Best Portrait Lens?

[musclepump]

I'm shooting a friends wedding and will need a lens for their portraits; I think I've narrowed it down to two lenses, which do you think would be best? I shoot with a Canon 20D, this will be outdoors.

This one - http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=15447b64e3161ff/shopdata/0020_Lenses/0010_Zoom/0010_Digital+Zoom/product_details.shopscript?article=0200_Sigma%2BZo om%2BWide%2BAngle%2B18-50mm%2Bf%3D26slash%3D3B2%3D252E8%2BEX%2BDC%2BAutof ocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2BCanon%2BDigital%2BEOS%2B%3D28S G1850F28CA%3D29&pc=9&rnum=1334267571

Or this one -
http://www.sigma4less.com/sess/utn;jsessionid=15447b64e3161ff/shopdata/0020_Lenses/0010_Zoom/0010_Digital+Zoom/product_details.shopscript?article=0090_Sigma%2BZo om%2BWide%2BAngle%2B17-70mm%2Bf%3D26slash%3D3B2%3D252E8-4%3D252E5%2BDC%2BMacro%2BAutofocus%2BLens%2Bfor%2B Canon%2BDigital%2BEOS%2B%3D28SG1770F24CA%3D29

Thanks in advance!

[calicokat]

Welcome to the forum. I would say we need to know what lenses you already have before recommending anything else. Of the two lenses you posted, I'd say the 18-50 F/2.8 would be your best bet in a wedding as its 2.8 throughout the zoom range where the 17-70 changes from 2.8 to 4.5

[musclepump]

Thanks for the suggestion!

I have a Sigma that's 20-135, I think, at f/4.5-5.6. I have the kit lens (gag) that came with my camera, 18-55mm f/4.5-5.6, and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8 that I use for sports--that's my baby :-D

[garypasz]

of the 2 lenes, for $20 more 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC is the way to go.

[musclepump]

of the 2 lenes, for $20 more 18-50mm f/2.8 EX DC is the way to go.

I'm also open to suggestions if anyone thinks they know of a better lens for my needs :)

[calicokat]

I'm also open to suggestions if anyone thinks they know of a better lens for my needs :)

what kind of a budget are you on. there is the Canon 24-70 F/2.8L for $1,149.00, the Canon EF-S 17-55 F/2.8 IS for $1,179.00

[GNMink]

I'd look at getting the 50mm 1.4 next, with a crop body camera it makes a terrific portrait lens. They don't get much sharper!

[musclepump]

I'd like something with a zoom, so I have shyed away from the set length likes the 50mm. I don't have much money, so I need multi-purpose; my budget is really $400 or less, which is why I've looked toward Sigma instead of the Canon lenses.

[SuzyView]

I just did a shoot with the 50 1.4 exclusively and the pictures were stunning. Of course, the beauty I was shooting wasn't anything too shabby. She's 17 and gorgeous. I love that lens. The bokeh is perfect, so wonderful. Can't post, sorry, she's under age.

[SuzyView]

I thought zooms were the way to go as well, but I can't say enough about the 50 1.4 and I use foot zoom. I decided to get off my butt and go for it! And it is truly wonderful. I didn't use my 85 1.8, which is my favorite, because the room was small.

[musclepump]

I just did a shoot with the 50 1.4 exclusively and the pictures were stunning. Of course, the beauty I was shooting wasn't anything too shabby. She's 17 and gorgeous. I love that lens. The bokeh is perfect, so wonderful. Can't post, sorry, she's under age.

bokeh?

And if you can't post because she's underage, what kind of pictures are these? :eek:

[musclepump]

I was looking at Sigma4less.com and I don't see the 50mm 1.4. They're the cheapest place I know, too... bummer :)

[calicokat]

I was looking at Sigma4less.com and I don't see the 50mm 1.4. They're the cheapest place I know, too... bummer :)

Here ya go, www.pricegrabber.com (http://www.pricegrabber.com)

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=588202/zip_code=93063/

[musclepump]

Here ya go, www.pricegrabber.com (http://www.pricegrabber.com)

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_getprod.php/masterid=588202/zip_code=93063/

Thanks! I'll bookmark that for the future. I think I need the wide-angle on the other one for now though because of the family shots I'll be taking.

[calicokat]

I always check pricegrabber first as sort of a reference for pricing, and usually, they will send you to the best prices.

[musclepump]

I always check pricegrabber first as sort of a reference for pricing, and usually, they will send you to the best prices.

Absolutely. That's where I found Sigma4less.com :D

[musclepump]

Ok, with 2 day delivery, it was $403. That's much better than the $499 plus 8.8% tax Kits Camera wanted!

[Jon]

bokeh?

And if you can't post because she's underage, what kind of pictures are these? :eek:In order to post pictures of minors, you generally need parental consent. This is especially true with any formal portraiture, but you'll see it be an issue with youth sports as well.

[musclepump]

In order to post pictures of minors, you generally need parental consent. This is especially true with any formal portraiture, but you'll see it be an issue with youth sports as well.

Ah, that makes sense. All of the events I shoot have waivered rights when the kids sign up for the league/event, so I suppose I hadn't been aware. Good on ya :)

[Nightcrawler]

I would definitely suggest the 18-50 f2.8. The 70-200 and 18-50 would make a great pair.

[grego]

In order to post pictures of minors, you generally need parental consent. This is especially true with any formal portraiture, but you'll see it be an issue with youth sports as well.

As far as I knew, if they were in public domain, and you took it and put it on your online site(like your portfolio), you had fair use to post it and use it for those means(non-commercial). Or editorial use, which would be the only way it could be printed.

[EOS_JD]

To be honest I can't see why you're not going to use the 70-200 for portraits Take an extra few steps back and you'll get some beautiful bokeh and sharp subjects. If you can't do that, then the Tamron 28-75 or the Sigma 18-50 (in that order)

[grego]

To be honest I can't see why you're not going to use the 70-200 for portraits Take an extra few steps back and you'll get some beautiful bokeh and sharp subjects. If you can't do that, then the Tamron 28-75 or the Sigma 18-50 (in that order)

Way better optics in that 70-200 than those latter two mentioned lens. The 70-200 series comes as close to primes as you can get.

[musclepump]

I don't know how much room I'm going to have to work with, so the 70-200 may not end up feasible, especially when I need wide shots of family.

Also, since I have a small home studio, I figure the 18-50 could make a good lens to have at home for that, which the 70-200 most definitely won't.

[grego]

I don't know how much room I'm going to have to work with, so the 70-200 may not end up feasible, especially when I need wide shots of family.

Also, since I have a small home studio, I figure the 18-50 could make a good lens to have at home for that, which the 70-200 most definitely won't.

Well if you are going to focus on portraits, the 50mm and 35mm would make good focal lengths. 50 1.8 or 1.4 and 35 2 or 1.4

[musclepump]

Well I bought the 18-50 now for the versatility on some suggestions; and have bookmarked the 50mm 1.4 for the future when I get some more money and can really focus on the portraits. Right now I'm just taking what I can to make money, and this job here is actually gratis so since it isn't really a paid for lens, I wanted something I could use for various things, too.

[grego]

Well I bought the 18-50 now for the versatility on some suggestions; and have bookmarked the 50mm 1.4 for the future when I get some more money and can really focus on the portraits. Right now I'm just taking what I can to make money, and this job here is actually gratis so since it isn't really a paid for lens, I wanted something I could use for various things, too.

If you can get quality light, the 18-50 is strongest around f/8-f/11.

[musclepump]

How much of a difference is there between f/1.4 and 1.8? I see the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 for $79.95, and the 1.4USM for $310. Is it just the USM causing the huge jump or is the .4 difference very noticeable?

[grego]

How much of a difference is there between f/1.4 and 1.8? I see the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 for $79.95, and the 1.4USM for $310. Is it just the USM causing the huge jump or is the .4 difference very noticeable?

It's more than just the difference in light. The 50 1.4 is the better lens at 1.8. It has more accurate auto focus. If you were depending on a lens, the 1.4 would be the more dependable. It has a better build, micro usm(not the newest but still better than none), better in low light, and delievers better bokeh(better background blur- has has more aperture blades which allow for a more creamy blur).

I'd say the 50 1.4 is a good investment which will do you good for a long while.

[musclepump]

I'm hoping I really do need the wide angle, because if I don't I'm going to be real upset I spent that money when I could have had the 50mm 1.4 :\

[GNMink]

How much of a difference is there between f/1.4 and 1.8? I see the Canon EF 50mm 1.8 for $79.95, and the 1.4USM for $310. Is it just the USM causing the huge jump or is the .4 difference very noticeable?

Major difference in build and the USM.

The 50 1.8 is all plastic (even the mount) and not quite as sharp, but for the money an excellent value

[grego]

I'm hoping I really do need the wide angle, because if I don't I'm going to be real upset I spent that money when I could have had the 50mm 1.4 :\

Get the 50 1.8 and the 18 - 55 then. You can always sell your 50 1.8 and get back just about all the cost of it if not all of it(i've seen it sell for more than what its worth).

[musclepump]

I already put in the order. Wedding is Friday. Had to put in 2 day delivery so I'll have it Thursday.

[kevbailey]

I bought the 50mm 1.8, but will probably be upgrading to the 1.4. I am not unhappy with the lens, but there is a definate quality difference between the two lenses. Maybe in a few weeks i can scrape up some extra $$$.

Kevin

[SuzyView]

Thanks for explaining why I don't post the minors I take pictures of, Jon. :)

Funny thing about portraits, a photographer has to experiment with different lenses to really decide what works best for him/her. Tonight I printed out 5 different poses for my student that I thought she'd like. My 18 year old son picked the least wonderful of the 5, but I didn't say anything. Then my student came over to see her pictures and she picked out the same one! :( That is the only photo without any bokeh and the background is rather boring. The other 4 were quite good and well focused with great emphasis on the eyes. Nope.

After seeing so many beautiful portraits here in the forum, I can work on the angles and poses I've seen and decide how much to crop and how to center. For those reasons, and some others, I still think you made the right choice for you now. Get used to the lenses you buy, if you are happy, great. If you think you can do better, look around and find another lens that might do the trick. It's all about growth and using our tools to get the capture we want. Go for it!

[grego]

Thanks for explaining why I don't post the minors I take pictures of, Jon. :)

Funny thing about portraits, a photographer has to experiment with different lenses to really decide what works best for him/her. Tonight I printed out 5 different poses for my student that I thought she'd like. My 18 year old son picked the least wonderful of the 5, but I didn't say anything. Then my student came over to see her pictures and she picked out the same one! :( That is the only photo without any bokeh and the background is rather boring. The other 4 were quite good and well focused with great emphasis on the eyes. Nope.



Tough crowd. :lol:

[SuzyView]

Teenagers. :)

[benca1]

I'm shooting a friends wedding and will need a lens for their portraits; I think I've narrowed it down to two lenses, which do you think would be best? I shoot with a Canon 20D, this will be outdoors.

Thanks in advance!

Musclepump, you don't know me from <insert something gross and funny>, but I was here with that same question a month or so ago. I read a lot (fred miranda, photozone, lenstests, company sites, google searches, MTF charts, potn, etc), I compared images, blah blah blah.

I chose the 18-50 over most everything else, including the Canon L 17-40. I'm happy to talk you ear off as to why, I'm happy to bore the living bejeesus out of you about this and that. the only lens I would ever buy to replace it would be the 1200 dollar Canon 17-55 which, in many respects, is probably the best wedding lens there is. But 370 bucks versus 1200...

Buy it from sigma4less too.

There's nothing like the proof in the pudding so visit these links, then the third one:

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=30372
Example pictures, and really check this link out

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=28502
Yeah, and people won't buy Sigma because they head of some 'focusing issues!' With the money I saved I bought a new car.

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/17401850

On yeah, and this:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=232&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

This last link is made up of user reviews from fred miranda. Now pay close attention because this lens either scores a 9 or 10, or a 2. All of the low scores are just people annoyed with a focusing issue. In other words, not one bad review on the optical ability. Furthermore, look at the dates of the bad reviews... (and all of them were fixed by Sigma, but people don't edit their reviews.. you only got one chance to make an impression!)

This has been a public service announcement brought to you a cheap discriminating jerk

[musclepump]

Musclepump, you don't know me from <insert something gross and funny>, but I was here with that same question a month or so ago. I read a lot (fred miranda, photozone, lenstests, company sites, google searches, MTF charts, potn, etc), I compared images, blah blah blah.

I chose the 18-50 over most everything else, including the Canon L 17-40. I'm happy to talk you ear off as to why, I'm happy to bore the living bejeesus out of you about this and that. the only lens I would ever buy to replace it would be the 1200 dollar Canon 17-55 which, in many respects, is probably the best wedding lens there is. But 370 bucks versus 1200...

Buy it from sigma4less too.

There's nothing like the proof in the pudding so visit these links, then the third one:

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=30372
Example pictures, and really check this link out

http://www.photosig.com/go/photos/browse?id=28502
Yeah, and people won't buy Sigma because they head of some 'focusing issues!' With the money I saved I bought a new car.

http://www.pbase.com/lightrules/17401850

On yeah, and this:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/showproduct.php?product=232&sort=7&cat=37&page=2

This last link is made up of user reviews from fred miranda. Now pay close attention because this lens either scores a 9 or 10, or a 2. All of the low scores are just people annoyed with a focusing issue. In other words, not one bad review on the optical ability. Furthermore, look at the dates of the bad reviews... (and all of them were fixed by Sigma, but people don't edit their reviews.. you only got one chance to make an impression!)

This has been a public service announcement brought to you a cheap discriminating jerk

Wow, that's some good work! Thanks for posting this, it makes me feel a lot more confident in my purchase!

I just hope Sigma4Less really gets it shipped out today...

[benca1]

Wow, that's some good work! Thanks for posting this, it makes me feel a lot more confident in my purchase!

I just hope Sigma4Less really gets it shipped out today...

You're welcome and sigma4less rocks.

[jmgglauber]

How come nobody mentioned the new Tamron 17-50 XR Di-II lens here yet. Photozone has given it a good review. It's light, fast, and under $500, uses 67 instead of 7xmm filters (much cheaper) and gives pro quality pictures. It's the next lens on my list after I get the 100 macro. I just played with it today for the first time and it autofocuses great. Pair that with the 28-75 2.8 and you have a combo for everything, almost.

[musclepump]

You're welcome and sigma4less rocks.

Except I don't think they shipped my lens like they said...

oh crap.

[benca1]

Except I don't think they shipped my lens like they said...

oh crap.

I originally ordered the 24-70 EX. Then I called them a day later, since it happened shipped yet, to change it to the 17-70. Then I read more.. bad idea... called them one more time and changed it again to the 18-50. Whew. They were cool about it, and shipped it to me, allthewhile, my online processing page claimed it to be a 24-70.

This is a stupid story, sure, but it just looks like there's typically a day or two delay. I don't know why, but it sure worked out for me! ;)

[musclepump]

whew, the did ship it.