Best lens for Portrait

[sydneykimi]

I'd narrowed down to 2 lens:
1. Canon 50mm 1.2 L
2. Canon 85mm 1.2 L

Anyone have experience with either one of the lens and how do you like them...?

 

[Christie Photo]

For portraits, get the longer lens.

You'll find scores of threads here about this with very little effort.

Good luck.

-Pete

 

[John Mc]

What camera you using it on?

 

[KmH]

It takes more than one lens to do portraits.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

I agree it takes more than one lens. It depends on locations and space and number of people and sensor.

For example, I just got an 85mm and in my space, with lights, on my 1.6, I will be able to use it for one person, head and shoulders. Which is what I wanted.

 

[table1349]

I'd narrowed down to 2 lens:
1. Canon 50mm 1.2 L
2. Canon 85mm 1.2 L

Anyone have experience with either one of the lens and how do you like them...?

I own the 85 and shoot a buddies 50 quite a bit. If you have the working room for the 85 that would be the my choice regardless of what body you put it on. In fact it was my choice. Both are fantastic for portraits. It really comes down to how much working room you have take the kind of portraits you want. Then as time goes on you should add other lenses to the stable. The 50 would be good. I love both my 135L and 200L for portrait work.

 

[oldmacman]

I'd narrowed down to 2 lens:
1. Canon 50mm 1.2 L
2. Canon 85mm 1.2 L

Anyone have experience with either one of the lens and how do you like them...?

I don't know about the 85mm 1.2L, but I feel like the 85 1.8 is like an L lens at a great price. Like the 200mm f2.8, it is a nicely priced lens for the quality of image it provides. The 85 1.8 takes beautiful portraits and is very sharp. Do you feel like you need the flexibility of the 1.2? I don't think I've ever used below f5.6 for a portrait. At 1.2 and over 15 feet away, you would only have about 10 inches of depth in your focal plane.

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Here's an 85mm f/1.8. I love this portrait. Maybe about 5 feet from subject on Canon 7D. One strobe w/silver PLM. No PP editing. JPEG. ISO 200 @ f11.0 and pretty darn sharp.:mrgreen:

 

[Christie Photo]

Here's an 85mm f/1.8. I love this portrait. Maybe about 5 feet from subject on Canon 7D. ...@ f11.0 and pretty darn sharp.

Ummm.... of course, this is not a portrait. And yes... pretty darn sharp. In fact, too sharp for photographing people. This would require some "undoing" of the sharpness to come up with a flattering portrait.

-Pete

 

[GeorgieGirl]

Gee, they sell an awful lot of them for Portraits. Never read one review by anyone that said too sharp. Interesting.

(and of course its a portrait...you saying its ugly? lol)

 

[Christie Photo]

Gee, they sell an awful lot of them for Portraits. Never read one review by anyone that said too sharp. Interesting.

Well sure... it's a wondrful portait lens. But it's more about focal length.

For decades, photographers put "stuff" (everything from pantie hose to filters with nail polish) in front of the lens when shooting portraits to soften the image. Or, they bit the bullet and bought soft focus lenses or Softar filters.

The phrase we used was, "Get it on the neg." Vignetting too. That way repeatability in printing was easy.

Shooting digital, we can now make make a variety of virtual negatives from one exposure simply by saving differing versions created from one file.

Very few people that come for a portrait have the skin, face structure or hair of a cover girl. So... we use filters in Photoshop to kill contrast, smooth skin and hair, and so on in order to make a more flattering image... more flattering than tack-sharp reality.

This is a great lens for table-top product photography too. That's where sharpness is important.

-Pete

 

[ghache]

I love my 24-70 for portrait, its sharp, 2.8 and it really versatile, in the studio or outdoor.