Great portrait lense for Canon 20d?

6Speed · Jul 16, 2006

I've been looking around for a good portrait lense for my 20d and I can't seem to find anything faster than a 2.8. Would that be ok, or should I keep looking? On bhphoto's website I see a 60mm/2.8 lens (which comes out to around 90mm on the 20d?). It says it's for macro though.

Anyway, my 20d came with the 18-55mm kit lense, but it only stops down to 5.6@55mm. I really would prefer a larger aperture, and I've read that the components of this lense are not the greatest.

So where can I find that optimum dslr portrait lense (hopefully w/o spending 1k's!).

JJP · Jul 16, 2006

I think f2.8 should be fine, i'm in the same situation as you, and i'm about to get the EF70-200 f2.8 L IS USM, although you said you wern't prepared to pay that much... hmm... this is a great site for Canon lenses...
http://www.warehouseexpress.com/index.cfm?photo/lenses/canonlens.html
Even though you're not from the UK, that should help you choose a lens at the least, and you could get it from somewhere closer to home once you've chosen it, it clearly states all the specifications there, hope i've been some help. >.<

thebeginning · Jul 16, 2006

that seems odd that you can't find anything faster than 2.8...some VERY popular lenses from canon for portraits are much faster... like the 85mm 1.8, the 50mm 1.8, the 50mm 1.4, or the 135mm f2. bhphoto should have loads of all of those lenses.

if you want to shoot full body shots, look into canon's 35mm f2 or sigma's 30mm 1.4. if you want to shoot 3/4 bodyshots, try the 50mm 1.8 or 50mm 1.4 or the 85mm 1.8. if you want headshots or head/shoulder shots, get the 85mm 1.8 or the 100 f2 or the 135 f2 (the 85mm is probably the best for you at this point, as it's a low price and is great).

2.8 is great, but if you want shallow depth of field you want as wide of an aperture as you can get (usually). the 70-200 2.8L IS is a terrific lens, but isn't really made for portraiture, although it can be used for it. I'd recommend a few fast primes over the 70-200 for 'static' portraiture.

6Speed · Jul 16, 2006

Thanks for the tips! I went back through all the lenses for Canon dslr's on bhphoto's site and could only find 1 that was faster than a 2.8, and it was the Sigma 30mm/1.4.

Maybe I'm just looking in teh wrong place, but when I go to their site I click on Lenses --> Canon (digital) = http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=NavBar&A=search&Q=&ci=12039

If I search for 85mm 1.8 I come up with this lense, but I'm assuming it is for film cameras?

markc · Jul 16, 2006

Don't forget about the 1.6 crop. You can get loose head & shoulder shots with the 50mm on that camera.
You'll need a lot of room to do 3/4 with the 85mm.

markc · Jul 16, 2006

If you search for digital, you limit it to lenses that only work on the smaller sensor cameras. Look for film/digital. The 85mm was designed for film cameras, but works just fine on the digital cameras.

6Speed · Jul 16, 2006

markc said:
Don't forget about the 1.6 crop. You can get loose head & shoulder shots with the 50mm on that camera.
You'll need a lot of room to do 3/4 with the 85mm.

Yeah, I was thinking that the 85mm would put me at somewhere like ~130mm on my 20D. So how about the 50mm 1.4? Or is there any benefit to the 50mm 1.8? Wow...look at the price diff in those 2...what's up with that?

markc · Jul 16, 2006

There are a few threads comparing them. I'd do a search here.

An yeah, the 50mm is like an 80mm and the 85mm is like a 136mm. A 35mm is like a 56mm. Kind of cool that they are all close enough to be like the next step up.

thebeginning · Jul 16, 2006

ahhh that's why. yeah check for film lenses.

i've shot many 3/4 shots (waist up or a little bit more) with the 85...it's really not that long on a 1.6crop. if you're in a small bedroom then it won't do, but if it's a medium sized room or outdoors then it's no problem at all.

6Speed · Jul 16, 2006

thebeginning said:
ahhh that's why. yeah check for film lenses.

i've shot many 3/4 shots (waist up or a little bit more) with the 85...it's really not that long on a 1.6crop. if you're in a small bedroom then it won't do, but if it's a medium sized room or outdoors then it's no problem at all.

Hmm, well since the 50mm 1.8 is so cheap, I could buy the 85mm 1.8 and the 50mm 1.8!

Although I should probably read the comparisons of the 50mm 1.8 vs the 50mm 1.4...

thebeginning · Jul 16, 2006

yeah, check reviews on everything before you buy...especially lenses.

try www.fredmiranda.com/reviews and www.photozone.de for lens reviews and tests.

markc · Jul 16, 2006

The 85/1.8 and the 50/1.4 are my two favorite lenses, and I use them for 99+% of my shots. I can understand why people go for the 50/1.8 though.

And yeah, I guess "a lot" is over stating it. I know a lot of people shoot in bedrooms-turned-studios, so I just thought I would bring that up.

6Speed · Jul 16, 2006

Thanks again fellas! I checked the reviews on the 50mm 1.8, and it seems that everyone likes it a lot. The only complaints I'm finding is that it feels cheap, and the focusing ring is awkward. Otherwise it seems it's as close to the 50mm 1.4 as you can get, and dang cheap at 80.00 bucks!

markc · Jul 16, 2006

There are other things. It's bokeh really doesn't compare to the 1.4. If you aren't used to looking for it, you probably woudn't care, but to my eye, it's noticable.

thebeginning · Jul 16, 2006

markc said:
There are other things. It's bokeh really doesn't compare to the 1.4. If you aren't used to looking for it, you probably woudn't care, but to my eye, it's noticable.

ditto. i'm actually thinking about selling my 1.8 in the future if i end up using that focal length a whole lot more. I'd love to have a 35, 50, 85 (1.8, the 1.2 focuses too slow for me and the II version is way too pricey), 135 fast prime set.