?24-70?

[DRoberts]

I am considering my next investment...I am pretty well set up for my motocross work, and have been looking at getting into portraits for alittle side $$. Question is how vital is the 24 - 70 f/2.8? I know some people swear by it, but is there a reasonable comparison for a few less $$?
Thanks in advance.

 

[Iron Flatline]

Only you know what focal lengths matter to you in your work. I usually find "fast" - meaning at least f/2.8 and the subsequent shallow DOF - to be overrated... except in portraits. The 24-105mm focal length is a little more useful.

I own the 24-70mm Canon L lens, and use it A LOT.

I believe Sigma makes several lenses with that focal length. You can also search for a used version. Canon L lenses are pretty solidly built, and retain their tightness, provided the prior owner didn't drop it too often.

 

[JerryPH]

Depends on how close you can get to the action. If you can get within 30 feet, a wider angle could make nice shots, however if you are half way up the stands in some huge dark arena, 200mm is about the minimum, and fast glass between 300mm-400mm would serve you better.

As for fast glass... I try to stay away from the slower glass or non-fixed apertures becuase they are normally of lower quality than lenses that can do constant F/2.8 at different focal lengths. I also shoot more in darker places and wider apertures give me better results.

Not all good glass is fast, though. I know that Canon makes a few F/4 that are excellent.

 

[usayit]

On the cropped sensor the 24-70 should be fine for portraits although I found it a bit short for general use. For less money, some people find the Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 equally satisfying. It is a popular lens so there are many samples online to look through.

At least for me, shooting portraits usually means I have more control over lighting than let say a sports photographer working in less than ideal lighting on moving subjects or the wedding photographer shooting in a dark church. For me, fast apertures and zoom (you have time to position yourself with foot zoom) are not nearly as important since the lighting and subjects are more or less under your control. As such, it is sometimes worthwhile to consider leveraging the high image quality of a couple of prime lenses. They are also priced lower than most high speed "L" zooms. Some to consider would be the 100mm f/2.8 macro, 50mm f/1.4, and the 85mm f/1.8. It also means other pieces of equipment can play a significant (and inexpensive) role in portraits; reflectors, tripod, off camera flash, etc...

There are some old but good lenses out there too for significantly less money. Their motors might be noisy, slower AF, and no fancy IS but their optics are good. One of my favorite high speed zooms is my time tested Tamron 35-105 f/2.8 Aspherical. Difficult to find but darn cheap for the optics you get.

 

[lostprophet]

Depends on how close you can get to the action. If you can get within 30 feet, a wider angle could make nice shots, however if you are half way up the stands in some huge dark arena, 200mm is about the minimum, and fast glass between 300mm-400mm would serve you better.

As for fast glass... I try to stay away from the slower glass or non-fixed apertures becuase they are normally of lower quality than lenses that can do constant F/2.8 at different focal lengths. I also shoot more in darker places and wider apertures give me better results.

Not all good glass is fast, though. I know that Canon makes a few F/4 that are excellent.

I may be wrong but I don't think the portraits will be from that far away.

The 24-70 is a stunning lens and I'd never get rid of mine but the 24-105 is also a very good lens. Not keen on the Sigma's myself but for the money they are hard to beat