Decision time! 17-40 F/4L or 24-105 F/4L for postraits

Schizophonic

Schizophonic

Schizophonic

Soldato
Joined
27 Dec 2006
Posts
2,916
Location
Northampton
Which one would you use for a crop camera?(40D)

I'm not sure if the 17-40 will give me enough reach at times but I have my 70-200 F/4 IS with me. Though for an extra couple hundrend pounds I could get the 24-105.

With my sessions I'm lucky to get some space and use the 70-200 in these situations but in confined space the 17-40 would be ideal but will it have enough reach and not have to use the 70-200?

Which one would you go for?

EDIT - Damn fat fingers, can a Don please correct my typo in the subject heading please?
 
Last edited:
The classic portrait length is thought of as around 85mm on full frame, so a 50mm on a crop body is ideal - a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 should work well. For zooms the pro grade 24-70s are always a good bet, the 24-105 wouldn't be bad. By conventional terms the 17-40 (although a great lens in my view) isn't much use for this...
 
Well I've done lots of portrait work on the 17-40L, but thats only due to

A) Space confinements
B) No money to buy the 24-70 :p

It's usable, but if you start going wide you really need to be careful of distortion :)
 
bigredshark said:
The classic portrait length is thought of as around 85mm on full frame, so a 50mm on a crop body is ideal - a 50mm f/1.4 or f/1.8 should work well. For zooms the pro grade 24-70s are always a good bet, the 24-105 wouldn't be bad. By conventional terms the 17-40 (although a great lens in my view) isn't much use for this...
Click to expand...

With the classics portrait, my mind would assume your talking about a student environment with the subject in front. I already own the 50 F/1.8 but only gets used in low lighting conditions.

Johnny|lucidcomposure said:
I wouldnt say any F4 lens is good for portraits. It would be the 24 - 105 out of the two but I would get a 2.8 prime or zoom.
Click to expand...

If you had a confined space of say a small garden but wanted to capture a family or child playing, would the 24-105 be short enough?
 
17-55 on the 40D all the way.

Not taking anything away from the 24-70 or 24-105 but they should be used on FF cameras as the wide angle isn't very... wide :p 38.4 for the 24mm...

17-55 a possibility?
 
Well tradionally a portrait is something more cropped to a person anyway. You are basically trying to capture a fuller scene so yes the wider would be prefered but at F4 you are going to be relying on good light or assisted flash for really striking work with little depth of field as a portrait will look lost in such a complex scene like a garden. Shooting wide opened wide up will produce a powerful image. The 17 - 55 is going to be a contender but it is no where as good a performance lens like the L's you have listed.

Buy yourself a 50mm F1.8 and see if you prefer images with a blurry backround or a detailed one and you can make your decision better seeing as you can get the 50 for 80ish quid.
 
Schizophonic said:
With the classics portrait, my mind would assume your talking about a student environment with the subject in front. I already own the 50 F/1.8 but only gets used in low lighting conditions.



If you had a confined space of say a small garden but wanted to capture a family or child playing, would the 24-105 be short enough?
Click to expand...

Seems like you've already got a 50mm prime and a 70-200 which should already cover you for portraits quite nicely - why not get a 17-50 tamron or the 17-55 canon? Just a suggestion as I'm no expert.

50mm should be fine for portraits on a crop sensor - perhaps as an alternative upgrade the nifty to a 50mm 1.4 sigma lens - seems to have better reviews than the canon equivalent.
 
Johnny|lucidcomposure said:
Well tradionally a portrait is something more cropped to a person anyway. You are basically trying to capture a fuller scene so yes the wider would be prefered but at F4 you are going to be relying on good light or assisted flash for really striking work with little depth of field as a portrait will look lost in such a complex scene like a garden. Shooting wide opened wide up will produce a powerful image. The 17 - 55 is going to be a contender but it is no where as good a performance lens like the L's you have listed.

Buy yourself a 50mm F1.8 and see if you prefer images with a blurry backround or a detailed one and you can make your decision better seeing as you can get the 50 for 80ish quid.
Click to expand...

The differences between the 17-55 and a 24-70 are negligible, the 24-70 has better build quality and that was all that I could tell were different.

Deciding between them should not be down to IQ in any shape or form :)
 
Johnny|lucidcomposure said:
That good huh?
Click to expand...

It's amazing tbh. I bought one that was broken and was a bit wary buying another. I had found the IQ on my 50 1.8 to be amazing at F4 even when pixel peeping at 100%.

I viewed a few snap shots with the 17-55 and it's simply stunning IQ all through the focal ranges and 2.8 upwards. The detail in skin for portraits blew me away, although now cause PP to be needed more as you can see all the imperfections ;)

My 50mm will never be needed again as the 17-55 won't come off unless I need a longer range.

It's a shame that they don't give it L build quality and include a pouch and hood.
 
Got it!

Add it to the family.

imag0083y.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom