Lens Choice for Studio Portraits: 24-70mm GM or F4

[twistedsound]

Hi guys,

 

Need suggestion on picking 24-70mm GM or F4 for studio portraits- price vs benefit in studio.

 

just started taking studio portraits and now seriously considering a zoom lens after using only primes (50mm f1.8 and 85mm Batis).

I noticed that most fellow friends have 24-70mm f2.8 in Canon or Nikon.

 

The other concern is "haunting" during focusing, it bothers me quite a bit and result in inconsistent results (due to my poor skill).  It is not possible to rent the f2.8 where i am at.   I've rented the Zeiss f/4 and it is better than the 50mm f1.8 and similar to Batis 85mm. I haven't shot much wide open in the studio.

 

Question- would I benefit much from the 24-70mm f2.8 GM?

the quality of F4 seems sufficient, my concerns are focusing and consistency with better results. (again, my lack of skill and experiecne)

For the price of one, i also can go with 24-70mm f4 and a new 70-200mm f4.

 

thanks a bunch for your inputs. 

[tinderstickss]

Of course Batis 85

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Guest Peter Kelly]

In terms of focus 'mis-hits', you are right in thinking some of that will be down to level of skill (plus familiarity with your equipment), but you may be expecting too much too!

The simple truth is if you're using the Batis wide open then just the subject swaying a bit will throw the plane of focus off, which is nothing to do with you or your equipment. In such cases you will get a relatively low percentage of keepers and is certainly a time for multiple shots.

 

First of all, though, you have to address your needs and understand what's behind it.

 

Obviously, you want nice, sharp pictures, but the trick is to produce what the customer wants and that's not necessarily super-sharp. I think if you ask them, most will recognise the difference between what they get from their camera phone and what a pro produces, but have no idea why. A lot of it will be the extra detail, but as much may be the subject separation and the bokeh, which is often the selling point of an f2.8 and faster. Don't get fooled, though, as the real difference is the lighting, the pose, and the processing.

 

If you have a Batis 85, I wouldn't dream of recommending the 24-70 f2.8. As you suggest, the 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4 together would be much more sensible.

There seems to be some copy variation with the 24-70, so I would do some basic testing of it if you try one.

 

Personally, I think shallow DoF is over-hyped and overdone. It does help sometimes (almost exclusively single subjects), but f4 is often an ideal setting.

[JimmyD]

Twisted sound:

 

A careful read of the question you posed suggests that you are interested in the 24-70mm focal length in addition to 85mm (which you already have covered very well with the Batis), with you main question being the cost benefit of the Sony GM f/2.8 vs. the Sony/Zeiss f/4.

 

I do not believe you have posed a hard question.  Even though I am a very big Zeiss fan, there is nothing image-quality wise that the Sony/Zeiss f/4 does as well as the GM f/2.8.  It is smaller and lighter, but these are not very relevant considerations for studio work.  It does cost a lot less, and this is always relevant, so the real question is whether the difference in performance justifies the extra expense.  To each his own, but IMHO there is no comparison between these two lenses unless you are shooting at f/8 in perfect light.  Most importantly the GM is noticeably sharper, focuses a lot faster (which helps with missed shots and certain focus issues), and renders beautifully with nice bokeh.  You may not always want to shoot at f/2.8 (many portrait pros do), but with the Sony/Zeiss you don't even have the option.  There are images to be made with the GM that you simply can't make with the Sony/Zeiss. 

 

I have owned and shot with both lenses.  Sold my Sony/Zeiss as soon as I heard the GM was coming out and would do this every time.  And--as you may already know--if you every want to do landscape or any other type of photography where IQ across the whole frame is important, good luck with the Sony/Zeiss and its soft borders and corners, even after you stop down.  And yes, if you opted for the Sony/Zeiss you could also get the Sony G 70-200 f/4; however, for studio portraits, your Batis 85mm will serve you much better than the 70-200.  

 

I

[Wesley]

The f/4 has too much distortion beyond correction for people photos.

 

I did not check out the GM thoroughly but I'm going to assume it has less distortion.

[twistedsound]

Twisted sound:

 

A careful read of the question you posed suggests that you are interested in the 24-70mm focal length in addition to 85mm (which you already have covered very well with the Batis), with you main question being the cost benefit of the Sony GM f/2.8 vs. the Sony/Zeiss f/4.

 

I do not believe you have posed a hard question.  Even though I am a very big Zeiss fan, there is nothing image-quality wise that the Sony/Zeiss f/4 does as well as the GM f/2.8.  It is smaller and lighter, but these are not very relevant considerations for studio work.  It does cost a lot less, and this is always relevant, so the real question is whether the difference in performance justifies the extra expense.  To each his own, but IMHO there is no comparison between these two lenses unless you are shooting at f/8 in perfect light.  Most importantly the GM is noticeably sharper, focuses a lot faster (which helps with missed shots and certain focus issues), and renders beautifully with nice bokeh.  You may not always want to shoot at f/2.8 (many portrait pros do), but with the Sony/Zeiss you don't even have the option.  There are images to be made with the GM that you simply can't make with the Sony/Zeiss. 

 

I have owned and shot with both lenses.  Sold my Sony/Zeiss as soon as I heard the GM was coming out and would do this every time.  And--as you may already know--if you every want to do landscape or any other type of photography where IQ across the whole frame is important, good luck with the Sony/Zeiss and its soft borders and corners, even after you stop down.  And yes, if you opted for the Sony/Zeiss you could also get the Sony G 70-200 f/4; however, for studio portraits, your Batis 85mm will serve you much better than the 70-200.  

 

I

Hi JimmyD,

 

Thanks for your inputs- exactly what my hard question should have been asking- focus speed that helps mis-hits and certain focus issues ( less than perfect lighting  that causes it to haunt in auto-focus)- i must say this is the most bothersome part with my Sony A7ii + Batis.

The option of f2.8 certainly helps with creativity when needed- i think a 24-70mm with 85mm should cover nearly all my need.  

 

In terms of focus 'mis-hits', you are right in thinking some of that will be down to level of skill (plus familiarity with your equipment), but you may be expecting too much too!

The simple truth is if you're using the Batis wide open then just the subject swaying a bit will throw the plane of focus off, which is nothing to do with you or your equipment. In such cases you will get a relatively low percentage of keepers and is certainly a time for multiple shots.

 

First of all, though, you have to address your needs and understand what's behind it.

 

Obviously, you want nice, sharp pictures, but the trick is to produce what the customer wants and that's not necessarily super-sharp. I think if you ask them, most will recognise the difference between what they get from their camera phone and what a pro produces, but have no idea why. A lot of it will be the extra detail, but as much may be the subject separation and the bokeh, which is often the selling point of an f2.8 and faster. Don't get fooled, though, as the real difference is the lighting, the pose, and the processing.

 

If you have a Batis 85, I wouldn't dream of recommending the 24-70 f2.8. As you suggest, the 24-70 f4 and 70-200 f4 together would be much more sensible.

There seems to be some copy variation with the 24-70, so I would do some basic testing of it if you try one.

 

Personally, I think shallow DoF is over-hyped and overdone. It does help sometimes (almost exclusively single subjects), but f4 is often an ideal setting.

 

Hi Peter,

 

Thanks for your feedback, I am going to try 70-200mm f4 first before going into the final decision- to rule in/out the need vs want within a reasonable budget. And yes, lighting is something that i must improve upon

[Zé De Boni]

I wonder why someone chooses the sharpest and fastest lens for portrait. For head shots focus is too shalow at f/2. You get a more pleasant look (eyes and ears in focus) at f/4. If you are in a studio you can control the bokeh by bringing your subject farther from the background.

And do you need to show all the skin details? In old times a portrait lens would give soft results and the Imagon was the reference. Just for fun, at my age, I enjoy the fact that my eyes are no longer sharp at close range, as my partner's skin has also aged (and the opposite holds truer!) !

Seriously, the 24-70 range is not the best range for portrait. Even for group shots, wider than 35mm distorts the subjects close to the borders (also you need a larger background). And 70 is still too short. The best portrait zoom range should be 50-135. The only available option seems to be the Sigma 50-100 mm f/1.8, but you will need adapters.

Now, I never need a zoom for portrait in the studio, just the 55 + 85 primes are enough. In the studio it is easy to decide the working distance and focal range in advance and you are free to control the distance to your subject or crop if you have enough Megapixels.

[Guest Peter Kelly]

I wonder why someone chooses the sharpest and fastest lens for portrait. For head shots focus is too shalow at f/2. You get a more pleasant look (eyes and ears in focus) at f/4. If you are in a studio you can control the bokeh by bringing your subject farther from the background.

And do you need to show all the skin details? In old times a portrait lens would give soft results and the Imagon was the reference. Just for fun, at my age, I enjoy the fact that my eyes are no longer sharp at close range, as my partner's skin has also aged (and the opposite holds truer!) !

 

Exactly! For some strange reason, though, everyone seems hung up on paper-thin DoF, even though it isn't appropriate in the vast majority of cases. Also I think too many people read too many reviews and form opinions that aren't necessarily what is to be found in real life. But if it makes them feel good...

[dcisive]

I have both the 24-70 f2.8GM as well as the Batis 85mm f1.8. I tried 3 copies of the 24-70 f4 Zeiss back when I was first putting a system together. They ALL sucked in various ways. Definitely a lens I avoid and recommend people avoid. The GM is of course sharp all across it's range and does have the capability of some yummy bokeh when adjusting the subject distance accordingly. However it is no competition really for the Batis for the specific purpose of a planned portrait, which is the primary reason I decided to purchase one after doing extensive testing at the dealer prior to that decision. It proved it's mettle to me there. I find the 24-70's primary purpose for me is as a "walk around" lens when I don't want to switch between several of my wonderful primes in that coverage area I have. I comes oh so close to their performance but allows me ease of framing without the switching. If I purposely wish to walk around lighter or less conspicuous then I surely will put on my 35mm f2.8 or 55mm f1.8 knowing they too can get the job done. Interestingly enough however I just tested out the zoom against my 85 Batis last night and noted at f11 in a full landscape shot that includes plenty of frontal as well as distant objects, the Batis actually rendered a slightly sharper image at extreme close and far subjects along with the extreme sides, which kind of surprised me. Granted f11 is extreme and used when you want EVERYTHING in focus. But the zoom at 70mm didn't quite match up to the Batis. Darn close however.

[Golem]

Exactly! For some strange reason, though, everyone seems hung up on

paper-thin DoF, even though it isn't appropriate in the vast majority of

cases. Also I think too many people read too many reviews and form

opinions that aren't necessarily what is to be found in real life. But if it

makes them feel good...

 

I figger it's just yet more sheep-like following of marketing efforts.

  

And how do I see the Bokeh Cult as another profit center ? Well,

it seems that the fanzines have always reminded readers that

wider apertures can be aesthetically useful, but only relatively

recently have we been told that we need newer better and more

costly gear to shoot at these wider apertures. It seems the gear

thing appeared more or less simultaneously with the promotion

of the term "Bokeh". 

  

Before that term was introduced and glorified, the pix the fanzines

provided as examples of the aesthetics of wider apertures were

shot with, typically, a Nikkor 105/2.5 or similar "legacy" lens. No

mention back then of any need for curved iris blades. And primes

were not "specialty" items, so most lenses offered wide apertures.

Such legacy lenses did not have curved iris blades or any special

optical designs, but they provided those fanzine sample shots of

reduced DoF imagery anyway. I know it sounds impossible, but

truth is stranger than marketing fictions.

  

And now, now we "need" better gear ... curved iris blades, zooms

as fast as primes, and "magical" optical designs for "exquisite"

bokeh. I got rid of my 135/2.0 cuz, really, you need SOME DoF to

get your subject in focus. I still have the 105/1.8 ... gives me more

focusing accuracy in difficult dark situations, but I shoot at smaller

aperture than I focus at ... otherwise that focusing advantage isn't

real. Even then, I prefer to carry the slower and much smaller and

lighter 105/2.5, and just stop it down to f/3.5 for focusing accuracy.

  

The other thing about the marketing of Bokeh is that, once users

are sold on the look of totally defocused unreadable backgrounds  

they feel that the idea "really works", that their images are "better".

And since it takes practice to actually work with your entire image,

"airbrushing" your background to near oblivion is a cheap trick that

works very reliably without much learning curve, without the time

and practice needed to do some something with the  background

other than mindlessly blow it away. Like any cheap trick, "seen it

twice, seen it more than enuf".  

 

The image below had background details that were not period

correct for this 1953 Chevy, so working with angles and timing

[some background items were in motion] kept them out of view.

But if I had blown away the entire background, I'd have lost the

very nicely period correct look of the general surroundings.

  

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

    

    

@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@  

    

Warm colors advance, cool colors recede. Wideangle at f:11 retains

PLENTY of background, providing a hint of storyline. Otherwise all

you'd get [at f:1.4] is some grinning dude who happens to be holding

a guitar. And no the background was NOT easy to arrange. Ali was

starting to think I was insane, fussing over a few inches and things

like that, till I had some geometry behind him, despite the clutter.

 

  

  

 

[twistedsound]

Thanks for multiple inputs.  My question, as suggested, wasn't quite clear enough   and i do go outside the studio and shoot.

 

Bokeh is NOT my thing for portrait, and irrelevant factor for the intended question.

The flexibility of 24~70mm range in/outside the studio, focusing accuracy, low- light condition are the factors.

 

For still portraits, i love my 50mm/ 85mm, but when i wanted to be a bit creative with perspectives- i felt mostly limited (up closer, shooting from the ground, sides) i guess, it's not standard portrait anymore....   . 

[Portrait Painter X]

I've used the 4/24-70 extensively for studio work, and it performs wonderfully. Distortion is a non-issue, because the arw files contains a correction profile, so I never even see it. Center is VERY sharp. Corners are soft of course, but in the studio, you almost never need sharp corners. Color and contrast are just ace.

 

I pulled the trigger on a Batis 85 yesterday, anxiously waiting for it to arrive.

[Macy0771]

Get an MC 11 adapter and buy a 24-70 from sigma.

 

 

从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk

[danmleephoto]

Neither !! compression would be crappy, I don't know anyone that uses a 24-70mm in a studio these days apart from the posters here. Stick with an 85mm Prime just for the sharpness. 

[danmleephoto]

 

85mm in the studio

 

[Portrait Painter X]

I don't know anyone that uses a 24-70mm in a studio these days apart from the posters here.

 

Are you kidding me? A normal 24-70 zoom must be one of - if not THE - most used lenses for professional studio photographers. It's the perfect compliment to an 85 (or the other way around). I love working with a 24-70 indoors.

[danmleephoto]

Are you kidding me? A normal 24-70 zoom must be one of - if not THE - most used lenses for professional studio photographers. It's the perfect compliment to an 85 (or the other way around). I love working with a 24-70 indoors.

 

Im a pro and would only use the 70-200 as the zoom in the studio. I teach never to use the 24-70 because the compression is no good, so no I'm not kidding you at all. Been shooting for almost 15yrs as a studio photographer, never really use the 24-70 outside of weddings, for perfection its not in the same league as an 85mm, fact.

 

Id use a 100mm or 90mm Macro way before the 24-70....

[Portrait Painter X]

Im a pro and would only use the 70-200 as the zoom in the studio. I teach never to use the 24-70 because the compression is no good, so no I'm not kidding you at all. Been shooting for almost 15yrs as a studio photographer, never really use the 24-70 outside of weddings, for perfection its not in the same league as an 85mm, fact.

 

Id use a 100mm or 90mm Macro way before the 24-70....

Good for you.

 

Telling students not to use one of the most versatile lenses out there just because you personally don't like it is a bit like an art teacher telling students not to use yellow because it's an ugly color.

[duncanfoxphoto]

Good for you.

Telling students not to use one of the most versatile lenses out there just because you personally don't like it is a bit like an art teacher telling students not to use yellow because it's an ugly color.

I second this. Time spent is not a lesson learned. Every tool is useful, and restricting yourself can enhance your creative ability because you have to think differently.

 

I would challenge danmleephoto to pick up a short focal length prime and use only that for a week or more. You have to think more about the background when you can't just blur it all out with "compression".

[IamJF]

If you shoot at F5,6 or 8 I would go for the Seiss Zoom - colour and contrast are great of these lenses. And nice for outside the studio. And it will help you to find out what you REALLY need - just have a look at your photos after a year which focal lenght do you prefer.  

If you want to go professional and need a tool for everyday work - go with GM and A7RII without a second thinking about. I never regretted to buy the best Tools available for my pro work - just regretted the time (and Money I spend

 

For studio portrait I would take primes, the 55mm and maybe a 35mm for going cracy :-). For headshots I go longer, 135mm really makes a difference here. I use 135mm manual lens for this purpose, when stopped down and people sit somehow still (ok with my kids) that's easy doable with "Sonys help".