f2.8 or f4 for portraits?

lostnomore

Senior Member
I'm considering a switch to Nikon at some point, but am really struggling with whether I should get the Nikkor AF-S 24-70 f2.8 or the 24-120 f4 for portraits. This isn't so much a question of zoom range but mostly maximum aperture and cost. I've done a lot of reading on this issue, and I've read a few people suggesting that it's worth it to just pony up the extra money to get the much-revered f2.8. But as users of these lenses here in this forum, is the f2.8 really that much better for portraiture, or is the f4 still very acceptable?
 
Last edited:

kevy73

Senior Member
2.8 for individuals, 4 or higher for groups depending on how many deep they are.

I shoot weddings and I shoot with pretty much all of my lens' wide open as often as I can. Only time the aperture goes above the widest is group shots. But that is my preference. It depends on how much you want to 'blur' out the background.
 

J-see

Senior Member
If you want to do portraits, I'd personally get a 70-200mm f/2.8 instead of a 24-120mm. You'd benefit more from that range. The Tamron version is very good and not that expensive compared to the Nikon.
 

lostnomore

Senior Member
Hmm, okay, let's see if I can re-phrase my original question better: If I shoot the 28-70 f2.8 wide open and the 24-120 f4 wide open, is the 24-120 f4 still decent enough for portraits?
 

J-see

Senior Member
Decent enough at which level? Are you worried about the sharpness or the amount of background blur?

Here's some data on the 24-120mm.

It's for my D810 but you can select your cam. If you click sharpness - field map you can go through the focal lengths and apertures to see how she performs wide open vs closed down.

Nikon AF-S VR Zoom-Nikkor 24-120mm f/4G ED mounted on Nikon D810 : Measurements

From what I see for my cam, at f/4 she's not that great from 70-120mm
 
Last edited:

lostnomore

Senior Member
I'm quite certain the sharpness of the 28-70 would be better wide open, but how noticeably versus the 24-120 wide open? And the background blur (bokeh) quality is important as well - is it smooth or a bit distracting/blotchy on the 24-120? I'm wondering if anybody here having experience with both lenses could provide some insight?
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
One thing you didn't mention was what body you were considering. In DX, the 24-70 can be a nice portrait lens, but in FX I find it a bit short. I have both the 24-70 and 24-120 and you'd have a hard time choosing which one did which shot if I put you a few un-identified pics in front of you.

I think the 24-70 might be a bit better, but if you consider the price factor, the 23-120 is the better lens. But this is only one opinion. You'll have to decide and then live with your choice, not me.
 

lostnomore

Senior Member
One thing you didn't mention was what body you were considering. In DX, the 24-70 can be a nice portrait lens, but in FX I find it a bit short.
I'm considering the D750, in which case what J-see mentioned above - a 70-200 f2.8 - would probably be better.
 

RocketCowboy

Senior Member
Indoor portraits or outdoor? What's your light source(s)?

Having the 24-120/f4 myself, I've found two occasions (indoor portraits) where I needed faster than the 24-120 could go. My preference is the 70-200/f2.8 for versatility.
 

Marcel

Happily retired
Staff member
Super Mod
Then get the best, get the 24-70 2.8. If you think Nikon is too expensive, the Tamron is very well rated and so is the Tamron 70-200 which would probably be better suited for portrait. But the real portrait lens is either an 85 1.4 or 1.8 or a 105 or 135 f2. The 135 Nikon with defocusing is the best there is for portrait but it costs.

Talking about cost, better save and buy once than buy cheap and have to buy again later...
 

Horoscope Fish

Senior Member
I can't say enough about the Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD on my D750; just amazing. It's not just for portrait work but it *is* the lens I reach for when I do shoot portraits.

The Tamron 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD is also very, very good. Not as exciting as it's bigger brother, but it's another excellent and very flexible lens. It's my second favorite zoom for my FX body.

It's true what they say about f/2.8 (or faster!) glass... Once you get used to it, you don't want to shoot with anything else.
....
 

Whiskeyman

Senior Member
Well, if I were looking into lenses for an FX camera and for portraiture, I'd look at the 85mm and 105mm primes. The 85 mm is available in either f/1.8 or f/1.4, and the 105mm is available in f/2.8. Both of these focal lengths are considered "portrait" lenses. Couple either of them with a 50mm f/1.8 or 50mm f/1.4 for group photos and you have a nice portrait setup with an FX format Nikon camera.

As far as whether to get the f/2.8 or the f/4 lenses in your original post, you can always stop an f/2.8 down to f/4, but you can't stop an f/4 up to f/2.8.

I hope I've helped.

WM
 

ShootRaw

Senior Member
2.8 all the way. If you are a studio shooter only. Then the f/4 is gonna be just fine. But if you ever shoot events etc. You will be glad to have an extra stop for low light and isolating the subject more.
 

LouCioccio

Senior Member
Here is one with the Tamron, I used a flash mounted in an umbrella on a light stand with 30% flash to the ambient light.
DSC_7516.jpg If the exif is there its at F/3.5 to allow enough DOF for the grand daughter in sharp focus. As you can see the limb behind is OOF.
Lou Cioccio
PS Yes I do have a 1.8/85mm and also use that; if money is a problem look at used lenses. The Tamron is new because of the rebate and 6 months no interest, but the 85/1.8 was from KEH (bargain).
 

DonnieZ

Senior Member
That 70-200 2.8 is just looking so juicy... I've got the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VRII reserved to rent next weekend, and I'm going to get some subjects lined up.

My only worry is falling in love with the lens and not being able to afford it. But at $30 for the weekend, as a hobbyist I can justify renting it whenever I need to for a LONG while.
 
Top