Outdoor Portraits

[Jay633]

Hello guys, in a recent post I asked what camera upgrade i should do and decided I would go with Canon 70D. Which I bought now I want to choose an appropriate lens. I want to do outdoor portraits, enough to see the subject and background. My budget is up to $800. Thank you all for your help



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Derrel]

Used 70-200 f/4 L IS USM, really a SWEET balanced lens on the 50D and 60D and 70D, either with, or without the added battery grip. This is not a second-tier lens, and it is a VERY fine lens optically, and actually a bit better than some 70-200/2.8 variants. For the money, the 70-200 f/4L IS USM is going to offer ALL the focal lengths you'd get from an 85,100,135,and a 200mm lens, and f/4 is amply wide enough to defocus backdrops; the defocus issue on backgrounds is overblown, and f/2.8 is a BAD aperture for most lenses in terms of portraiture. Think f/4.5 or f/4.8 or f/5 or thereabouts for outdoor background suppression at longer lengths of the zoom, or indoors with flash shot at f/5.6, f/6.3, f/7.1 or f/8 for a LOT of flash portraiture work. You ought to be able to pick one of these up for $800 on the used market,perhaps less with a motivated seller.

 

[beagle100]

Hello guys, in a recent post I asked what camera upgrade i should do and decided I would go with Canon 70D. Which I bought now I want to choose an appropriate lens. I want to do outdoor portraits, enough to see the subject and background. My budget is up to $800. Thank you all for your help



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

if you do a lot of portraits stretch your budget for the Canon 135mm f/2 otherwise the 70-200 2.8 works fine and is more versatile
And the cheap 85mm 1.8 and 100mm 2.8 also work
www.flickr.com/photos/mmirrorless

 

[zombiesniper]

I agree with the 70-200 F4. I have the non IS version but IS would be better. It is an excellent lens that I have managed some of my best photos on.
Below are two examples.

wing drag by Trevor Baldwin, on Flickr

Logan by Trevor Baldwin, on Flickr

 

[TCampbell]

I own the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM II (I still have my original version as well). But honestly... when I shoot portraits outdoors I seldom actually use f/2.8... I'm usually at least at f/4 or above. I'd second the recommendation for the f/4 version of the lens. It's a fantastic lens and it fits your budget.

 

[DanOstergren]

In my opinion, the Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 is the best lens Canon offers for portrait photography. It's ridiculously affordable, and in my opinion it performs like a luxury lens. It's lightweight and small, and the build quality is great. Auto focus is fast and accurate. It's SHARP, even wide open, although I believe this lens really shines between f/2.8 and f/4.5. Color fringing is minimal in most cases, and can be fixed easily in post using ACR, Lightroom or most other RAW editing software. The cost of this lens is half of your budget, leaving you with enough money to pick up another lens, such as the Canon 50mm f/1.4, which is another great lens for portraits that include more of the surrounding environment.

I had a 135mm f/2 for a long time and liked it, but eventually I discovered that the 85mm f/1.8 does the exact same job with more versatility for a lot less money.

Also, Canon's 100mm prime lenses are also great for portraits (including the macro version), and would give you a nice mix of the effects shared by the 85mm and 135mm focal lengths.