Lens setup for portraits

[connorzinsphoto]

Hey everyone, first time poster here and have a question as far as some equipment I plan to purchase. I just ordered a 5d Mark III and and currently pondering two lens setups.

Setup #1
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.2

Setup #2
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.2
Canon 135mm 2.0

I am trying to identify what might be the best way to go. I lean towards Setup #1, but cant quite decide.

 

[DB_Cro]

I'd be very tempted to wait for a new Sigma 85..

 

[tirediron]

If by 'portrait' you mean one or two person groups, then scrap the 35 and the 50. I would go with an 85 and 135, or 85 & 70-200.

 

[spiralout462]

85 and 135 for me. It really depends on your style I guess. For formal portraiture? 85 and/or 135 hands down.

 

[connorzinsphoto]

I also do group shots at weddings, and group family portraits as well. In addition I travel quite a bit and wanted something a bit wider for those landscape shots. But I make all the money shooting people, this my conundrum.

 

[Derrel]

Hey everyone, first time poster here and have a question as far as some equipment I plan to purchase. I just ordered a 5d Mark III and and currently pondering two lens setups.

Setup #1
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.2

Setup #2
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.2
Canon 135mm 2.0

I am trying to identify what might be the best way to go. I lean towards Setup #1, but cant quite decide.

None of the above kits make much sense to me. Sigma Art 35 has ugly, hashy bokeh...have you SEEN how much it makes outdoor foliage vibrate? It's been over-corrected to the point that it tests out GREAT on a flat-plane test chart, but it looks less than beautiful on things behind the focused distance. I think it is a simply awful portrait/lifestyle lens...it's hard, hashy, and looks ugly on foliage and plants as well as hard-edged manmade stuff. Definitely this is NOT, in any,any way, a portraiture lens: it is a test-chart lens that ranks high. Canon's cheapie 35/2 would be a better lens. Seriously.

85/1.2-L...heavy, massive, makes regular, non-wedding-day people feel uncomfortable in front of the lens at 85mm range on FF< which is 20 to 7 feet. Lotta money for a slowish focusing lens; get the Mark II of it, or you'll be sorry.

50/1.2-L...50mm is not a good lens length for people much of the time, but is can be used VERY effectively to create exaggerated sense of height by shooting from, a bit lower than normal. BIG for its length...not sold on this, but if you want that f/1.2 marker, it's there.

135-2-L. Owned it for 9 years, perhaps the best Canon prime for actual speed of focus, and easy to work with nature. Just sold mine off a month ago. A really GREAT-handling lens.

Instead of sinking loads of cash into an ugly imaging 35 Sigma and a big, heavy Canon 85/1.2, how about a clean, used 70-200 f/2.8 Canon L zoom?

50 to 135 is wayyyy too much gap. The 35/1.4 Sigma? No...there are plenty of used Canon 35/1.4 Mark I's coming up now.

 

[connorzinsphoto]

Hey everyone, first time poster here and have a question as far as some equipment I plan to purchase. I just ordered a 5d Mark III and and currently pondering two lens setups.

Setup #1
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.2

Setup #2
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.2
Canon 135mm 2.0

I am trying to identify what might be the best way to go. I lean towards Setup #1, but cant quite decide.

None of the above kits make much sense to me. Sigma Art 35 has ugly, hashy bokeh...have you SEEN how much it makes outdoor foliage vibrate? It's been over-corrected to the point that it tests out GREAT on a flat-plane test chart, but it looks less than beautiful on things behind the focused distance. I think it is a simply awful portrait/lifestyle lens...it's hard, hashy, and looks ugly on foliage and plants as well as hard-edged manmade stuff. Definitely this is NOT, in any,any way, a portraiture lens: it is a test-chart lens that ranks high. Canon's cheapie 35/2 would be a better lens. Seriously.

85/1.2-L...heavy, massive, makes regular, non-wedding-day people feel uncomfortable in front of the lens at 85mm range on FF< which is 20 to 7 feet. Lotta money for a slowish focusing lens; get the Mark II of it, or you'll be sorry.

50/1.2-L...50mm is not a good lens length for people much of the time, but is can be used VERY effectively to create exaggerated sense of height by shooting from, a bit lower than normal. BIG for its length...not sold on this, but if you want that f/1.2 marker, it's there.

135-2-L. Owned it for 9 years, perhaps the best Canon prime for actual speed of focus, and easy to work with nature. Just sold mine off a month ago. A really GREAT-handling lens.

Instead of sinking loads of cash into an ugly imaging 35 Sigma and a big, heavy Canon 85/1.2, how about a clean, used 70-200 f/2.8 Canon L zoom?

50 to 135 is wayyyy too much gap. The 35/1.4 Sigma? No...there are plenty of used Canon 35/1.4 Mark I's coming up now.

Any thoughts on Canons 85mm 1.8?

 

[Derrel]

Had one, loved it. A VERY good value, an absolute must-own lens IMO. Small size, light weight, easy to carry on your belt with a lens holster. Absolutely idea for moving around with. Makes the camera feel lighter, and does not make people feel "invaded" like a massive-sized lens does. Perhaps the single best lens value ever. Ever.

The $1200 it saves you allows you to buy a DynaLight lighting kit.

 

[goodguy]

Just get the Canon or Tamron 70-200mm 2.8
Perfect for portrait and is very popular among portrait photographers.

 

[beagle100]

Hey everyone, first time poster here and have a question as far as some equipment I plan to purchase. I just ordered a 5d Mark III and and currently pondering two lens setups.

Setup #1
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4
Canon 85mm 1.2

Setup #2
Sigma Art 35mm 1.4
Canon 50mm 1.2
Canon 135mm 2.0

I am trying to identify what might be the best way to go. I lean towards Setup #1, but cant quite decide.

None of the above kits make much sense to me. Sigma Art 35 has ugly, hashy bokeh...have you SEEN how much it makes outdoor foliage vibrate? It's been over-corrected to the point that it tests out GREAT on a flat-plane test chart, but it looks less than beautiful on things behind the focused distance. I think it is a simply awful portrait/lifestyle lens...it's hard, hashy, and looks ugly on foliage and plants as well as hard-edged manmade stuff. Definitely this is NOT, in any,any way, a portraiture lens: it is a test-chart lens that ranks high. Canon's cheapie 35/2 would be a better lens. Seriously.

85/1.2-L...heavy, massive, makes regular, non-wedding-day people feel uncomfortable in front of the lens at 85mm range on FF< which is 20 to 7 feet. Lotta money for a slowish focusing lens; get the Mark II of it, or you'll be sorry.

50/1.2-L...50mm is not a good lens length for people much of the time, but is can be used VERY effectively to create exaggerated sense of height by shooting from, a bit lower than normal. BIG for its length...not sold on this, but if you want that f/1.2 marker, it's there.

135-2-L. Owned it for 9 years, perhaps the best Canon prime for actual speed of focus, and easy to work with nature. Just sold mine off a month ago. A really GREAT-handling lens.

Instead of sinking loads of cash into an ugly imaging 35 Sigma and a big, heavy Canon 85/1.2, how about a clean, used 70-200 f/2.8 Canon L zoom?

50 to 135 is wayyyy too much gap. The 35/1.4 Sigma? No...there are plenty of used Canon 35/1.4 Mark I's coming up now.

Any thoughts on Canons 85mm 1.8?

my thoughts:
the 85mm 1.8 is good for close-in sports (basketball) and decent for portraits
and it's cheap ($250 used)

 

[Solarflare]

85/1.2-L...heavy, massive, makes regular, non-wedding-day people feel uncomfortable in front of the lens at 85mm range on FF< which is 20 to 7 feet. Lotta money for a slowish focusing lens; get the Mark II of it, or you'll be sorry.

Maybe.

Still the probably first lens I would get if I would ever get into Canon, though.

the 85mm 1.8 is good for close-in sports (basketball) and decent for portraits
and it's cheap ($250 used)

WHOW. That IS cheap !

 

[pixmedic]

anything f/1.2 is overpriced and is only necessary .01% of the time. the other 99.99% its strictly for bragging rights.
for far far less you can get the f/1.4 version and its just as sharp, almost as fast, and a third the price.

a 70-200 f/2.8 is a great portrait lens. gives you a lot of options. its what I used for most of my portraits.
I also used my 85mm f/1.8 a lot, although the f/1.4 version is built better and the bokeh was amazing. (nikon though)
the 135mm f/2 is an amazing lens providing you have the room to use it.

I would go with a 70-200 f/2.8 L without hesitation as #1 on the list of lenses to get.
depending on what other type of work you plan to do, you might also want a 50mm f/1.4 or even 35mm f/1.4 for larger group shots.

you might just want to start with the 70-200 and see which focal length you are actually lacking before spending a ton of money on other lenses.
for portrait work, there's more to consider than just the camera and lens, and lighting might easily be more important than the lens.

 

[Derrel]

When you shoot for money, people expect a few things. One of the things they expect is decent lighting, with some sparkle in the eyes, and some light on the faces, and no squinting or eyeglass glares. When people think of "professional photo shoot", nothing elevates the shoot like an incident light flash meter, an umbrella or two, and pro-grade lights and some good grip equipment. When they tell their family and friends, they'll mention, "he set up lights and everything. He even had one of those light measurer things, you know, the black ones with that little white UFO thing on the top of it!"

Yeah...the lights matter, in two ways.

 

[beagle100]

I also do group shots at weddings, and group family portraits as well. In addition I travel quite a bit and wanted something a bit wider for those landscape shots. But I make all the money shooting people, this my conundrum.

go longer for portraits !
200 f/2 and 135 L is what this portrait photographer uses
www.flickr.com/photos/desertrose76

 

[paigew]

Set up 2 all the way. I'd get the 50 art too vs the canon