Yep, another lens advice question

[Scott]

<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<o><span style="font-family: Times New Roman; font-size: small;"]</o>


<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]Thanks Sean that is all I wanted to know, I do value your opinion and you put it in a way that makes sense.


<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]<o></o><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]Cheers mate<o></o>


<span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]<o>Regards </o><span style="font-family: Verdana; color: black; font-size: 10pt;"]Scott<o></o>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="margin: 0cm 0cm 0pt;"]<span style="font-size: 10pt;"]<o><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"]</o>

[Chuck Lee]

Scott,


I don't think the OOF CA is going to have an effect on your portraiture. If your shooting with Elichromes, more than likely your at apetures around f8 or higher. For low light and natural light the 24-70 f2.8 is a fabulous lens. It's a little wider and shows a few minor flaws on FF but I would guess it's the #1 lens of most Canon shooters. The 70-200 f2.8 is my portrait lens of choice. I can't get too close. I noticed on several shoots when using a 28-75 Tammy that I could easily get too close and start letting in a lot of undesirable back ground detail. Now, I shoot exclusively with the 70-200 in studio. A f4 version would work for me as well. You'll sooner or later want to have both!! I have to say, even with those two I somehow covet the 24-105. wickerprints was dead on!


My2Abes,


Chuck