24-105mm lens. Is it good for portraits?

[Aakajx]

Is the 24-105mm lens ok for portraits or me just taking pictures of my kids?

 

[jaomul]

yes but- It's better on a fullframe than a crop. It was when I had canon my favourite lens for most things. If it is just portraits you are using I suggest looking at the 85 f1.8 A's it allows more control over depth of field at the expense of loosing zoom and the L letter in the title

 

[Aakajx]

I'm wanting it for every day use with them 2 so even if we are at the park or in the backyard,around the home or birthday parties.. I have a 6d.

 

[jaomul]

With a 6d the 24-105 would be great.

 

[lambertpix]

Traditionally, portraits favor near-telephoto (~70-100mm) focal lengths because they show the face in proportions we're used to seeing. On a full-frame camera, 85mm is probably the closest to a "standard" portrait length (this corresponds to approx 50mm on a crop-sensor camera). Longer lengths can be very helpful in isolating a subject from the background, but be careful as you get to the wide end of that lens because you can start distorting facial features.

 

[ronlane]

It's better on a fullframe than a crop.

Huh? how is it better on a full frame vs a crop?


OP, I would say that the 24-105mm would be a really good lens for what you are wanting. It's a good carry around lens and it has the 85 and 100 mm focal lengths that are popular for portraits.

 

[jaomul]

It's better on a fullframe than a crop.

I meant in my opinion it is better on a fullframe as a general Lens and as a portrait Lens because of the relative dof due the distances you place yourself from the subject with larger format cameras. I have used it on both. Just an opinion.

;Huh? how is it better on a full frame vs a crop?


OP, I would say that the 24-105mm would be a really good lens for what you are wanting. It's a good carry around lens and it has the 85 and 100 mm focal lengths that are popular for portraits.

...

 

[Derrel]

On a FF camera, a 24-105mm zoom is a true wide-angle to normal to medium telephoto lens, so it "spans" multiple focal lengths that we're used to. 24,28,35,50,85,105mm, basically the six "standard prime lenses" of the past 40 years or so.

On APS-C, a 24-105mm zoom provides NO wide-angle coverage really. At its shortest length, the FOV of 24mm is equivalent to 38.4mm on full-frame, which is a sort of pseudo-normal, considering that a 43mm lens provides roughly a lens that is as long as the diagonal of a 24x36mm frame. A lens that is as long as the diagonal of the film frame is considered a "normal" lens, so 38.4mm versus 43mm is much closer to "normal" than it is to "wide-angle".

 

[weepete]

The short answer is yes. I've used a 28-105mm for a number of years now and it's the lens that's on my camera most of the time. It's got a really good focal length for portraits though for group shots in limited space it's not great. As long as you have enough room or are doing single/two people shots it's good. The reach is quite good too but personally I'm looking for something a bit wider now as landscape shots are one of my main interests now and it's not really a landscape lens.

I don't know what the IQ is like on that lens but mine is OK, it's not the sharpest but is certainly reasonable though I would like it if it was sharper.

 

[Aakajx]

Thanks everyone. I'd love 24-70mm lens but at the moment I have to budget so I can buy a 70-200mm lens to. .

 

[LShooter]

24-105 is great for lots of things. It's a great lens! If I hadn't just sold mine so I could buy a 24-70 2.8 II I would keep using it.