Looking for the ideal portrait lens

Hello!





First of all, this is my first post on this forum and I can't wait to write more on here.





Now too the topic, I'm looking for an ideal portrait lens that I will use for couple sessions in the near future. Till now I have mainly been hobbying with photography and the 17-50 2.8 Tamron was a great partner, but rapidly photography is starting to become a part of my job, and so I decided to start reading about recommended portrait lenses.


But I got a bit overwhelmed with the huge varity of lenses and the differences they offer, I'm using a 400D so a 1.6x sensor and I don't see getting a fullframe camera anytime soon, and this was kinda the first thing that made me unsure because I read that if I would be a wider lens the photos I would make would be croped down because of the smaller size of the sensor.


So, I'm looking for a portrait lens that will be mainly used outdoor for couple sessions without being on-top of the couple.





Any advice is very welcome. :)

The 85mm f/1.8 sounds like it might fit your needs pretty well. It would convert to 136mm effective focal length on your 1.6x crop body, which is within range of the 85-135mm commonly suggested portrait focal lengths. If it is outdoors, you should have a little room to recompose by stepping forwards or backwards. I think it is a pretty affordable lens, as well.

You can always crop a shot that was composed too lose, but you can't invent pixels (well, you can try...) that aren't in the shot. That said, the Canon 85/1.2L is truly famous for its portrait capabilities, and the Canon 85/1.8 is a great runner-up at a much lower price. Considering that you're married to the crop sensor for a while, you may instead want to try the Canon 50/1.4. You could try a Canon 50/1.8 for sub-$100 to see how 50mm works for you, and then decide which focal length serves you best. Consider renting (the first three are all available at LensRentals.com, one of my favorite ways to drain my wallet)


I will say this: do NOT rent the 85/1.2 unless you are ready to buy it at least two days before your rental is complete, because you'll want to buy it right then and there. I truly hated sending it back when I rented it last April, but have friends who have bought one and we share lenses so I can get my fix when I need it. I was very happy using it on my 1D3 (a "partial crop" body), and enjoy using it on crop bodies too, but can see how a 50mm could be a safer choice for you.

Alright, thanks for the quick response. I've read some reviews about this lens and it seems that it's not only a good value but almost perfect as well, I will add it to the list on top. Now putting the buget aside I took a peak at the the neighbour EF 85mm f/1.2 USM L, it surely seems impressive and big(especially the aperture) but is it worth it?

Yes, it's worth it. You'll realize it as soon as you remove the lens from the bag - it's heavy, it's "meaty" (very wide), and clearly a lot of glass went into the lens. I wish Bryan had a picture of the back of the lens - one element is RIGHT at the lens mount.


You could put another 85mm lens (zoom or prime) on your camera, choose an aperture (let's say f/4), snap a picture, change to the 85L, choose the same aperture, take a picture, and immediately see the difference in the colors, the contrast, the clarity. You'll find ways to use it for other shots, just because of that POP. I tried it one night at SeaWorld for the night Shamu show, and it was amazing - even with +1 exposure compensation to bring detail to black whales, I was happy at ISO 640 with shutter speeds of 1/400th. See http://photos.templin.org/gallery/sa...804d5/426C1348 for samples (choose the Shamu Rocks gallery to see more from that show, Sea World San Diego gallery for more from Sea World, etc.).


I've had great luck and fun with a 16-35 on my 1D3 and the 85L on her 40D - see http://photos.templin.org/gallery/nanog45d for examples from a night concert.


(But I'm biased...)

Thank you for the useful reply Peety3. It's good to know that there is indeed such a big difference in the quality of these lenses and that you get what you payed for, and indeed the examples are stunning, amazing detail.





Alright, the 85 mm and the 50mm are both good for portraits but is there also something that would offer a flexible zoom? Because those 85mm lenses will turn out like 136mm on my crop body and even if I'll be working outdoors I might still not have enough room to backup and this would be very unfortunate.

How about the 24-70 2.8 L? Then you can have a 50 2.8 lens, and 85 2.8 lens, and 44 other 2.8 lenses [:)]

I have the EF24-70mm F/2.8 L USM and love it. I bought it just to shoot wedding groups and bridal portraits. Ilike the zoom for the ability to alter composition multiple time without altering the pose.

I don't know that I would say the 85mm f/1.2 is worth the difference in price for what you are doing for three reasons:


1. You are shooting outdoors, so you don't need the aperture for the light.


2. You are shooting with a crop sensor, so there is a lot of extra glass that you don't need. And


3. You seem to be new to photography (not that I am a veteran) and so you will not be able to appreciate the difference in price between the 1.2 and the 1.8. As you become more exprienced, you will push and find the limitations of your gear which will drive you to want and obtain better gear.


I would recommend the 50mm 1.4 as well.

i would suggest a 50mm f1.4 as well, however, i would suggest the Sigma 50mm simply because it's bokeh, is sublime. Regardless of what anyone says, portraits vary too much for one lens to be the answer, i've used anything from 20mm (on full frame) to 135mm (also full frame). It depends on the subject and what you're trying to accomplish, If it's a typical head and shoulders shot, then 50 / 85 should work, but be aware that at large apertures, you need to be steady so that the thin DOF falls where you want it to.


This was taken with a 18-55 on an xti at @18mm (28mm equivalent)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3596/...a108f8d5_b.jpg


I got close to her and composed with some of the environment.


Here is a 20mm shot on an F100 (full frame film body):


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3258/...9a1e8532_b.jpg


Much looser composition but again, it may fit for the shot i was trying to get.


This was with an 85mm @f2 on a crop body (130mm equivalent)


http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3274/...572422ed_b.jpg


Much tigher crop, but it also empahasizes the reflections and the brand of the glasses.





All of these are uncropped so you get an idea... There is no perfect portrait lens, it really depends what you need to do. However, you can't go wrong with a 50 or an 85. Your 17-55 is very capable already, so maybe an 85mm will give you more versatility.

I personally use the 85mm f/1.8 as my portrait lens. It works beautifully at all apertures, even wide open, and the range is just perfect for me because I like doing chest up shots. And physically it just looks like a beast, and it's nice to un-mount it and compare the sheer massiveness of the rear element to any other lens of less aperture.





Here's two of mine I personally love that were taken with this lens. They aren't exactly what you'd call a "portrait", but they're close enough and it shows the awesomeness of this lens. The brokeh is absolutely stunning even stopped down as these two were.


http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j7...IMG_0010-2.png


Canon Rebel XT, 1/800 second , F/3.2, 85 mm, ISO 200


http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j7...IMG_0009-2.png


Canon Rebel XT, 1/250 second , F/5.0, 85 mm, ISO 200





All-in-all, I Highly recommend this lens.

EF 135mm L F2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Garrett-Grimsley

All-in-all, I Highly recommend this lens.
<div style="clear: both;"]</div>

---

Ditto!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SupraSonic

EF 135mm L F2
<div style="CLEAR: both"]</div>

---

Dude, don't make me lust! [:P]

Canon "Delighting You Always" that sound LUSTY to me.... LOL

Thank you all for the numorous replies, they were all very helpful and I honestly say that this was a great first experience on this forum. :D


I have decided to get the 85mm 1.8F and the 50mm 1.4F, both of them are great lenses from what I've heard and read and great value. As for the 'L' grade lenses, they will come when I'll have the appropriate camera to use them(full frame or atleast bigger then 1.6x.)





So, thank you all for the help.
J&oslash;rundr J&oslash;rgensen. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jorundr-Jorgensen

I have decided to get the 85mm 1.8F and the 50mm 1.4F, both of them are great lenses from what I've heard and read and great value. As for the 'L' grade lenses, they will come when I'll have the appropriate camera to use them(full frame or atleast bigger then 1.6x.)

---

Great choices, and the combo will serve you very well. I did want to mention that you already have an "appropriate" camera to use 'L' grade lenses - the 400D is a fine camera. The two lenses you chose, as well as the 85L and many others, will open up new abilities with your camera. In many cases, lenses are the smartest addition to a photographer's arsenal, NOT a better camera.


Sample from a 400D with 85/1.2L (f/1.2, ISO 800, 1/30th):


http://photos.templin.org/albums/san...0303.sized.jpg


Sample using a 40D and the Canon EF-S 17-55/2.8 (38mm, f/2.8 ISO 1600 1/15th) at the same aquarium:


http://photos.templin.org/albums/san...4980.sized.jpg


The 400D/85L shot "suffers" from the thin DoF of the 85L (and/or its slow focusing) and was shot much slower than the theoretical limit of handholding, but demonstrates that the 400D can be a great aquarium lens. The 40D/17-55EFS shot was at ISO 1600 (the native ISO limit of that camera, though it can be expanded to 3200), while the 400D/85L shot was at ISO 800 (one stop below the limit, though it's about my normal threshold of pushing the camera) and still ends up with twice the shutter speed.

Good choices, both lenses, can take some great photos. I am curious though what people think about having both. They are both very good, are they similar enough though that a little bit of footwork negates the difference? Maybe 50mm and 100mm would give better range? I think the 100mm may even be a little better rated lens(very close though).


The comments about the 135L are good too. It is the best lens I have ever used. Wicked sharp, and awesome for portraits. It is limited in its use on a cropped sensor as I am sure you know. It is just too long.


Tom

Hello all-


This is my first post too! I'm venturing into my own photography business (slowly)...but feeling a bit isolated right now so I am looking forward to becoming connected to a community of photographers!



I'm looking for suggestions for lenses that would help me take group pictures indoors in low light situations. For example, family pictures at the altar during weddings. I've rented the Canon 85mm and love it, but use it more for candids and portraits at the reception and during the ceremony. I need a lens that's going to allow me to get that nice close posed shot of the wedding party or 25 members of a family. I have a Canon 50D and have used a 18-200 lens with studio lights (but then you always have shadows somewhere or glares on glasses...all which lead to more time in Photoshop than I want to spend!)


Any suggestions? I'm planning to rent first to try something out and once I know I love it then I'll buy.

Stella,


For your 50D I would recommend:


Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM Lens


Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8 XR Di II Lens