Best Canon body for Portraits?

[Tulsa]

And thanks. I think I will just stick with the 50d for now and use the 50mm 1.8. on occasions I use my 10-20mm Sigma for certain portraits, I have to get close, but i have had great results.

I sold my 28-135 USM, It came with the 50D, but I never used it, it never felt right.

 

[bigtwinky]

look at the 50mm f/1.8 for now which is a nicely sharp lens, built like crap, but costs $100 new.

Huh? Not sure what you are saying. This is the lens I have been shooting my portraits with.

I didnt see your reply saying you had the 1.8

I'll break up my text a bit...
For now (not knowing you had the 1.8) look at the 1.8 as its a sharp lens, a lens that gives good image quality, but it is built bad...its a plastic body, cheap lens mount and is pretty fragile when compared to most other lenses. Drop it once and it should not survive. The structure of the lens isn't that great. But thats why you pay $100 for it..

Good image quality, cheap build, cheap price.

Make sense?

 

[robertwsimpson]

If you want to do portraits, I'd get the 70-200mm f/4 IS

This lens will allow you to shoot full body portraits (~70mm) as well as really tight head shots (~200mm) and not have to worry about perspective distortion. It's razor sharp wide open (in fact even sharper at f/4 than the more expensive, heavier, f/2.8 version is at f/4). All this for the very reasonable price of $1200. If you want to get crazy, get the 70-200mm f/2.8 IS mkII lens that just came out. it is sharp wide open at f/2.8 and will give you an extra stop of light. Not that you really need it when you're using strobes anyway...

 

[Village Idiot]

If I were to buy a 70-200 f/4, I'd skip the IS version unless you're planning on doing a lot of low light shooting.

Primes are generally sharper though. An 85 f/1.8 stopped down to f/4 would still be sharper than the 70-200 at f/4. They have less elements of glass which can lead to less distortion of the image. That's why some people perfer primes.

I only own two, one being a fish and they other being the 85, but they're great lenses.

 

[robertwsimpson]

the 70-200 IS is sharper than the non-IS version.

Also, with the 70-200, you have 1 lens that can do everything... The 85 might not be the favorite for really tight head shots.

 

[Tulsa]

look at the 50mm f/1.8 for now which is a nicely sharp lens, built like crap, but costs $100 new.

Huh? Not sure what you are saying. This is the lens I have been shooting my portraits with.

I didnt see your reply saying you had the 1.8

I'll break up my text a bit...
For now (not knowing you had the 1.8) look at the 1.8 as its a sharp lens, a lens that gives good image quality, but it is built bad...its a plastic body, cheap lens mount and is pretty fragile when compared to most other lenses. Drop it once and it should not survive. The structure of the lens isn't that great. But thats why you pay $100 for it..

Good image quality, cheap build, cheap price.

Make sense?

Gotchya! I agree.

And I was thinking about the 70-200 F4 non IS, thats the only version I could afford.

 

[robertwsimpson]

The non IS version is a great lens, from what I can tell. At 200mm though, you'd be surprised at how quickly IS starts mattering... If you're as picky as I am about your photos, you'll want the IS, plus it's sharper. Just my 2 cents. I'll shut up now!

 

[table1349]

If you are shooting portraits, shoot primes. Zooms are fine for event photography and for portrait situations where working distance is an issue.

A top quality prime is always going to be sharper than a top quality zoom. For shooting portraits you want something that is 70mm or longer. The basic range is 70mm to 120mm. A 135 can be an excellent portrait lens if you have the working room to use it.

A good portrait lineup will include at least a couple good primes. Something in the 85mm range and something in the 100-135 range. The 85 f1.8 is a good prime, as is the 100mm f2.0, 100mm f2.8 macro, and the 135 f2.0L. The last lens is one of the real price values in L glass right behind the 200mm f2.8L. If you have the money the 85 f1.2L MII is outstanding piece of glass for portrait work.

 

[Tulsa]

What makes the L series better than the normal 75-300 f4-5.6? Quality of parts and construction? If I am thinking of getting the 70-200 L F4. why not save alot of money and go with this lens?

 

[KmH]

That and fewer design compromises, better glass, coatings, constant apertures, less distortion, CA, coma, fringing, better resale.

The only downside is, most of them are pimped up with a white powder coat.

 

[table1349]

What makes the L series better than the normal 75-300 f4-5.6? Quality of parts and construction? If I am thinking of getting the 70-200 L F4. why not save alot of money and go with this lens?

It's like Kmh said, better in all areas. The engineering is better, the materials in construction. The glass and coating are a big difference. There are various grades of optical glass. Only the best of the best glass is used for L glass. The shaping and polishing process has more steps with tighter tolerances. The coating materials are better with more layers of coatings. That is what you are paying for with L glass.

 

[burstintoflame81]

Another advantage of fast primes which most people don't touch on or even realize, is that if you are shooting in low light ( like if the room you are in PRIOR to the strobes going off, is kinda dim ) the viewfinger is going to be brighter as well which aids in your composing the shot as well. Just food for thought.

The argument of primes being better than zooms or vice versa is really not even a legitimate argument anymore. You can get high quality of both ( unless you strictly need something with really shallow DOF. ) The money is usually the deciding factor. Everyone says you need primes for low light, but in most cases you never shoot wide open anyway because the really short DOF isn't what many shots call for. And with strobes you are making your own light so it doesn't matter, you are going for sharpness.