# What Portrait Lens Should I Get Next? 24-70L/70-200L/85L?



## Ripley (Jun 8, 2013)

I know there are some significant differences between the 24-70L/70-200L/85L, but price isn't one of them. I'm hoping to gain a little insight from those who have a broader arsenal than I do. The subjects are infant to small groups, like a family of four or five. I don't often shoot super wide or from far away but I don't know if I want to limit myself to 85mm with a lens this expensive, although I'm very comfortable with moving around to frame. 

I currently shoot primarily with a 50mm 1.4 and love the image quality, sharpness, and DOF options when shooting. I used to never go below f2.8 but I came away with some great shots last weekend at f2 and they've got me thinking twice about utilizing the shallower DOF. I shoot with a 5D3 and don't care much for IS. The only other lens I have is the "good at everything but great at nothing" 24-105. Although to it's credit, I like the images it captures on the wider end.

Anyways, opinions welcomed. Thank you for your time!


----------



## TM (Jun 8, 2013)

I own the Mark II versions for all three lenses.I love them all, but for portraits, get the 70-200mm II first for the most versatility, then the others. Keep in mind while the 85mm f1.2 is hands down amazing, it is a speciality lens, so it's likely you may not use it as much as the 70-200mm.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 8, 2013)

My concern would be that 70mm isn't wide enough for 'a family of 4-5' for an indoor shoot. All three are great lenses (I have them all), but for indoor and outdoor group portraits I reach for the 24-70 II...


----------



## agierke (Jun 8, 2013)

from a focal range point of view the only lens that adds to what you already mentioned is the 70-200mm. 

the 24-70mm would definitely outclass your 24-105 and be much sharper but it wouldn't really offer too much of a new point of view for you. the 85mm from what i have seen is a spectacular lens but i think you can still get a look in a similar ballpark using the 50mm you already have.

the 70-200mm is also a very special lens but it offers great versatility. i would get that one if i were you.

if i were starting from scratch the two lenses i would get first are the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm so that i had a good range across focal lengths with the highest quality available for zoom lenses. i would then start addressing lenses for those special eye catching looks that you can get in fast primes. finally i would get specialty lenses such as a 15mm fisheye or the 100mm macro. 

get coverage first then go for "the look" then go specialty. my 2 cents.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 8, 2013)

I have both 24-70 II and 70-200 f2.8 IS II and I'm about to check out 85L today. All 3 are wonderful lenses.

For group shots, 24-70 II seems to be a better choice. Single person portrait, 85L II is a winner in term of IQ and size over 70-200.


----------



## M.ST (Jun 8, 2013)

For portraits get the 70-200 2.8 II IS L, 100 L 2.8 IS Macro, 135 L or 85 L


----------



## bseitz234 (Jun 8, 2013)

agierke said:


> from a focal range point of view the only lens that adds to what you already mentioned is the 70-200mm.
> 
> the 24-70mm would definitely outclass your 24-105 and be much sharper but it wouldn't really offer too much of a new point of view for you. the 85mm from what i have seen is a spectacular lens but i think you can still get a look in a similar ballpark using the 50mm you already have.
> 
> ...



I agree with this, I think the 70-200 will open more doors for you first, and if you need wider coverage you can reach for the 24-105 until you've saved up another 2k to upgrade to the 24-70 II.


----------



## John (Jun 8, 2013)

i actually use the 24-105 f/4 a lot and like it a lot, but i know u have that lens. it u don't own the 70-200 f/2.8 then your choice in my opinion is a no-brainer. get the 70-200


----------



## j1jenkins (Jun 8, 2013)

I have both the 24-70 II and the 70-200 II. I love both lenses, but I reach for the 70-200 II almost every time. The results are phenomenal. I am eyeing the 85 for a future purchase, but I don't own one so that should be taken into account. 

Whatever you choose, I'm sure you'll be happy with the results. I don't see much downside with any of them.


----------



## Ripley (Jun 8, 2013)

I've been looking through my pictures and I have to say, I am not very happy with the IQ of the 24-105. I suppose that's why I never really use it and depend on my 50 1.4 most of the time. I really don't even want to have to use it. I'm ok with the 24-105 supplementing focal range but honestly, I think it's going to end up getting sold one way or the other. And if I do sell it, I can buy another lens a lot sooner.

Can either of the 2.8 zooms compete with the 50 1.4 in IQ? Are the 2.8 zooms comparable to each other in IQ?

The best zoom I have ever used is the 24-105, so I guess I feel a hint of skepticism regarding their performance versus primes.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jun 8, 2013)

Ripley said:


> I've been looking through my pictures and I have to say, I am not very happy with the IQ of the 24-105. I suppose that's why I never really use it and depend on my 50 1.4 most of the time. I really don't even want to have to use it. I'm ok with the 24-105 supplementing focal range but honestly, I think it's going to end up getting sold one way or the other. And if I do sell it, I can buy another lens a lot sooner.
> 
> Can either of the 2.8 zooms compete with the 50 1.4 in IQ? Are the 2.8 zooms comparable to each other in IQ?
> 
> The best zoom I have ever used is the 24-105, so I guess I feel a hint of skepticism regarding their performance versus primes.



The 24-70 II destroys any Canon EF 50mm prime at f/2.8 and smaller.


----------



## wayno (Jun 8, 2013)

Random Orbits said:


> Ripley said:
> 
> 
> > I've been looking through my pictures and I have to say, I am not very happy with the IQ of the 24-105. I suppose that's why I never really use it and depend on my 50 1.4 most of the time. I really don't even want to have to use it. I'm ok with the 24-105 supplementing focal range but honestly, I think it's going to end up getting sold one way or the other. And if I do sell it, I can buy another lens a lot sooner.
> ...



I wouldn't go quite that far but it is better. The 24-70 II makes most equivalent range primes look a bit stale. Apart from the shallow DOF thing.


----------



## agierke (Jun 8, 2013)

> The best zoom I have ever used is the 24-105, so I guess I feel a hint of skepticism regarding their performance versus primes.



i have always felt this lens was overrated. even the 24-70mm V1 was better than it and anytime i ran across a colleague who had the 24-105 i would let them take the 24-70 for a spin and they always preferred it better.

the new 24-70mm F2.8 seems to be pretty remarkable in its quality. i dont have it yet but i have seen plenty of reviews and shots that support this. 

but the 70-200mm F2.8 IS 2 seems to be equally remarkable and again broadens your coverage by quite a bit. 

Fast Primes are a different animal....they take more patience to work with. if you don't have them dialed in and you don't shoot appropriately with them wide open they can miss badly. can lead to alot of frustration especially with a subpar focusing system. BUT...when they do hit at F2.0 or wider they are simply stunning.

the 70-200 is easier to work with and can provide that stunning quality even if it is just shy of that 2.0 and wider look.


----------



## wayno (Jun 8, 2013)

Ripley said:


> I've been looking through my pictures and I have to say, I am not very happy with the IQ of the 24-105. I suppose that's why I never really use it and depend on my 50 1.4 most of the time. I really don't even want to have to use it. I'm ok with the 24-105 supplementing focal range but honestly, I think it's going to end up getting sold one way or the other. And if I do sell it, I can buy another lens a lot sooner.
> 
> Can either of the 2.8 zooms compete with the 50 1.4 in IQ? Are the 2.8 zooms comparable to each other in IQ?
> 
> The best zoom I have ever used is the 24-105, so I guess I feel a hint of skepticism regarding their performance versus primes.



I had never been that interested in the 24-105 and after I used one, I enjoyed the zoom range but I felt the images lacked something special. It is a useful lens but has none of the X factor (tangible or otherwise) of the 24-70 II.


----------



## infared (Jun 8, 2013)

Hmmm....you have the 24-105mm which definitely covers your stated needs. I think if you add the 70-200mm you would have a much fuller and versatile kit and could get some nice candids and feature-compressed portraits...that being said..the 85mm delivers some beautifully artful low DOF portraits which can be stunning...but it is slow to focus, so is not very practical with moving children. The 135mm f/2 could fit into you considerations as well because it is a great portrait lens, fast focuser and nice bokeh as well.


----------



## Ripley (Jun 11, 2013)

Thanks for the input everyone.

I've been considering the possibility of adding an 85 1.8 or a 70-200 f4 non-IS to my current kit. Seems like either of those would be a more affordable way with IQ on par with the 50 1.4?

My other thought is to sell off the 24-105 and possibly the 50 1.4 to get the 24-70ii right away. This works for me if the 24-70 can effectively replace the 50 1.4 that I don't shoot below f2. So what does that boil down to, one stop of bokeh right?

My priorities right now are overall image quality, then Bokeh, then focal range. I like the 50mm length, I just need a little more reach for tight shots on adults. The 50mm on kids/toddlers is bokehlicious.


----------



## Dylan777 (Jun 12, 2013)

Ripley said:


> Thanks for the input everyone.
> 
> I've been considering the possibility of adding an 85 1.8 or a 70-200 f4 non-IS to my current kit. Seems like either of those would be a more affordable way with IQ on par with the 50 1.4?
> 
> ...



I recently bought a used 85L II, not bad on kids


----------



## Vossie (Jun 12, 2013)

I have all 3.

The 24-70, besides being a great allround lens, works well for indoor portraits. It's fast AF is certainly helpful on toddlers. 
The 85 has this special look that I have not seen in other lenses (except maybe the 135 which I do not own). It's certainly not an easy lens to use with it's extreme shallow DoF (when used <f2). This is especially the case when taking head shots (working distance is quite close then). AF is really slow and it's very difficult to have good keeper rates for subjects that move (a slight move of the head can already destroy focus). Focal range is good for both indoors and outdoors. It is quite heavy too.
The 70-200 is great for portraits outdoors. I use it a lot for candid type shots of my kids. The larger working distance allows to capture them in the action of their play. The fast AF helps a lot and makes it very good for 'action portraits'. It's not a small or light lens and it draws attention (which I consider a drawback; those reasons are actually why I'm considering adding the 135 to my kit). The 70-200 is very versatile, but less suited for indoor portraits.

If you look for versatility and given that you own the 24-105, I would recommend the 70-200 2.8 IS ii as your first buy. (That's what I did too; I added the 85 later and the 24-70 recently).

On the other hand, if you like the IQ of your 50 1.4, you could also consider the 85 1.8 (I mostly use my 85 at 1.8 or 2.0) and you could add the 135 2.0 and still spend less than any of the 3 lenses above. This would also give you a versatily set with you 50 1.4.


----------



## Knut Skywalker (Jun 12, 2013)

Ever considered the 200 2.8L prime? It's said to have great IQ, super-fast AF and it's lightweight, too. My portrait lens at the moment is the 100 f/2 on the 5D2. It cost me 300€ and it's awesome! I will probably jump directly to the 200mm 2.8L and not get the 135L...for now. ;D


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 12, 2013)

Knut Skywalker said:


> Ever considered the 200 2.8L prime? It's said to have great IQ, super-fast AF and it's lightweight, too. My portrait lens at the moment is the 100 f/2 on the 5D2. It cost me 300€ and it's awesome! I will probably jump directly to the 200mm 2.8L and not get the 135L...for now. ;D




Agreed, the 200L 2.8 is a very under rated lens imo due to the fact that it lives in the 135L's shadow, and there is the 70-200 2.8 available. It obviously depends on a persons useage, but for me, out of the two, the 200 was much more versatile. I've sold my 135. 

You often hear people talk about 'the low light capability' but f2.8 still gives better AF, as well as f2, and if you're shooting events f2 gives naf all DoF on a 50mm never mind a 135, as does f2.8 for that matter.


----------



## Barrfly (Jun 12, 2013)

I can't tell you what to choose , but I can say since I purchased the 70-200 2.8 II it's on my camera 95% of the time.


----------



## meenanm (Jun 12, 2013)

I too have 85L, 50L and 70-200 II, well as the 135L. Based on the OP question, I agree with others in saying the 70-200 II. It is a fantastic lens. It would likely be your most used based on the information provided. As another said, the 24-105 will do in a pinch.

That said, I love the 85L. It is not one I use a great deal, but it is unique, in a good way. Not fast focus lens, but great quality. My next is likely the 24-70L to replace the 25-105 for me.
All the best...
Mike


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 12, 2013)

Barrfly said:


> I can't tell you what to choose , but I can say since I purchased the 70-200 2.8 II it's on my camera 95% of the time.




Yes I can tell that from your avatar pic.

Before you got the 70-200 2.8 you probably had skinny arms 
;D


----------



## Ripley (Jun 13, 2013)

Dylan777 said:


> Ripley said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks for the input everyone.
> ...



Very nice!


----------



## Ripley (Jun 13, 2013)

Sporgon said:


> Agreed, the 200L 2.8 is a very under rated lens imo due to the fact that it lives in the 135L's shadow, and there is the 70-200 2.8 available. It obviously depends on a persons useage, but for me, out of the two, the 200 was much more versatile. I've sold my 135.
> 
> You often hear people talk about 'the low light capability' but f2.8 still gives better AF, as well as f2, and if you're shooting events f2 gives naf all DoF on a 50mm never mind a 135, as does f2.8 for that matter.



Can you say that last part again? I don't understand.


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 14, 2013)

Ripley said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Agreed, the 200L 2.8 is a very under rated lens imo due to the fact that it lives in the 135L's shadow, and there is the 70-200 2.8 available. It obviously depends on a persons useage, but for me, out of the two, the 200 was much more versatile. I've sold my 135.
> ...




Sorry, that last sentence was a little garbled....

People often feel they need a faster lens for low light photography. Whilst in principle this is true in practice it is not that simple due to depth of field considerations. If shooting social 'events' in low light, f2.8 is unlikely to give enough of the picture in focus unless you are shooting just one person. At longer focal lengths this becomes even more of an issue.

So the most important area to focus on for low light events in good high ISO performance from your camera. Enter the advantages of FF, and the vastly superior performance of the latest cameras over older models.

However lenses of f2.8 and faster do 'activate' the 'high precision' AF sensors on some cameras, so a 2.8 or faster lens may have an advantage over an f4 or slower lens in low light events.

I make this point in context of the 135L f2 vs 200L f2.8, both 2.8 or faster, although the 200 will give similar DoF wide open to the 135 due to its longer focal length. Choice depends upon how far you are away from the action.


----------



## Ripley (Jun 14, 2013)

Thank you for the clarification Sporgon!

So how does focal length affect shallow depth of field for comparable framing? Being closer with shorter focal lengths creates shallower depth of field at the same aperture right?


----------



## Sporgon (Jun 15, 2013)

Ripley said:


> Thank you for the clarification Sporgon!
> 
> So how does focal length affect shallow depth of field for comparable framing? Being closer with shorter focal lengths creates shallower depth of field at the same aperture right?



The greater the magnification of the subject, the shallower the depth of field. So by being closer to the subject you are effectively magnifying it and you have less dof for a given lens/aperture/format. By using a longer focal length lens you are magnifying subject and so the same thing happens: less dof.


----------

