Portrait lenses?

[merp]

Ight - one more time..opinion on a good protrait lense around 300-400? I have just been searching all over and I just cant decide on which one to get/lack of understanding information, so I come to you guys =) if their arent any bang for your buck protrait lenses then what? =X

:)

[Hermeto]

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EF-85mm-f-1.8-USM-Lens-Review.aspx

http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/Canon-Portrait-Lens.aspx

[merp]

=) who would of thought all I had to do was google it =X

[Hermeto]

...or check out our own forum...

-=Top 10=- Recommended Portrait Lenses (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58577)

-=FAQ=- EF LENS FAQ -READ FIRST- Before asking "What Lens?" (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=86975)

[merp]

easier this way =)

[Wilt]

Ight - one more time..opinion on a good protrait lense around 300-400? I have just been searching all over and I just cant decide on which one to get/lack of understanding information, so I come to you guys =) if their arent any bang for your buck protrait lenses then what? =X

:)

Please provide info about what part of the world you are from, and which monetary units you refer to...US dollars, Australian dollars, pounds, Euro, beads, shrunken heads?

[canonphotog]

Old school methods have the 85mm and 135mm prime lenses as best for portraits. If you're shooting an aps-c sensor body, then the 50mm f/1.4 fits your price profile and will provide performance close to an 85mm lens on a FF sensor. (not the 85mm f/1.2) It is also known for good contrast, color and sharpness, not to mention that a 50mm f/1.4 is about as fast as you're going to get without spending a great deal more than $400.

Ken

[John_B]

merp,
On a 1.6 DSLR like yours a Canon 50mm f/1.4 is probably the best :) Like canonphotog said it will perform like an 85 f/1.8 on a FF sensor.

[Jonathan Consiglio]

50mm 1.4 or 85 1.8
www.the-digital-picture.com
I have the 50 1.4 and rent the 85 1.2L now and then.. Both work great on Full Frame and APS-C (1.6 crop). I've used the 85 1.8 and it's very nice also. The 50 is a bit better for full body portraits, but will do headshots just fine. The 85 will do headshots, and head and shoulder shots nicely, but you have to step back a bit, especially with a APS-C sensor!

Both are regarded as the "right" focal length for portraits, but I'd say go with the 50 1.4 if you are using a 30D or less.. The 50 is a very sharp lens stopped down to 2.0.. The bokeh (background blur) is great! Same on the 85..

Go to the link I posted. They have great reviews on ALL Canon lenses.. plus they have detaied examples and pictures.. Either will be fine.. Good luck!

[DrPablo]

Between my 50 prime, my 85 prime, and my 70-200 f/4L, I'd actually pick the 70-200 as my favorite portrait lens (on a 1.6x body). The sharpness of the 70-200 at f/4 is outstanding, and at these focal lengths the DOF is sufficiently shallow that I have never felt the need for a wider aperture simply for compositional purposes. An f/2.8 lens will give you one extra stop, and an f/1.8 lens will give you 2 1/3 extra stops over the f/4, so the lighting is the major issue if you want to take indoor portraits (esp without flash). If that's the case, your best options are a 50 (1.8 or 1.4), 85 (1.8 ), and don't forget the great 100 f/2 and 100 f/2.8 macro.

I'm not saying that the 70-200 is a true substitute for getting a 135/2L or an 85/1.8, but if you already have a 70-200 L-series lens (or even a long telephoto whose quality you trust) you may want to give it some time before deciding whether you need to invest in an additional lens.

I like longer focal lengths for portraits, incidentally. These portraits were taken with the 70-200 f/4L at f/7.1 and 200mm zoom.

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/60697705.jpg

http://www.pbase.com/drpablo74/image/60698085.jpg

[SuzyView]

Another vote for the 50 1.4 or 85 1.8. Both are amazing for close-up portraits in any lighting situation for a very reasonable price.

[Jonathan Consiglio]

Yes, the 70-200 is a great portrait lens. I use 70-200 IS 2.8 all the time.. I also use my 24-70 2.8 for portraits.. In that case, I'd say buy the 85 or 50 1.2L if you're going for the best portrait lens...

But... the question was about a good portrait lens for $300 - $400...

So in that case.... it's going to be between the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8..
Like I said, if it's an APS-C, I'd go with the 50 1.4.. but the 85 is also nice. Both are going to be on par with the 70-200's image quality. The 70-200's only advantage is focal length.. I have it, and I still end up using my 50mm for at a controlled distance (not candid)..

[merp]

ah thank you all for the info!! I'm glad to say I understood what you guys are talking about. I will go check out the 50mm 1.4 at my local camera shop- i am a bit confused about all this APS-C sensor stuff? can anyone clear it up in lamen terms? Safe to say I am beginner =/ I read some stuff on dpreview about it, but I didn't quite gasp the information given in the read.

lol and Wilt im from USA so dollars would be good =)

[Jonathan Consiglio]

The APS-C sensor is used in the Rebel, 20D and 30D.. When you hear about the 1.6 Crop, that's the sensor that has it.. It is not Full Frame.

Meaning that a 50mm lens on a 30D has the Field of View of 80mm on a Full Frame, or film SLR.. It doesn't really change anything over a Full Frame camera, the difference would be like taking a 8x10 print and cutting about 1 1/2" off each side. This isn't exact, but should give you an idea.

50mm is still 50mm, there's just a little less to the recorded image.. That's why they make EF-S lenses, which I NEVER suggest buying..

Stick with the lenses we talk about, and you'll be fine.. As long as you don't buy an EF-S lens, your lens will be good on any camera you eventually upgrade to..

Good luck, and post back with your decision...

[DrPablo]

More specifically, "full frame" refers to a sensor the same size as a 35mm film frame, i.e. 24x36mm. The 1Ds Mark II and the 5D are your digital choices in this size.

APS was a film format smaller than 35mm. Most digital SLRs are APS-C, which is a 15x24mm sensor size. Among Canon's recent cameras there are the Rebels (300D, 350D, 400D), the D60, 10D, 20D and the 30D.

So in linear dimensions the APS-C cameras are 1.6x smaller, and in total sensor area they are 2.4x smaller.

Because any given lens is casting an fixed image circle (which changes based on the focus and (with zooms) focal length), the sensor upon which it's cast determines the portion of the image circle that is recorded. This means that using a smaller sensor is effectively a 'crop and zoom' of what the same lens would produce on a larger sensor.

All this stuff is irrelevant to you if 35mm film isn't a 'reference point' for you. But what you'll see (correctly) written is that on APS-C a 100mm lens gives you the same field of view as a 160mm lens would on full frame.


EF-S lenses, again, are only compatible with APS-C, because their image circle is too small for full frame. Canon has been able to sell certain lenses for much less money than they would cost otherwise, because they can use less glass in their manufacture.

Now, I don't really understand the above recommendation about not buying EF-S lenses. If the argument is that you might some day own a full frame camera with which an EF-S lens wouldn't be compatible, realize that the cheapest full frame digital camera is between $2500 and $3200 depending on what deal you get, and there's absolutely no prospect of that price coming down anytime soon. So unless you're planning on using your lenses on a 35mm film SLR, or you're really looking into a 5D or a 1DsMkII in the near future, there isn't much downside to buying an EF-S lens. Sure, in 5 years there may be cheaper full frame cameras available to consumers for $1000 or under. But in the interim 5 years, you should get what best suits your shooting needs and budget -- and spread out over 5 years, the price of most lenses seems rather small. If the argument is that there are better alternatives to any EF-S lens, then that's a personal matter of comparing and contrasting your different options. There are cheap EF-S lenses like the 18-55 kit lens, mid-range like the 60 f/2.8 macro and 17-85 IS, and high end like the 10-22 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS. No general statement about EF-S lenses can really encompass all of these, other than their camera compatibility.

[Wilt]

For clarification of some statements made...

Old school methods have the 85mm and 135mm prime lenses as best for portraits...

Old school methods ON 35mm FILM have the 85mm and 135mm prime lenses as best for portraits from waist level thru headshots.


I have the 50 1.4 and rent the 85 1.2L now and then.. Both work great on Full Frame and APS-C (1.6 crop). ...Both are regarded as the "right" focal length for portraits...

Both are regarded as the "right" focal length for portraits ON APS-C format cameras, when you want waist level thru headshot focal lengths.

[Titus213]

Love that 85mm f1.8 (yup, it's a bit long on a 20D) but I'm surprised that in a recent poll I just read that the 70-200 f2.8 IS is so popular as a portrait lens. I'll have to give that one a try.

[merp]

:) Consiglio/DrPablo thank you verry much. Definitely cleared a little bit of confusion up. Thank all of you for the help, this stuff is just getting better and better :D I have a pretty good idea what direction im going in now =) I'd like to get my hands on a 5D some day. After I'm done beating the death out of this 400D =) I figure in around 2years or so.


~thanks again!