Portrait Lens suggestions, given current collection

[Gavjenks]

Hi, I am looking for some input on a next lens purchase. Among the lenses I own that I would most often consider using for portraiture are:

Canon 6D
50mm f/1.8
135mm f/2.8
24-105mm f/4 (usually only use this if space/perspective demand it)
Possibly a lensbaby now and then (35mm f/2.5 although wide open comes with some serious side effects)


I have up to about $1000 to spend, and I am considering the following options (pretty much all used sell for about the same price of approx. my budget):
* A fast 35mm prime
* A fast 85mm prime
* A 70-200 2.8 (with IS if 3rd party like Sigma)
* A Canon 45mm or 90mm f/2.8 tilt shift



I am currently leaning toward a 90mm tilt shift as the most versatile and "added value" addition to my collection. Able to do reasonable close or wide crops, probably sharper than the 70-200 @ 90 (if it even matters at that point), pretty fast, in a focal length in between my two primes, and obviously the main reason: tilt shift for some pretty unique portraits. And although it is much slower than something like an 85 1.4, tilting the focal plane can actually potentially do even better subject isolation than a 1.4 (with limits and side effects, though). By all means talk me out of it if you disagree!

Note that I also do own a large format field camera, though, which means I can already (slowly and inconveniently) do some of the tilt shift stuff in portraits if I want (and to greater extremes), so it is in a sense a little bit redundant. But with massive digital advantages for anything other than whimsical artsy shoots.

 

[runnah]

I have this one 85mm 1.8 and love it. $419 Great value for money, fast and sharp. I do get a bit of chromatic aberrations but that is easily fixed in post.
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens 2519A003 B&H Photo Video

I do have the 35mm 2.0 IS but I mostly use it for video and not for portraits.


Granted neither is an L lens but for posed portraits both work great.

 

[DSRay]

85 prime

 

[ronlane]

I have this one 85mm 1.8 and love it. $419 Great value for money, fast and sharp. I do get a bit of chromatic aberrations but that is easily fixed in post.
Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM Lens 2519A003 B&H Photo Video

I do have the 35mm 2.0 IS but I mostly use it for video and not for portraits.


Granted neither is an L lens but for posed portraits both work great.

85 prime

Agree 85mm prime.

 

[Gavjenks]

Note that there are two (nearly) 85mm primes mentioned here.
On the one hand, a simple 85 1.4. On the other hand, the 90mm (prime) 2.8 tilt shift I mentioned favoring.
I assume you all mean the basic prime. If so, why do you favor that option?

Isolation seems to be about equally powerful at 1.4 versus at 2.8 but leveraged the extra two stops using tilt:
Example from Sigma 85 1.4: Untitled | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Example from Canon 90 2.8 TS: Yesterday... | Flickr - Photo Sharing!
Granted, you HAVE to tilt in some direction to do that with the tilt shift. But still. What is the 85 1.4 buying me particularly that makes it such a better choice? Considering the much higher flexibility of the other (and 3x better magnification btw). the 1.4 is $200 cheaper though...

I do definitely think it's between those two at least, from your feedback.

 

[runnah]

Never used a PC lens so no opinion.

I would opt for canon glass over sigma. The extra stop is not very well suited for head shots. When I use my 1.8 for a chest up shot I tend to shoot around 2.8 because at lower stops the dof is too shallow and I end up getting oof noses.

 

[trojancast]

Mmm, I think you've already made up your mind, no?

 

[Derrel]

Photoshop's new fake tilt/shift effect is not too bad...but a "real" Canon T/S lens would add a lot...I've wondered off and on for several years, now and again, about the feasibility of buying a 45mm T/S and using a converter for portraiture. I really am of the opinion that for most portraiture, almost ANY modern lens is adequately sharp. I don't think I can name a lens that is not "sharp enough" for pleasing portraits. I think sharpness is actually overrated and overblown for portraiture. My Nikon 60mm macro lens for example...ugly portrait lens...it's TOO sharp, and the image is too saturated...it has this hyperrealistic, sliders-slid-too-far look to its images, compared to other lenses.

Anyway...wondering about a 45mm T/S for landscapes and natural-world scenes, and maybe some converter action to knock some of the sharpness DOWN for portraiture.

On balance, a 90mm T/S with a bit of Scheimpflug action is a well-proved way to get much better depth of field in many nature/landscape type scenarios, and that cannot be faked in Photoshop...it's gotta be focus-stacked, and that's not always do-able on instantaneous, one-shot shots.

No offense, but tilt/shift portraits look cliche to me, almost every time I see them...I think that "look" is already overdone, and it can be simulated fairly well in software. Buuuut, the 90mm T/S for other uses would be sweet, it would. And its a very high-performance lens, for sure.

It's difficult to know for sure what, exactly, the biggest priority is for you, and then what the secondary priority is? Versatility? Subject "isolation". I mean if all you want is "isolation", you could get that cheaply from various low-cost manual focus lenses. I'm not sure what the diaphragm situation is with the 45 and 90 T/S; is it an automatic diaphragm? electronically controlled? Or manual?

 

[Gavjenks]

Mmm, I think you've already made up your mind, no?

Naw! Actually I think I'm gonna go with the normal 85mm. =)

Derrel, the TSE lenses have auto aperture but manual focus. But yeah... I don't really think that all the tilt photos look cliche, however they look close enough to cliche that I don't want to be FORCED to tilt to pretend like I have a wider aperture.

That plus already just being able to use my view camera if I really want to for such portraits, or for landscapes, I think the natively wider aperture 85 is probably a better choice.



Thanks all

 

[krbimaging]

I agree with others the 85 would be an ideal choice. While I have no experence with it my research tells me the 85 is the ideal portrait lens. My sorces are many so trying to list them would be difficult. Back in my Film days I used a 100mm that was great for it. The longer dof I got with the 100 was nice to have. I think the Tilt shifts are going to get "revamped" so I am holding off on buying those. The 85 will probably never change unless it gets a better IS system.

GL in your desission. review what you end up getting.

 

[sk66]

I'm going to say the 70-200 for the longer end and other uses. I don't see the 85mm being of great benefit unless you really want/need the wide aperture.
Yeah, I know, "the 85mm is an amazing lens"....

A TS-E is not an easy tool to use, especially at longer FL's. For me, focusing one optimally is a 3-5 step process... way too slow for portrait work. Using it to get a shallower DOF will be "easier," but not "easy" IMO.

 

[D-B-J]

As much as I love my 85mm 1.8G for portraiture (granted, it's a Nikon), I would suggest the 70-200 2.8-- it's so much more versatile than the 85, and the isolation with the 85 1.8 can be achieved similarly with the 70-200 2.8 @ 200mm. I would not have bought the 85 had I not already had the 70-200 range covered. Just food for thought.

Best,
Jake

 

[Gavjenks]

I went with a Rokinon 85mm f/1.4, which just arrived today. Pretty happy with it so far.

70-200 costs almost 4x as much money. Even without image stabilization versions or for a 3rd party one with. And I don't shoot any hectic weddings or anything where I really need a zoom, so decided against it, as the convenience would largely be wasted.

I think I'm settling on:
-85 1.4 I already got.
-a 14mm 2.8 not for portraiture but just fun with some of the massive $$$ savings.
-a split prism focusing screen (which helps for 3 lenses - 14mm, 85mm, and 135mm I already have)
-putting $400 in the bank

 

[astroNikon]

Keep us updated on your thoughts on the Rikonon 85/1.4 I've thought of getting that lens too for the 1.4.

 

[Gavjenks]

1) It's pretty much impossible to focus on anything even slightly moving (0% hit rate). I may get that to above 0% if I do ambush focusing or something. But maybe not. DOF at 10 feet is like a couple of inches.
2) Stuff standing still I still suck at (20% hit rate under any sort of pressure) but will probably get better
3) I don't have the split focus screen installed yet, though. Still just the factory one. That will probably help tremendously. I'm guessing practice + that could let me hit focus on still subjects the vast majority of the time.
4) Live view zoomed in is slow and annoying and requires faster shutter due to the unstable pose you need, but brings my focus hit rate to about 70%.
5) The lens is reasonably sharp but I'm not writing home about the sharpness. No idea how well it compares to something like the Canon 1.8. Reviewers trying both seem to think the answer is "quite well," and looking at 100% crops online, I don't think my version is a dud or anything.
6) Very prone to CA on shiny edges wide open. Not too surprising / wasn't expecting miracles / probably also happens in other brands.
7) Bokeh is very pretty
8) Build quality and focus butteriness are excellent
9) No half-stop click between 1.4-2 is annoying. You can still put it halfway, but not with a click / takes more mental effort.
10) Much smaller and more compact than I thought it would be.
11) The camera overexposes stuff at 1.4. I assume this is just a thing about 1.4 not the lens. First one I've owned.