Is an F4 lens good enough for portrait and group shots?

karlish

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jun 28, 2015
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
Hi All,
First post from my side.. let's see :)

I am thinking of buying a full frame camera soon and I am looking for a good lens to start of with. A general purpose lens would suit my needs. I currently have a Canon 450D with a 18-55 + 55-250 + a 50mm 1.8 lenses + a flashgun.

I am into portrait and party shots and also small events shot in churches. Although I use a flashgun most of the time, I wanted a lens that will capture enough light for sharp images without the need to use the flash.

So far my research brought me to a conclusion that the Sigma 24-105mm f4 OS lens is a pretty good lens to start of with. My only worry is that f4 as I continue reading people saying that for low light situations you will have to crank uo the ISO and decrease by half the shutter speed. Will that be a big deal with my possible new purchase the Canon 6D?

Cheers!
 
Well a full frame sensor will do better than crop generally, so yes an f4 is well capable. I had a 24-105 with a 5d and did some nice portraits.

Bigger aperture lenses can obviously do better in lower light with better seperation between subject and background, but there is always better than you can afford
 
The 50 1.8 is pretty fast but I think a 50 is too short for portraiture due to distortion. I like to be at around 100mm or so when doing portrait work. Foe more casual shots at parties and your church work it should be fine.

I have a Canon 24-105 f4 that I use for portraiture fairly often. Shot toward the long end it gives great results. Shooting indoors without a flash, especially when your dealing with groups, lighting is going to be a problem. It will hard to even light on faces.

Not sure what you're talking about when you say "crank uo the ISO and decrease by half the shutter speed." You would increase ISO to keep the shutter speed high enough to reduce motion blur. The ambient light will determine where you need to go with ISO and, in turn, your shutter speed.

The 6D won't be bothered in the least by higher ISO. You mention you're looking at a 6D. That camera comes with the Canon 24-105 f4. That's a very popular package plus I believe currently there is a pretty decent rebate on it. I would suggest looking at that rather than buying the Sigma.
 
Thanks a lot Bryston3bsst!
At this point in time I think I will have to see how the indoor shooting will look like with the 50mm and the 24-105.

Your remark on the iso/shutter seepd is spot on I think. I was just confused whether the fixed aperature of the lens will be an issue if I have to go to extrems with the shutter and ISO.

Thanks for the suggestion re the 24-105 f4. The thing is that the kit lens is not the L version. The sigma one I am looking at is a current challenger to the 24-105 f4 L version of the Canon, and it has the IS. Seemingly it has good results, although I am a little bit skeptic being that it will not be a Canon!
 
24-105 is a competent lens and very versatile especially if you ever start shooting video. It's wide range is very convenient. However as a past wedding photographer I found myself wishing for a wider aperture and moving to the 24-70 2.8L was the way forward. 70 mm was fine for portraits (3/4 full half length) and even tight head shots showed little distortion. I have played with the new mark 2 version of this lens and it is a beauty but the price tag really is high.

Personally I would stick with 24-105 and purchase the magnificent 85mm 1.8. perfect focal length and fast. Tack sharp and a good value.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
 
Another wedding photographer here.

An f4 would do pretty good, but like FKP007 says, eventually you're going to want to get something faster, like the f2.8 range. Personally, I'd get the f4 as a good "startup" lens, and buy a 24-70 and a 70-200, both at f2.8 when money can afford.
 
The lens doesn't have a fixed aperture, it has a maximum constant aperture of f/4 when zoomed, but can be stopped down to a smaller apertures in 1/3 stop increments.
 
Image Stabilisation on the lens is excellent and helps when hitting those slower shutter speeds. 70-200 2.8 is my fav lens which I use for 90% of my beauty portrait and fashion work.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
 
Image Stabilisation on the lens is excellent and helps when hitting those slower shutter speeds. 70-200 2.8 is my fav lens which I use for 90% of my beauty portrait and fashion work.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
I used my 70-200 f/2.8 until I discovered how much lighter a 85mm f/1.8 is.
For short premium shoots, I still use my 70-200 but when I'm doing a full day of shooting, the 85mm doesn't leave my muscles twitching.
 
Unless you hate depth of field and want none of it the f/4 lens should be just fine. I have used a 24-85mm lens non VR for low light shot (no flash) with aperture never larger than f/5.6.
 
IMHO if you want to not use the strobe so much then get something faster than f4. Years ago as a wedding photographer my goto lens was the Nikon 85mm 1.8 and it was also my portrait lens. (Still have it in the relics closet......)
 
Image Stabilisation on the lens is excellent and helps when hitting those slower shutter speeds. 70-200 2.8 is my fav lens which I use for 90% of my beauty portrait and fashion work.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
I used my 70-200 f/2.8 until I discovered how much lighter a 85mm f/1.8 is.
For short premium shoots, I still use my 70-200 but when I'm doing a full day of shooting, the 85mm doesn't leave my muscles twitching.
Yeah it is a heavy old beast but I find I can just sit back and smash off a tight head shot 3/4 and full body without moving an inch. Love my 85 1.8 too and find it equally as sharp at 1.8 as the 85 1.2

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
 
Image Stabilisation on the lens is excellent and helps when hitting those slower shutter speeds. 70-200 2.8 is my fav lens which I use for 90% of my beauty portrait and fashion work.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
I used my 70-200 f/2.8 until I discovered how much lighter a 85mm f/1.8 is.
For short premium shoots, I still use my 70-200 but when I'm doing a full day of shooting, the 85mm doesn't leave my muscles twitching.
Yeah it is a heavy old beast but I find I can just sit back and smash off a tight head shot 3/4 and full body without moving an inch. Love my 85 1.8 too and find it equally as sharp at 1.8 as the 85 1.2

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
Defeats the object of producing the best possible product for the client. I choose quality over comfort.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top