# What's a good studio lens for a small studio?



## jdramirez (Jan 13, 2015)

It isn't really a studio, but with limited space, we have a backdrop, a few flashes and a few umbrellas... I adore my 85mm, but in a studio setting I generally shoot at f8 and it is a touch long given the space.


Also, 85-135mm is considered the portrait zone... So that's not happening... 

I have my 24-105 and I think I can comfortably work between 24-50mm... So the lens doesn't have to be sharp wide open, but it should be sharp at f8...

I was thinking the 35mm f2 is.... maybe the 50 art... I'm probably looking at a prime more than a zoom.... So yeah...


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 13, 2015)

If you're shooting at f/8, why would you restrict yourself to a prime? I have a similar setup in my garage, and I primarily use a 24-70. The zoom makes it easy to take pictures of kids from half body to full body shots. If I want something for a particular effect, then I'll use a prime with a large aperture, but most of the time, it's the zoom.


----------



## Tinky (Jan 13, 2015)

Sigma 70mm macro f2.8 is sharp across the frame wide open.

A little shorter. Shoot at f8 if you want off the scale resolution. Shoot at f2.8 if you want a lens with great detail, great fall off, great for portraits, great for products, negligible distoriton....


----------



## Pookie (Jan 13, 2015)

Under strobe in a studio setting, f/8-f/11... hands down, 24-70 II.


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Jan 13, 2015)

If you plan to shoot at F8, both 40mm pancake, and 50mm plastic fantastic will be very sharp. However I like more the bokeh of 40mm.
The Canon 35mm Image Stabilizer, although it is a great lens, seems too short to medium body portraits.

The Sigma 50mm Art is incredibly sharp and contrasted from F2.8 while Canon plastic fantastic is only reasonable.


----------



## sulla (Jan 13, 2015)

ähm, what's wrong with your 24-105 L ??


----------



## wsheldon (Jan 13, 2015)

sulla said:


> ähm, what's wrong with your 24-105 L ??



Exactly. That lens is typically very sharp at f5.6, particularly in the 35-85 range. Mine certainly is. It's my go-to lens for indoor portraits under controlled lighting.


----------



## klickflip (Jan 13, 2015)

wsheldon said:


> sulla said:
> 
> 
> > ähm, what's wrong with your 24-105 L ??
> ...



+1 

24-105 @F8 is very good, almost every bit as good as 24-70mkI at and smoother look and OOF than the nifty fifty. 
Get the 50 1.4 if you want to do nice natural light with shallow DOF style shots. 
You might be surprised as 24-105 shot at say 70mm onwards for a tight headshot @ F4 or 5.6 , you'll still get a decent and pleasing drop off in focus to defocus the ears and background. Despite all the beef it is a very decent lens.


----------



## jdramirez (Jan 14, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> If you're shooting at f/8, why would you restrict yourself to a prime? I have a similar setup in my garage, and I primarily use a 24-70. The zoom makes it easy to take pictures of kids from half body to full body shots. If I want something for a particular effect, then I'll use a prime with a large aperture, but most of the time, it's the zoom.



I have one prime and two zooms... but when I am in a controlled environment, I gravitate to primes... While the zooms at f/8 are really good... I really like tickling excellence when it comes to using a really good prime. 

I have all the respect for the canon 24-70 f/2.8L mkii... but I'm holding out for the rumored sigma 24-70 f/2 art if it ever comes out. I just like the idea of having an extra stop of light (two stops form where I am now) for my normal zoom. 

I've just become a bit of a prime snob. I like my zooms... they are good (great), but there just a little something missing which makes me sad.


----------



## RustyTheGeek (Jan 14, 2015)

I also think the 24-70 f/2.8L vII is the lens to beat and the best option. The pro studio I recently paid good money for my son's senior portraits used the 24-70 and the 70-200 f/2.8 vII lenses on the 1DX in their studio and the results were great.

And I also agree that if you are stopping down, the 24-105L is great! So go to work and have fun making great images!! Don't overthink it with primes unless you already have them and just love them.


----------



## Random Orbits (Jan 14, 2015)

jdramirez said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > If you're shooting at f/8, why would you restrict yourself to a prime? I have a similar setup in my garage, and I primarily use a 24-70. The zoom makes it easy to take pictures of kids from half body to full body shots. If I want something for a particular effect, then I'll use a prime with a large aperture, but most of the time, it's the zoom.
> ...



Perhaps you should give the 24-70 f/2.8 II a try. It performs well wide open, and will be 3 stops faster than f/8. I do wish that the long end of the 24-70 f/2.8 II was a bit longer many times. Much fewer shots were are f/1.4 or larger. Those were reserved more specialty shots, but I usually found myself running out of space in the double garage to get the foreground/background distances right.


----------



## mackguyver (Jan 14, 2015)

Random Orbits said:


> jdramirez said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...


+1 and I loved the color and contrast "pop" of my primes much better than my 24-70 f/2.8 (I). Then I picked up a 24-70 f/2.8 II and found that it was as good as my primes with the exception of the fast aperture, size, and distortion. My 24L and 50L are only used in low light or for shallow DOF these days. Also, coincidentally, the 16-35 f/4 IS has that same pop that I felt was missing from the 16-35 f/2.8 II.


----------

