Best Canon Portrait Lens?

[LShooter]

The 24-105 takes nice portraits. The only downside is that it's f/4. For a nice bokeh you'll need to get your subject away from any background. The 85 1.2 is THE portrait lens that all others a judged by. The 70-200 is awesome and versitle. I'd take the f/4 version of that over the 24-105 if you can't swing a 2.8 version.

 

[Derrel]

Canons 135mm f/2. I almost want to switch to Canon JUST so i can get this lens.

It's images are almost indistinguishable from the Nikon 135mm f/2 AF-D Defocus Control. Back when my son was little, I took the 135 Defocus and put an adapter on it, and shot it, and my Canon 135/2-L side-by-side, all day long, switching back and forth every 10 to 15 frames, so that by the end of the day the images were so mixed up I could not remember which lens shot which pictures...reviewing the images the next day (as well as multiple times over the past six years) has convinced me that there's very little behind the mystique of the 135-L, except the letter L. Check the Photozone reviews of both on APS-C...almost identical resolution and CA figures.

Best Canon portrait lens??? I dunno...their 85/1.8 is nice, small,light,sharp,affordable. The 100mm f/2 is a beautiful imager but seldom talked about. The 135/2-L is too long on APS-C for many situations, but is nice on FF. Canon's 70-200 lenses have nice bokeh, and have a lot of focal length flexibility in one nice handy zoom lens. The 135 2.8 Soft Focus prime is nice; it's sharp at O, and then has defocus 1 and 2 levels...not as sexy as the Nikkor, but it holds a place and is cheap. The new 70-200 f/4 L IS USM feels really nicely balanced on the 7D without a grip,and is sweet! The 50/1.4 EF is not too shabby either on the 1.6x Canons...it shoot pretty nice images, has nice bokeh, light, sharp,and so on.

 

[canonbraden]

It's images are almost indistinguishable from the Nikon 135mm f/2 AF-D Defocus Control. Back when my son was little, I took the 135 Defocus and put an adapter on it, and shot it, and my Canon 135/2-L side-by-side, all day long, switching back and forth every 10 to 15 frames, so that by the end of the day the images were so mixed up I could not remember which lens shot which pictures...reviewing the images the next day (as well as multiple times over the past six years) has convinced me that there's very little behind the mystique of the 135-L, except the letter L. Check the Photozone reviews of both on APS-C...almost identical resolution and CA figures.

Best Canon portrait lens??? I dunno...their 85/1.8 is nice, small,light,sharp,affordable. The 100mm f/2 is a beautiful imager but seldom talked about. The 135/2-L is too long on APS-C for many situations, but is nice on FF. Canon's 70-200 lenses have nice bokeh, and have a lot of focal length flexibility in one nice handy zoom lens. The 135 2.8 Soft Focus prime is nice; it's sharp at O, and then has defocus 1 and 2 levels...not as sexy as the Nikkor, but it holds a place and is cheap. The new 70-200 f/4 L IS USM feels really nicely balanced on the 7D without a grip,and is sweet! The 50/1.4 EF is not too shabby either on the 1.6x Canons...it shoot pretty nice images, has nice bokeh, light, sharp,and so on.

Wow thank you so much for all the information!

Which lens do you use mostly for portraits and why?

 

[David444]

.

 

[table1349]

I have both the 200 f2 and the 200 f2.8. For portraits I will take the f2.8 over the f2. So much easier to work with and for a portrait photographer probably the best buy in L glass to be found.

 

[Derrel]

Which lens do you use mostly for portraits and why?

I like the speed and flexibility of a 70-200 f/2.8 lens...it allows a lot of different focal lengths to be used, and it has only one white balance and color rendering, and the bokeh rendering of the Canon and Nikon stabilized 70-200 models is really good. If I had to pick "one" lens for portraits, it would be a 70-200/2.8. I have the Canon IS USM one, the one before the Mark II, and I have the Nikon VR-I model. The Nikon's out of focus background rendering is creamier, rounder, and better than 'almost all' lenses of comparable focal length. It's not 'hashy', nor is it "geometric", nor is it 'swirly' like quite a few telephoto primes can be. It has a beautiful imaging character.

It's very easy to click on a 70-200 and be "set" for telephoto coverage for a whole spectrum of events. Portraits do not demand ultimate lens quality....some fall-off at the corners is no big deal, and sharpness has been high enough since the 1980's. The 70-200 lenses of today are better than a lot of the primes from the 70's and 80's. I have some nice "people lenses"; 85/1.4, 105 Defocus, 135 Defocus, 200 f/2 VR...but I actually gravitate most often to the convenience and speed and sure focusing and stabilizer of a modern 70-200. It's just....so...handy!!!

 

[canonbraden]

Well, as the 70-200 seems like a GREAT lens, I'm still thinking about the 24-105..

Does anyone have any experience with the 24-105 on portraits? I so, how did it go?

 

[kathyt]

Well, as the 70-200 seems like a GREAT lens, I'm still thinking about the 24-105..

Does anyone have any experience with the 24-105 on portraits? I so, how did it go?

The 24-105 would be a good all around lens, but it would not be my first choice as a portrait lens because I would want something I could open up a little wider. F4 is not wide enough for me.

 

[irfan.in.tx]

The 135mm f2 if you have the money and the working distance. Or the 85mm f1.8.

 

[canonbraden]

The 135mm f2 if you have the money and the working distance. Or the 85mm f1.8.

85mm seems like a good distance. Should I consider the Non-L series lens or would I go all out for this baby?

 

[canonbraden]

The 24-105 would be a good all around lens, but it would not be my first choice as a portrait lens because I would want something I could open up a little wider. F4 is not wide enough for me.

I've been considering the 70-200 f4, I'm not exactly in the market for f2.8
If I were to go with an f4 lens should I go with the 70-200?
I don't think I will be using IS.

 

[canonbraden]

I like the speed and flexibility of a 70-200 f/2.8 lens...it allows a lot of different focal lengths to be used, and it has only one white balance and color rendering, and the bokeh rendering of the Canon and Nikon stabilized 70-200 models is really good. If I had to pick "one" lens for portraits, it would be a 70-200/2.8. I have the Canon IS USM one, the one before the Mark II, and I have the Nikon VR-I model. The Nikon's out of focus background rendering is creamier, rounder, and better than 'almost all' lenses of comparable focal length. It's not 'hashy', nor is it "geometric", nor is it 'swirly' like quite a few telephoto primes can be. It has a beautiful imaging character.

It's very easy to click on a 70-200 and be "set" for telephoto coverage for a whole spectrum of events. Portraits do not demand ultimate lens quality....some fall-off at the corners is no big deal, and sharpness has been high enough since the 1980's. The 70-200 lenses of today are better than a lot of the primes from the 70's and 80's. I have some nice "people lenses"; 85/1.4, 105 Defocus, 135 Defocus, 200 f/2 VR...but I actually gravitate most often to the convenience and speed and sure focusing and stabilizer of a modern 70-200. It's just....so...handy!!!

I meant to send that last post to you

 

[texkam]

85 1.8 is a fine lens.

 

[kathyt]

The 135mm f2 if you have the money and the working distance. Or the 85mm f1.8.

85mm seems like a good distance. Should I consider the Non-L series lens or would I go all out for this baby?

I don't think you need the 85mm 1.2 over the 1.8. The 1.8 is a great lens and will work just fine. The 85mm 1.2 is rather difficult to work with sometimes when shooting wide open, and most of the time I have to manually focus. I would just grab the 85mm 1.8 if you would go this route.

 

[Tiller]

85mm seems like a good distance. Should I consider the Non-L series lens or would I go all out for this baby?

If portraits are all you will shoot for the rest of your life and/or you are getting paid a good bit for the portraits you will be taking, then I would get the 1.2

However, since I'm guessing that's not the case, I would go with the 1.8 and down the road, upgrade to the Sigma 1.4.