Portrait Lens

Leo · May 8, 2007

I've been looking to buy my next lens mainly for portraits. Which one would y'all recommend?

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro? or a Canon 70-200mm f/4L?

Thanks

Lars Leber · May 8, 2007

The Canon 85mm f/1.8 is my favorite portrait lens. I don't use it for anything else though so the macro lens or the zoom lens would probably be more versatile.

Mike_E · May 8, 2007

The 2.8 for the Bokeh. There's quite a bit of difference between the two. If you can get an f1.4 in the general range (85mm to 105 mm) that would be even better.

mike

Big Mike · May 8, 2007

How about the EF 85 F1.2 L? It probably costs about as much as all the stuff listed in your sig...but F1.2...wow.

Don Simon · May 8, 2007

If mainly for portraits, I'd consider the 85mm f/1.8 the best value. If you can afford something even faster, great, but I definitely consider 85mm an ideal focal length for portraits on 'crop' sensors.

Leo · May 8, 2007

Thanks for all your replies, I will definitely look into the 85mm f/1.8 lens. the f/1.2 lens is nice but that's a big chunk of change.

fmw · May 9, 2007

To get more theoretical, choosing a focal length starts with choosing a perspective. Perspective is adjusted by moving closer to or further from the subject. The focal length then determines the angle of view or how much of the subject and surroundings are included in the final image. The appropriate lens could be a wide angle or super telephoto or something anywhere in between.

If you want head and torso shots at an appropriate perspective, something in the 75-150mm range is typical for 35mm. That would be 50-100 on an APS digital. For full body shots you would go wider or lower in focal length. For group portraits even wider. I haven't done a lot of fashion work but when I did do it, I often used a 300mm lens on 35mm which would be about 200mm with an APS digital. Most of the commercial environmental portraits I used to do for annual reports were shot with modest wide angle lenses.

So the answer depends on what kinds of portraits you have in mind. There is no single answer to a broad topic like "portrait lens."

Leo · May 9, 2007

fmw said:
To get more theoretical, choosing a focal length starts with choosing a perspective. Perspective is adjusted by moving closer to or further from the subject. The focal length then determines the angle of view or how much of the subject and surroundings are included in the final image. The appropriate lens could be a wide angle or super telephoto or something anywhere in between.

If you want head and torso shots at an appropriate perspective, something in the 75-150mm range is typical for 35mm. That would be 50-100 on an APS digital. For full body shots you would go wider or lower in focal length. For group portraits even wider. I haven't done a lot of fashion work but when I did do it, I often used a 300mm lens on 35mm which would be about 200mm with an APS digital. Most of the commercial environmental portraits I used to do for annual reports were shot with modest wide angle lenses.

So the answer depends on what kinds of portraits you have in mind. There is no single answer to a broad topic like "portrait lens."

I do both head and torso shot, as well as full body shots. Most of my customers chooses full body shots for portraits. So to rephrase my question, what is a good portrait lens for both head/torso and full body shots. Right now I use my 28-135mm lens for portraits but some shots don't come out as sharp as I want them to. And I know that my 28-135mm is a slow lens. That's why I am looking for another lens.

xfloggingkylex · May 9, 2007

While I have only done a few portrait shots, I use my 50mm 1.4. Works pretty well for torso shots and decent for headshots (though sometimes awkwardly close) and very nice for full body shots.

Have you tried using the 50mm for full body shots?

Leo · May 9, 2007

xfloggingkylex said:
While I have only done a few portrait shots, I use my 50mm 1.4. Works pretty well for torso shots and decent for headshots (though sometimes awkwardly close) and very nice for full body shots.

Have you tried using the 50mm for full body shots?

no haven't shot with the 50mm yet for full body shots. maybe i should try and use it on my next portrait shoot. i mainly just use the 50mm lens occasionally when i can't use a flash indoors

Benjamin_T · May 9, 2007

On 35mm film, wasn't the 85mm and 135mm lenses considered "portrait" lenses?

Today on digitals, I think you need something like a 50mm and (or) an 85mm.

It will all depend on the way you shoot the portraits though...to decide between the 50mm and the 85mm.

Perhaps the 85mm is for head shots, and the 50mm is for half body portraits. (On the digital crop sensors.)

RedDevilUK · May 9, 2007

sorry but its a newbie daft question...

why do you all recommend a fast lens for pictures of something sat still posing for the photo???

i thought fast lenses were needed to catch fast moving objects, like birds or racing cars etc.

Mike_E · May 9, 2007

The larger the aperture, the better the Bokeh (that blurry out of focus look to the background).

mike

xfloggingkylex · May 9, 2007

RedDevilUK said:
sorry but its a newbie daft question...

why do you all recommend a fast lens for pictures of something sat still posing for the photo???

i thought fast lenses were needed to catch fast moving objects, like birds or racing cars etc.

Aperture has many effects besides allowing more light in. Aperture effects the bokeh (the blurry background) and to get a subject to really stand out, you want a nice, not distracting bokeh. In addition to this, most fast lenses simply perform well. Since most lenses are much sharper and all around better optically when stopped down some, a 1.4 can take nice amazingly sharp pictures at 2.8, whereas a camera with a max aperture of f/4 could never reach 2.8, not to mention it would need to be stopped down to 5.6 or so to get the same sharpness. With this smaller aperture comes as larger DOF meaning the background is less blurred, and like you have mentioned slower shutter speeds; and in general for portraits faster is always better just because it means there is zero chance of any movement in the picture.

To illustrate the sharpness deal, most kit lenses need to be stopped to about f/8 or f/11 to be sharp. The 1.4 is razor sharp by f/4 - quite a big difference in speed and as a result blur.

All around faster glass is just better, because it allows you to use it at more apertures, not only wide open for low light.

If you'd like examples of the kit lens and the 50mm 1.4 both shot at say f/5.6 (since thats as low as the kit will go at that focal length) I can take a comparison shot for you. Let me know.

Leo, I suggest trying the 50mm first, because you may very well find that you like that focal length, and then you could get the macro lens for, well macro work, and for head shots alone instead of trying to buy 1 lens for all types of portraits.

Leo · May 9, 2007

xfloggingkylex said:
Aperture has many effects besides allowing more light in. Aperture effects the bokeh (the blurry background) and to get a subject to really stand out, you want a nice, not distracting bokeh. In addition to this, most fast lenses simply perform well. Since most lenses are much sharper and all around better optically when stopped down some, a 1.4 can take nice amazingly sharp pictures at 2.8, whereas a camera with a max aperture of f/4 could never reach 2.8, not to mention it would need to be stopped down to 5.6 or so to get the same sharpness. With this smaller aperture comes as larger DOF meaning the background is less blurred, and like you have mentioned slower shutter speeds; and in general for portraits faster is always better just because it means there is zero chance of any movement in the picture.

To illustrate the sharpness deal, most kit lenses need to be stopped to about f/8 or f/11 to be sharp. The 1.4 is razor sharp by f/4 - quite a big difference in speed and as a result blur.

All around faster glass is just better, because it allows you to use it at more apertures, not only wide open for low light.

If you'd like examples of the kit lens and the 50mm 1.4 both shot at say f/5.6 (since thats as low as the kit will go at that focal length) I can take a comparison shot for you. Let me know.

Leo, I suggest trying the 50mm first, because you may very well find that you like that focal length, and then you could get the macro lens for, well macro work, and for head shots alone instead of trying to buy 1 lens for all types of portraits.

yeah that would be nice if you could post some comparison pictures not only for me but for other newbies as well.

yeah, i'll try the 50mm first before I search for another lens. I am actually taking pictures this friday, will keep you posted.

thank you for the tips