I've really never used the 70-200 for portraits, as I prefer to use a prime lens most of the time (the image quality is slightly better, even though neither of my primes are L lenses), but I have used the 24-70 on multiple occasions when I'm either shooting a group or it's a somewhat non-standard portrait. For example, I did a shoot for a local Corvette club where they wanted pictures with them and their cars and an aircraft in the background. I'm sure I could have used a prime lens, but the zoom was more convenient, especially since I would be doing other shots and didn't want the day to be any longer than necessary changing lenses.

As far as bokeh goes, the 24-70 (again, assuming Canon) has excellent bokeh, certainly on par with the 24-70.

MDalby

Thank you. I am a full frame guy, D700.

idiotabroad

I use Nikon primes. 50 1.4 and 85 1.4 are gravy. I don't do the 105 because I'm a crop guy.

Art Scott

A 24-70 or 24-120 would be ideal to me....I find if I need a bit more of a wide shot that I can step back a couple of steps and get what I need usually...shooting crop sensors since I came to digital, it was rough getting use to the sensor for me, for some reason, same aspect ratio as the full frame ...just not as large...but I have not like the 18-70 at all but still use it until I get a 24-120....but for many decades I have shot with a 70-210 for everything, portraits, weddings, concerts, book cover ... everything...so a 24-70 is pretty easy for me to get use to....my prob with the 18-70 is the variable aperture ... I gotta have a constant aperture....

So far the 28/24 - 70"s i have owned were ideal portrait lenses and it never hurts to shoot a portrait with a lower IQ lens...it might give an effect you'll really love... ... ... ...

Islandcrow

Ahh, a Nikon guy. I'm sure the Nikon lenses are pretty much equivalent to their corresponding Canon lenses, but here's a resource I really like for lens reviews and specs: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/.

Qarik

the reason you may use a 24-70 is space limitations, lighting, as well as convenience. Space limitations are obvious. For lighting, if you are using on board bounced flash..it may not work at 200mm for example as you are standing much farther away (off camera lighitng would alleviate this). Lastly if the portraits are part of some kind of dynamic event then 24-70 will be much easier to deal with in most cases.

tomnovy

My favourite portrait lens Canon 85mm f1.2


---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=52.636400,-1.124454

pathfinder

Lots of folks ( Joe McNally comes quickly to mind ) shoot portraits with all manner of lenses, from 24mm to 300mm....

I agree that traditionally the 85mm lens was the go to lens for head and shoulders shots with 35mm film. Lots of wedding shooters use the 24-70, or a 28-85 lens as their primary optic.

Lots of fashion shooting is done with a 200 or even a 300 mm lens.

Ask yourself, how often do you use your 70-200 f2,8 IS L at less than 200mm? If you do shoot your 70-200 at 70 or 75 or 105mm, wouldn't an 85 f1.8 prime be a lot lighter, faster, easier, and cheaper to use? Might even be sharper too... Not certain about that , but it would be close. And the 200mm f2.8 L prime is less than half the weight of the zoom, and the 135 f2 is also lighter and easier to carry than the zoom and has fabulous bokeh.

Unlike a lot of folks, while I own a 70-200 f2.8 IS L, I rarely use it, as I prefer lighter, or faster, or sharper lenses. I bought my wife a 70-200 f4 IS L, and it is as sharp ( or sharper ) and faster, lighter, cheaper. Lighter really counts at the end of the day too.

The 85 f1.2 is gorgeous, very heavy, expensive, and requires great skill ( AF care ) in use. I have one too, and love it, or hate it, from time to time.

The Nikon 85 f1,4 is also gorgeous as well.