Recommend a good portrait lens.

danny · Oct 12, 2005

Hi all, I'm looking for a new portrait lens for my Canon 10D. I'm currently using the 50/1.8 and need something wider. The area I use for my studio is too shallow to allow for a full body shot without having the subject against the backdrop. Would rather have a prime lens than telephoto as I already have the 28-135 and it's a bit soft on portraits. Any advice would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.

ShutteredEye · Oct 12, 2005

You didn't mention a price range, but this would work just fine I would think:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...169&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

Or

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/con...614&is=USA&addedTroughType=categoryNavigation

usayit · Oct 12, 2005

Look at the exif data on your pics when you shoot with that zoom. At what focal length can you shoot full body comfortably? I personally find 24mm and 35mm a little too wide for portrait. I personally like the 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2L. If both are too long, I also like my 50mm f1.8 even though I hear the 50mm f1.4 is really nice.

ShutteredEye · Oct 12, 2005

usayit said:
Look at the exif data on your pics when you shoot with that zoom. At what focal length can you shoot full body comfortably? I personally find 24mm and 35mm a little too wide for portrait. I personally like the 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2L. If both are too long, I also like my 50mm f1.8 even though I hear the 50mm f1.4 is really nice.

He has a 50mm 1.8, and its not wide enough.

usayit · Oct 13, 2005

oops... thats what happens when you don't get enough sleep.....
oh well.

Another option... go with a full frame digital camera or 35mm film and avoid the 1.6x factor.

danny · Oct 13, 2005

Thanks for your help guys. Those L lenses are really nice, and as much as I would love to have one, the price is just a little steep. Anything in the 24 to 28mm range would work fine. I might have to go with the standard Canon 28.

thebeginning · Oct 13, 2005

what type of portraits are you doing? are you in too tight of a space so you can't back up? it's dangerous using wide lenses with people unless you use exaggerated perspective purposefully. i suggest the sigma 30mm 1.4. I've heard alot of good about it.

danny · Oct 13, 2005

thebeginning said:
what type of portraits are you doing? are you in too tight of a space so you can't back up? it's dangerous using wide lenses with people unless you use exaggerated perspective purposefully. i suggest the sigma 30mm 1.4. I've heard alot of good about it.

Thanks Daniel, I've actually been looking at that lens. Yes my studio area is too shallow with the 1.6 crop factor of the 10D to allow me to use a standard portrait lens. Most of my shots are head and bust but sometimes I need to do a full body shot.

DocFrankenstein · Oct 13, 2005

Ewww... sigma...

That thing is way overpriced for what it does.

Get 28/2.8 EF Only 170 bucks
Or 24/2.8 EF for 250 approx...

thebeginning · Oct 13, 2005

do you know anyone with this lens? i have some friends that have tested it against canon's 35mm 1.4L USM and it actually had superior sharpness and contrast in the center at most apertures.

as far as the 28 2.8, the sigma is lightyears ahead of it in terms of build quality, sharpness, bokeh, and autofocus speed (which is much louder also). the 24 is probably too wide for portraits. never underestimate third party lenses. the sigma may be a tad on the pricey side, but for it's quality, it's certainly not too expensive, unless you've tried a bad copy or are just biased against non-canon glass.

if you're not stuck on only primes, a nice fast zoom might do the trick too. the tamron 28-75 2.8 is a heck of a zoom (another instance where a third party lense tends to be better than the 'L' counterpart) and you can snag it for like 300-350 USD.

DocFrankenstein · Oct 15, 2005

Tamron is better than L glass? How stupid of me to spend extra 800 for 24-70 L

thebeginning said:
do you know anyone with this lens? i have some friends that have tested it against canon's 35mm 1.4L USM and it actually had superior sharpness and contrast in the center at most apertures.

Wow! At most apertures? :lmao: Like f/2.8 and above?

"the best" 50mm in the world - the contax 50/1.4 is 300 bucks. If you want to get sigma for almost twice as much, be my guest. :hail:

Why do you need silent AF in studio environment?

photogoddess · Oct 15, 2005

I've got a Sigma 17-35 f2.8 and L.O.V.E. it. Even with the magnification factor of the 10D, you should still be able to get a full body shot with it. The Sigma was reasonably priced and is tack sharp. Sure it takes a little longer to focus than my other lenses do but out of all the lenses in my bag I consider it to be the best bang for the buck. My other lenses are "L" glass and I consider this Sigma lens to be far superior than the standard Canon lenses that I had used before upgrading to the fancy stuff.

thebeginning · Oct 15, 2005

DocFrankenstein said:
Tamron is better than L glass? How stupid of me to spend extra 800 for 24-70 L

Wow! At most apertures? :lmao: Like f/2.8 and above?

"the best" 50mm in the world - the contax 50/1.4 is 300 bucks. If you want to get sigma for almost twice as much, be my guest. :hail:

Why do you need silent AF in studio environment?

well i'm not going to say anything in reply to that first part, i'm afraid you'll have to deal with that potential loss of 800 bucks yourself.

notice that i didnt say all tamron glass was better than L glass. Some people pay for quality, not recognition. I know of several photogs who sold their 24-70L and stuck with the tamron or the sigma 24-70 EX. Here is a comparison between one of those nasty sigmas and this guys' third and sharpest copy of a 24-70L. http://www.pbase.com/fstopjojo/image/45240719/original

as far as the mtf data on the sigma 30 1.4, one test i recently read shows that it excels the mtf data on the 35mm 1.4 on all apertures except 2.8, and even then it's only a slight difference. the only problem with some of these third party lenses is the fact that you may have to go through a few copies until you get one this sharp. but for the $500 price difference, i think it's quite worth it.

note that danny already has a 50mm, and it isnt wide enough. i agree that the contax 50 1.4 is a fantastic lens, but it's not much of a help.

danny, you may want to consider the 35mm f2. it's quite sharp, and much cheaper than either the sigma 30 1.4 or the canon 35 1.4L.

usayit · Oct 16, 2005

question....
All this talk about zooms has me wondering... In a studio environment, is there an advantage with zooms? When I don't need the convenience of a zoom, I generally shoot with my primes. The outcome is usually more satisfying...

btw... We all know that there are good and bad lenses from all manufacturers, canon, sigma, tamron, etc... right? My old Tamron 35-105mm f2.8 zoom has always produced excellent results. Its heavy, noisy, AF is slower than USM, and the front element turns but the images have always been comparable to other newer lenses in its range.

danny · Oct 17, 2005

I want to, again, thank everyone for your suggestions. At the present, I'm still undecided, but leaning toward the Canon standard 28 or 35 prime, although that 17-35 Sigma that photogoddess has is very attractive since it would serve two purposes. I'll do a bit more research, but in the meantime, if anyone else has any other recommendations, I'd love to hear them.