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

[Braineack]

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.

Your client is not seeing an IQ difference between these two in a studio settings.

 

[Bryston3bsst]

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.

Your client is not seeing an IQ difference between these two in a studio settings.

........in any setting.

 

[chuasam]

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.

Your client is not seeing an IQ difference between these two in a studio settings.

........in any setting.

Unless your client happens to make calibration charts or happens to be DxO.

 

[karlish]

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.

Thanks a lot! Very convincing

 

[karlish]

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

This is actually kind of sad.

Anyone notice that the OP is long gone? While the measurebators have taken over this thread.

Fact is, if all of the lenses that have been discussed were used to take the same picture on the same camera I bet none of the numbers freaks could tell which picture came from which lens.

But in the mean time the person that came here to ask a legitimate question has been thrown aside by the geek squad.

Karlish......I hope you got at least some help in answering your original question.

Thanks!! In fact I was thinking...."What happened here, on my very first thread? Did I cause this fierce battle? Thanks to all though...I am now more convinced to opt for the f4 24-105.

 

[iolair]

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.

There's an advantage to being close enough to easily communicate with your model. While certain jobs might benefit a 300mm, having to bellow directions to the model won't help achieve working rapport.

 

[beagle100]

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!

I'll also vote for larger apertures if you're not using a flash (85mm 1.8, 70-200 2.8, etc.)