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

[FKP007]

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.

And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

 

[FKP007]

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.

And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

You must be talking about pixel level differences if there are any at that. I've never heard of anyone question the quality of such a lens at different focal lengths, it's dof that people generally discuss. If your client would be scrutinising your images for quality at that level then they wouldn't be hiring anyone shooting a dslr, it would be someone wanting medium format quality and nothing less.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

 

[table1349]

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.

And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

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.

And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

You must be talking about pixel level differences if there are any at that. I've never heard of anyone question the quality of such a lens at different focal lengths, it's dof that people generally discuss. If your client would be scrutinising your images for quality at that level then they wouldn't be hiring anyone shooting a dslr, it would be someone wanting medium format quality and nothing less.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

 

[FKP007]

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.

And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

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.

And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

You must be talking about pixel level differences if there are any at that. I've never heard of anyone question the quality of such a lens at different focal lengths, it's dof that people generally discuss. If your client would be scrutinising your images for quality at that level then they wouldn't be hiring anyone shooting a dslr, it would be someone wanting medium format quality and nothing less.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

 

[bratkinson]

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.

The 24-70 f2.8L (i or ii) vs 24-105 f4L opinion battle has been waged on this forum several times in the past year or so. Most recently in the Canon Lenses forum. 24-70 or 24-105 Photography Forum

As I stated in that thread and various other times, I once owned both lenses and sold the 24-70 mark i. For me, the lighter weight of the 24-105 and IS outweighs the only-a-pixel-peeper-would-care the IQ advantage if the 24-70. I've never had a complaint from those I photograph about the IQ from the 24-105. And to me, the added zoom range of the 24-105 is worth its weight in gold. In short, the 24-105 is on my 5Diii perhaps 80% of the time or more.

Like you, I have found that much of my photography is at small church events (I turned down a wedding request just 3 days ago!). Additionally, I try to shoot with no flash as much as possible. But when I need an 'insurance' shot or two, I turn on the flash and get those shots. As the most of the photos in my gallery will attest, the majority of them were taken in quite low light, no flash, mostly with the 5Diii + 24-105...and handheld as well.
bratkinson - Photos Photography Forum
The first shot, with the toddler, was with my 135 f2L. The train shots near the end were taken with my G15, and the low light shots after those with the 24-105 on a 60D when I owned that camera. In particular, the shots with only candle light were taken with the 24-105 at f4, 1/160th, ISO 25,600...handheld. From what I've read, the 6D has a slight high ISO advantage over the 5Diii.

In short, there's nothing 'wrong' with the 24-105. And for me, the extra 35mm of zoom 'reach' comes in handy more often than not while shooting church events.

Edit: Also, you can't go wrong with the Canon 85 f1.8 for portrait work. Except for the easily corrected CA (in Lightroom), the f1.8 is an all around great lens.

 

[table1349]

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.

And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

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.

And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

You must be talking about pixel level differences if there are any at that. I've never heard of anyone question the quality of such a lens at different focal lengths, it's dof that people generally discuss. If your client would be scrutinising your images for quality at that level then they wouldn't be hiring anyone shooting a dslr, it would be someone wanting medium format quality and nothing less.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

Nice selfie, and you didn't even have to move to take it.

 

[chuasam]

Defeats the object of producing the best possible product for the client. I choose quality over comfort.
And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

Oh if there's a drop in quality between an 85mm and a 70-200mm that your client nitpicks about...you really have the wrong client *LOL* you have a pixel peeper.
My comfort is paramount. If my muscles start shaking after 4 hours of shooting, it's game over. So comfort is paramount.

 

[FKP007]

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.

And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

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.

And your telling me that the client is going to notice a drop in quality between shooting at 80 mm or 135mm on an L series lens at f8 like the 70-200. Seriously?

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

You must be talking about pixel level differences if there are any at that. I've never heard of anyone question the quality of such a lens at different focal lengths, it's dof that people generally discuss. If your client would be scrutinising your images for quality at that level then they wouldn't be hiring anyone shooting a dslr, it would be someone wanting medium format quality and nothing less.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

Nice selfie, and you didn't even have to move to take it.

It's not my selfie friend more likely something you would take lol

It is in fact an image representing photographers like yourself who believe that equipment needs to utilised a specific way, their way, the right way, and any alternative suggestion is greeted with a youtube video to justify their point followed up with some statement about quality (not to mention when they having nothing more to say they resort to silly gifs). We all know those types of douche bag photographers who spend their weekends pixel peeping, looking for lens distortion and analysing edge to edge sharpness and truly believe that a quality outcome is dependent on those things alone. But the funny thing is, it's those types of "pros" who actually produce work that can be described as, quite simply, mediocre.

Anyway keep going mate, I'm bored of this thread.

just a little.

 

[jaomul]

Ha, this thread may have went a bit skewered.

I don't really think anyone will really disagree that at some level expensive faster primes may outperform an expensive zoom in absolute terms (whether this performance is actually visible on a normal photograph is debatable, and as we can see, many are happy to debate very strongly ), but its derailed from the OP original question about an f4 zoom being good enough for portraits.

Not everyone can afford exotic lenses. There are suggestions for f2.8 zooms above. This is ok if such advise was requested, but I am fairly sure the OP would have asked about f2.8 lenses if they were in budget. A lot more helpful advise would be to give OP pros and cons of the question asked. It's good to remember not everyone is a pro

 

[Solarflare]

Well, about the original thread question - I'm pretty happy with the portraits I get of my Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f4 VR, and I was pretty okay with what I got out of my D5100 with AF-S 55-200mm f4-5.6 VR before.

However, I know that many professional portrait shooters will with good reason swear on glas like the Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 2.0/135mm or Zeiss Otus APO Planar T* 1.4/85mm. I'm just not that specialized.

 

[chuasam]

However, I know that many professional portrait shooters will with good reason swear on glas like the Zeiss APO Sonnar T* 2.0/135mm or Zeiss Otus APO Planar T* 1.4/85mm. I'm just not that specialized.

We call them Measurebators

 

[FKP007]

Ha, this thread may have went a bit skewered.

I don't really think anyone will really disagree that at some level expensive faster primes may outperform an expensive zoom in absolute terms (whether this performance is actually visible on a normal photograph is debatable, and as we can see, many are happy to debate very strongly ), but its derailed from the OP original question about an f4 zoom being good enough for portraits.

Not everyone can afford exotic lenses. There are suggestions for f2.8 zooms above. This is ok if such advise was requested, but I am fairly sure the OP would have asked about f2.8 lenses if they were in budget. A lot more helpful advise would be to give OP pros and cons of the question asked. It's good to remember not everyone is a pro

Totally agree which is why I still say the 24-105 is a brilliant kit lens all rounder. I got mine with my 5d mk2 when it was first released and used that lens for 5 years shooting weddings. It was permanently on and did a great job. I only moved to the 24-70 2.8 for the aesthetic and lower light reasons but still utilised the 24-105 for my own personal travel stuff and is my go to lens when shooting dslr video. The focal length range is so versatile for video work.

Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk

 

[Dao]

Personally, I do like the way the photo looks with the longer focal length. For outdoor portrait type photos, I like the result of the 200mm from my telephoto zoom lens than my 85mm prime.

As for 24-105mm lens, that is a great lens to have. If I sell all my gears and start from the beginning, I will get a full frame body with a lens in that range as the standard zoom lens/walk around.

 

[chuasam]

My gf has a 300mm f/2.8 lens.
That thing is pretty darn sharp but it is a completely pain in the ass to shoot a portrait.

 

[Solarflare]

My gf has a 300mm f/2.8 lens.
That thing is pretty darn sharp but it is a completely pain in the ass to shoot a portrait.

???

How so ?!?

A 300mm f2.8 or 400mm f2.8 is what a fashion photographer would typically use extensively, or so I've been told.