Advice on a portrait lens for 10 D

[steve nunn]

BAsic question for a beginner. I am looking for a portrait lens to take pictures of my kids - both in doors and out. What are my options and the costs.

I'd appreciate any advice.

Cheers

Steve

[chris.bailey]

My favourite is the 50mm 1.4 due to its absolute sharpness. The 1.8 is a lot cheaper and pretty much just as sharp but without the USM and build quality of the 1.4. I also use the 17-40 and even the 28-135. The 50 is my favourite though and at 1.6 crop comes out at ~80mm which is one of the text book 35mm lense focal distances for portraits.

[photography By Evangelos]

85 1.8 EF USM all the way. It is very well suited for this type of work. It is super sharp. I use it all the time.

[Bruce Watson]

I would agree with Chris, the 50 mm focal length is a nice portrait lens on a 10D/300.

The 1.8 MK II is the best bargain of glass for the dollar out there.

Great for natural light and control for shallow DOF.

Here is a link to a portrait I took with one:

http://www.hpphoto.com/servlet/LinkPhoto?GUID=1e6519b7-587a-22df-211e-6bff586b59b3&size=

Cheers,

Bruce

[KennyG]

The 85mm 1.8 is as close as you will get to an L lens without the red stripe and the price tag. It is the best value for money and quality portrait lens Canon make in my opinion. It is followed closely by the 50mm 1.4.

For a low price lens, the 50mm 1.8 MK-II can't be beaten. Not quite as sharp as the above, but good enough for most folks.

[DaveG]

BAsic question for a beginner. I am looking for a portrait lens to take pictures of my kids - both in doors and out. What are my options and the costs.

I'd appreciate any advice.

Cheers

Steve

I'll start off by using the 10D focal lengths not 35 mm ones. The 50 mm lens is a good choice for portraits. It'll give a nice perspective and will still give you enough room to use it inside. An 85 mm lens is just too long for inside portraits with a 10D.

Now having said that you have to get into your definition of what a portrait is. The "portrait lens", something in the 50-60 mm range, is for head and shoulder or 2/3 body shots, and that's why I'd reccomend the 50. But if you are looking to make interesting photographs of your children then almost any lens will do.

I've used a 300 mm lens (and all these examples are in 35 mm format) to do couples shots as they walk down the beach. This lens (a 2.8 ) lets me use lots of shutterspeed and will blur out the background. I often used a 180 to shoot people leaning up against a building. I also use a 20 mm lens to include the subject's surroundings in portraits.

In any case all of these lenses help me tell the story of the personality and that to me is a portrait, so by definition all of these lenses MUST be portrait lenses. So don't pigeonhole a lens. A moderate wide angle is NOT a landscape lens or a 200 f2.8 a sport lens. You can use them for landscapes or sports, but you can also turn them on their head and use the 200 for landscapes and the 24 for action.

Subsequently a lens I'd suggest for "portraits" would be the 24-85. It's kind of slow but very sharp and certainly affordable. You can use the traditional portrait focal lengths with the 24-85, but you can go longer or shorter as your vision dictates.

[maderito]

. . .In any case all of these lenses help me tell the story of the personality and that to me is a portrait, so by definition all of these lenses MUST be portrait lenses. So don't pigeonhole a lens. A moderate wide angle is NOT a landscape lens or a 200 f2.8 a sport lens. You can use them for landscapes or sports, but you can also turn them on their head and use the 200 for landscapes and the 24 for action. . .
DaveG,

As you know, the "which portrait lens" question comes up all the time. I've bookmarked your reply. It's the best on the topic I've read to date.

[dennykyser]

I have used 100mm for years but with the 1.6 crop of the 10D is too long (focal length) so went with the 50mm. I have owned both and they are both sharp. I did opt for the f/1.4 for the build quality and when you look at it like this, great portrait lens for $300 range, cant go wrong, its worth it.

Here is one taken with the f/1.8

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/51/98/1139851-c384d46215e00840.jpg

[dennykyser]

http://photos.photosig.com/photos/90/13/1161390-cca0fbd96b8ed37e.jpg

[justme_dc]

Without a doubt, the 85mm f1.8. The 50mm is far less flattering as a portrait lens. the 50mm is a good all around lens and I wouldn't be without mine but the 85mm is amazing. Besides the 85mm is arguably the best nonL prime they have.

[dennykyser]

85mm is a great lens if you have the room. If you are in small area you may find yourself cramped and only be able to get head shots, I loved the 85 with my A2's and Elan 7E, but remember the 85 turns into a 136mm on a 10D, and a 50mm turns into a 80mm. That is why I like the 50, gives me the same lenght (about) than the 85 did on my other bodies.

If you have the room the 85 and the 100 primes are both great lenses.

[steve nunn]

Thanks so much for all of the advice. Very useful!

Steve

[stevelew]

I would say that the 85 1.8 is a great buy for a super sharp portrait lens. If you're only shooting one person and head shots. At low F stops the bokeh is beautiful. If there' more than one person then the 50 is also a great lens. For a zoom the 24-70L covers a lot ground for groups to head shots. After saying all that my favorite lens is my 85 1.8 because it focuses fast and deadly sharp. Depth of field at f4 or bigger is only inches. My dog's nose is always out of focus. It's that long snout!!! Best of Luck choosing.

Steve
17-40, 24-70, 85 1.8 70-200 IS. 10D

[maderito]

. . .my favorite lens is my 85 1.8 because it focuses fast and deadly sharp.
I'm a member of the the 85/f1.8 fan club. It's also my favorite lens and I'll concoct any excuse to use it. It's light, small, and always finds a comfortable position in my camera bag.

For portraits when using the 85/1.8, I just move my feet until I've framed the subject appropriately. Sometimes, that means moving outside, but that opens up a whole new world of shooting possibilities. As noted, you have to be careful and stop down (f 5.6 is my favorite aperture for tight shots).

[horqua]

If I remember correctly, back in the old days of film, the rule of thumb for selection of a lens for portrait work was to choose a lens equal to the milimeter size of the frame produced by the camera. Thus, 135 mm lens for 135mm cameras and 120mm lens for square (6x6cm) medium format and 180mm for rectangular (6x7cm) cameras. A 50mm lens on a 135mm camera was considered a "normal" lens, good for everyday, all-round use. An 80mm is the "normal" lens for my Hasselblads but I use a 150mm as the portrait lens for my Hassy (although I'd prefer a 120). A portrait lens needs to combine the elements of color, contrast, and sharpness. "Sharp" and "in focus" are not necessarily the same thing. A supersharp lens is generally not a good portrait lens. You don't want to use a supersharp lens on an elderly subject where the sharpness will over-emphasize the texture of aged/wrinkled skin. You don't want to apply a supersharp on a client with acne or severely pock marked skin. Why do you think professional photographers and cinematographers spent vast quantities of time and money creating soft-focus filter systems? Modern lenses, inherantly, are too sharp. Select a lens that provides good isolation of the subject (ie. medium telephoto), warm or flattering skin color, low to medium contrast, and average to good sharpness and use enough aperature to maintain focus of the eye of the subject while allowing the foreground and background to fall off. Human subjects (ladies in particular) wish to be flattered by the lens, not have their flaws pointed out and emphasized. Much more critical than the sharpness of a lens are the elements of lighting (soft, low contrast, warm, properly angled) and pose (slimming, slightly angular, flattering). All of the principles of good portraiture continue to apply to both film and pixels. Put your emphasis into these principles and you'll create good portraits regardless of the lens you choose.

For what it's worth.

[karusel]

average to good sharpness

Some <$100 lens then, eh? :mrgreen: Seriously though, what about soft focus lens? Also, what's the practical difference between a soft focus lens and a normal lens with soft focus filter on it?

[DaveG]

average to good sharpness

Some <$100 lens then, eh? :mrgreen: Seriously though, what about soft focus lens? Also, what's the practical difference between a soft focus lens and a normal lens with soft focus filter on it?

I don't know about the Canon 135 mm soft lens but I have a Mamiya 145 mm lens for my 645 and the main difference between it and a soft filter is that I have almost an infinite control over the softness. I can change that softness by rotating the front element, which combined with the aperture controls the image softness.

Wide open at f4 and with the maximum softness selected (orange dot) the picture is very soft indeed. At f8 and with the blue dot selected there is no softness at all and the lens behaves as a normal (but very slow :D) lens would.

Softness is a very funny thing in so far as it's so personal. I love the 145's effect on wedding portraits. There are many who think that a Zeiss Softar is the answer, while others prefer somthing as simple as Vaseline gel on a UV filter. To each their own.

[horqua]

I heard an old boy speak one time and he recommended you take your supersharp portrait lens and apply some #2 grit sandpaper to the rear element. He figured this would be the cheapest, fastest, and easiest method to "soften up" a really sharp lens. Yeah, right! :roll:

YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE!: AMATEURS, DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME! YOU MUST BE UNDER PROFESSIONAL SUPERVISION TO ATTEMPT THIS FEAT! :wink:

[karusel]

Thanx Dave, well explained!

Horqua, are you trying to say this IS doable? :? :mrgreen:

[CyberDyneSystems]

They used to use Vaseline in the old days,. on the front element....

[G3]

Based on this thread I just placed an order with B&H for the 85mm f1.8. I needed a good short telephoto for portraits for the 10D, especially the formal bride and groom portraits, but I couldn't figure out which lens to use. I've been using a zoom, but I wasn't really all that thrilled with the results...good but not great. With 35mm it's easy...135mm prime. This thread helped make the decision for me... I'll let you know how I like it.

[nosquare2003]

In any case all of these lenses help me tell the story of the personality and that to me is a portrait, so by definition all of these lenses MUST be portrait lenses. So don't pigeonhole a lens. A moderate wide angle is NOT a landscape lens or a 200 f2.8 a sport lens. You can use them for landscapes or sports, but you can also turn them on their head and use the 200 for landscapes and the 24 for action.


Nice thread. Dave G, I absolutely agree with you.

To my knowledge:
1. Portrait is taking photos of people. It can be head shoulder shots, half size, full body, etc… And I have seen great photos showing only eyes / nose portions. Then what focal length is for portrait?

2. Different subjects have different characteristics. Some have big nose and some have small one. Can we try some different focal lengths?

I have the EF135/2.8 SF. There are two soft focus effects but I seldom use them. IMHO more control of SF can be done in Photoshop. By the way, it is a good “landscape” lens.

Sorry, it doesn’t help the lens choice by saying the above.

[G3]

I think a "portrait lens" is whatever lens you took the portrait with. Almost any lens can be used for making a portrait. Some lenses are better suited for normal portrait work than others. By normal, I mean the standard shots that have come to be called "portraits". The difference will be in ease of background control by using distance from subject, lighting and aperture as well as controlling things related directly to distance to subject and focal length of the lens, such as rendering of facial features, etc. Normal lenses (50mm or dig equivalent) are perfect for head and shoulder shots. The standard 135mm telephoto (or dig equiv) is IMHO the best all-around portrait lens for portraits of a single person or a couple. The only drawback with them is (as previously mentioned) distance to subject required in some cases. Sometimes that is a distinct advantage though, because sometimes being too close to the subject causes them to be uncomfortable and they won't be as relaxed as they would if you were a little further away. A good 28-80 zoom will cover both of these nicely, but I think generally better results for portraits are obtained from prime lenses. A wide angle 28mm (or digital equiv.) is good for group portraits where there are several people to fit into the photo, but can play havoc on facial features if you try to do a close head/shoulder shot of an individual.

In the old days, when zoom lenses were of dubious quality, and a "real photographer" wouldn't be caught dead with one in his camera bag, the standard arsenal was (for 35mm) a 28mm, sometimes a 35mm, a 50mm (unless you used a Uni-Topcon, as I did, which had a 60mm Topcor lens as a standard), and 135mm for portraits and short range telephoto work. Then for close-ups you had some extension tubes and/or some reversing rings, and some teleconverters for longer telephoto work. Any and all of them were used for portraiture depending on the situation.

I think it is all in understanding the advantages, limitations and charactaristics of each of your lenses and using them to your advantage. All that said, I think that there will still be one lens that you will do most of your portrait work with and will be comfortable with using for portraits. For me, in 35mm format, that was a 135mm. I'm thinking this 85 mm will fill that niche for me in digital.

[stevelew]

I like prime lens for shooting portraits also but one problem switching from one to another depending on your situation is the dust that gets on the sensor everytime you switch. The cmos on the Canon is easier to clean than the CCD on D1X so this problem might not be a big problem at all, but that was a reason to stay with zooms so you wouldn't have the internal dust that exists.

I switch a lot but also I do clean my sensor often also on my 10D. I'm glad you picked the 85mm 1.8. That is a fun and useful portrait lens, especially with available light.

Steve

[phili1]

With film the best portrait lens was beetween 70mm and 105mm. the reason for this was not sharpness, it was distortion.

When you used a 50mm lens you could get nose and arm and leg distortion elongation which didnt happen between 70mm and 105.

Digitally it should work out to the same except if in 35mm terms you want 60 to 70mm would digital equivilent to film 80 to 105 approx. although you could use the later, it would just bring you closer.

Each pro has there own reasons why the pick a certain lens and they all work.

[dennykyser]

Actually the 50mm equates to 80mm

50mm X 1.6(10D crop factor) = 80mm