Portrait lens for the "other" portrait

[ThomasJ]

Hello all,


I could really use your input on this matter.


I also do the "other" kind of portraiture work - meaning: nudes. My current lens lineup includes:


The Canon 24-105mm f4, the 100mm f2,8 IS Macro and the 85mm f1,2 L prime. Basically, great lineup for portraits.


Unfortunately, the 24-105 is not so great for portraits, considering the max aperture of f4. The other two are good, but a little on the long side. I noticed in my portraits, that the body features and facial features are a little compressed and lose the feeling of depth. While that is usually wanted and a nice effect, I was wondering if the opposite - a slight exaggeration of body features - would create nice portraits? I am assuming, I wider lens than my 85mm would be a good choice.


Can any of you recommend a good lens for portraiture that creates this feeling of depth and slightly exaggerates body features? What would you choose - 50mm? Or even 35mm? Prime or zoom?


Thanks!
Tom

[Sean Setters]

While there are quite a few lenses that I think would fill the bill, I'm simply going to suggest this: if you can locate a business that rents lenses, do that. Rent a couple of lenses you think will fill the need and find out if they in fact do so. I know of some good lens rental businesses in the states, but I'm unaware of any in Europe. Anyone else know of a reputable lens rental business in Europe?

[Alan KE]

you wont find any nudes here, but these are some examples of Portraits i have done using the 24-105 L, i find the 105 with f/4 is quite nice


http://www.flickr.com/photos/alankevans/collections/72157622610228237/


i would also use flickr as a resource to see other peoples portraiture work by searching the lens names.

[Keith B]

Most of the time when I shoot this stuff, or any full length shots, I shoot with my 24-70 2.8. It allows me to get full length and then allows me to get in tight too.


I agree that f/4 just doesn't cut it sometimes. If I'm trying for a ridiculous shallow DOF I use my 50 1.4. I have also used the 16-35 2.8 II for these also. Since I shoot in the 35 range most of the time this lens proves to be very good here too. I like to be able to get a little closer and shoot vertical and exaggerate height or thinness.


I would really love to own the 35 1.4 L, but I rarely find myself needing wider than 2.8 so I can't justify it.

[Sean Setters]

I would really love to own the 35 1.4 L, but I rarely find myself needing wider than 2.8 so I can't justify it.


Same situation here. I drool over really fast primes, but when using strobes I'm limited to 1/250 of a second--and at 1/250 of a second large apertures aren'tfeasible (under most of the conditions I shoot, that is). I've used ND and polarizing filters to block some ambient so I could use wider apertures, but then I have to use multiple strobes to correctly light the subject.

[SupraSonic]

EF135mm F2 L

[Sean Setters]

EF135mm F2 L
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>





That is one lens in particular that I look at much too often to be healthy.

[SupraSonic]

Not just Potrait but Landscape too


http://suprasonic.aminus3.com/image/2009-03-26.html ("http://suprasonic.aminus3.com/image/2009-03-26.html)

[ThomasJ]

Thanks guys for your advice! So I guess I should rent the 35L for a weekend for tryouts.





The EF 135 F2? I seem confused.. To my knowledge, longer focal lengths compress the image - which is what I am trying to avoid. And the 85L is one lens I really love, but the lens compresses stuff a liiittttlleee, and I wonder if the 50L or 35L wouldn't kick more ass?





Thanks!

[SupraSonic]

my EF135MM F2 L is good for shoulder and head shots it gives the mood. EF85mm L i have but i use EF135mm more.