Al FR-153 Loc: Chicago Suburbs

I read your original comments as your already having the 60D (as do I) and you are looking at the 24-70mm f/2.8 'L' as a portrait lens. As someone else has said, 70mm (fully extended to one of the softest areas of the lens) is barely in the range as a portrait lens, where a lens in the 85-100 mm range would be better. I do not shoot that much portraiture but as you can see by my lenses, I went with the EF-S 17-55mm (effective 24-70 on the 60D crop sensor) and have the 100mm f/2.8L for both macro and portrait style work. Realize that the EF-S 17-55 f.2.8 is not an 'L' lens and not an EF lens for full frame, but is a great lens on the 60D. If you are serious about portraiture. you might want to look at the 100 mm f/2.8 'L' lens. It is super sharp on my 60D.

As a side-note Joel, I did NOT read you comments as slamming anyone on UHH. I read that you are researching the 24-70mm 'L' and have looked at other peoples shots and were not happy with what you were seeing with that lens on the 60D. One suggestion....remember that when someone posts a photo on the web, there is a loss in pixel count per inch (72 instead of 240 on the 60D) and the color may not be correct to what was originally shot. This could influence your thinking on the 'L' glass, and should not.

Finewoody Loc: Near Canberra Australia

Joelbarton87

You are welcome, no point in forums unless they contribute to our advancement. If you would like a hi res portrait sample from the 24-105 f4 L, PM me an email address.

Joelbarton87 Loc: Hereford u.k

Thank you I will look at these now
Joe.

Bill gomberg

Your 50 f1.8 is VERYgopd for head and shoulders on an a.p,s sensor camera which I'm guessing yourCannon has . I suggest you use it to to thte point you'll have exploited it's potential to such a degree that YOU will recognize it be time for something even better, then rent before you decide . Some vendors credit rental fees against purchase prices.
Personaly , I use 85 and135 L lenses . Fact is any focal length is suitable as a " PORTRAIT lens ". ( See as an example , Arnold Newman ' s " Portrait of Styravinsky or Youssef Karsh's Winston Churchill . ) Best of luck with your search .
BEWARE ! The toys are thrilling so consequently seductive ; AND expensive . Move slooowly andwisely .
This from a retired camera salesman for whatever it's worth .

Alicat Loc: Greenville, SC

Is there a camera store that carries the lens anywhere near you? Maybe you can ask around a find someone who has one who will let you try it out for a little while. I'm sure you'll figure it out.

Dave Johnson Loc: Grand Rapids, Michigan

Hey Joel, I like what Bill said above. If I might, I'd like to add a couple of things. The main advantage "L" glass is the build quality and often a larger aperture. Bill seems to be a "Prime Lens Guy" and the truth is prime lenses still offer the best image quality and largest apertures (I may be headed toward primes myself as I progress) but if your heart is set on a mid range zoom I would suggest the 24-105mm f4. I've compared the two and while you loose one stop at the aperture you gain 35mm at the long end and you get image stabilization as well. Not to mention you'll save some money. Another thing to remember is that ALL of the photo's you see in magazines and periodicals and most of the photos presented here and elsewhere have been enhanced in Photo Shop or similar software. Just a little touch up is all it takes to make a good photo great. Of course he biggest challenge for any photographer is getting that "Good Photo" to start with.

acutance Loc: New Hampshire

The bargain in the Canon lineup is the 85mm 1.8. "L" quality at regular prices. On a crop frame sensor, it gives you the classic 135 focal length equivalent.
Well worth considering. http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/lenses/85mm.htm

Bill gomberg

Good advice .

megapix Loc: Cape Ann Massachusetts

hi Joe, thought i'd put in my 2 cents in for what it's worth. I too have the 60D and like it very much. Out of the hole, I didn't care for the kit lens. I borrowed a friends "Nifty Fifty" f/1.8 and was very impressed by the picture quality vs price and bought one locally used for $60. After much research/review reading between the 24-70mm 2.8L and the 17-55 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM i decided like AlFR-153 to get the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM. It is not as rugged a construction but that was not a requirement. It had a little less reach but I find the extra wide at the other end great when you need it. Basically from what I read, it gave L type results for about half the price because of the construction. In my opinion and for my use, that's just what I find and I am very happy with it.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Oh the bickering. save it for general chat.

I have never seen your photos.

The question is lens. at what focal length would you be using the lens that is not covered by your current lens? It seems you have the focal lengths covered. Shot only within the 24-70 range and see if you get what you want! If so, why would you want more weight to carry around?

Folks say better glass gets better results. I say better composition and use of lighting which is what a better photographer does gets better results.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

Can a Nikon guy jump in on this conversation? Back in the old film days had a 105 f2.8 that I used for portraits. After trying several other lenses I found the 105mm to be the best focal of all. In fact, that lens was usually referred to as a "portrait lens". I also had a 50 f1.8 and two zoom lenses none of which could compare to the 105 for portraits. Sorry to say the digital age changed the lens to a 150mm and didn't work as well. As a side note environmental portrait photography is big these days. The 50 could be a good lens for that.

chodrak Loc: Connecticut

I'm just a beginner myself, but I seem to have read that the best lenses for sharpness, etc. are prime lenses. I don't think it would be too expensive to get an excellent 105mm prime lens. Aren't they supposed to be good for portraiture? I'm suggesting that as a pure neophyte and would appreciate any critique on this point, since I've been thinking of getting such a lens myself for such work-- but for a Nikon.

Bill gomberg

The 105 indeed was a great lens . Actually , it was a 2.5 . Not that it would have mattered much .

smiffy1932 Loc: South Tottenham, North London, U.K.

Now now CHILDREN, play nicely and enjoy your photography like good CHILDREN please, or go and sit on the NAUGHTY STEP !!!

smiffy1932 Loc: South Tottenham, North London, U.K.

Now now CHILDREN, play nicely and enjoy your photography like good CHILDREN please, or go and sit on the NAUGHTY STEP !!!