Superb portrait lenses

[EOS Man]

What's the lens best suited for showing facial details clearly and best sharpness in portraiture? I'm thinking the 135mm f2L as an affordable solution, is it? I'd really love something like the Voigtlander but it's manual focus and pricey.

[lungdoc]

You seem to be using and planning to stay with crop cameras, 135 is pretty long for portrait use on a crop camera, would be difficult to use indoors. 60 EF-S macro is reputedly one of the sharpest Canon lenses, if anything critiqued for being too sharp for portraits (some don't want every line and wrinkle shown, though easy to fix in PP). Good length on a crop camera, compact, inexpensive and good macro lens as a bonus. For a longer alternative an 85 1.8 would be pretty good, also excellent low light sports/indoor.

[EOS Man]

Yup, I sure am gonna be with crop cameras for a long time...no lens is long enough, need the reach :D . Perhaps I'll get a 70-200 for portraits. Seems like a nice lens. Price of 70-200 f2.8 = 85 f1.8 + 135 f2, so why not I guess.

[bacchanal]

Any EF prime should do. How sharp do you really need to go. I've found that I can virtually see the bottom's of people's pores with the 50/1.4 and the 100/2 (stopped down of course). If you want the best, I'd say the 85/1.2 is it, but it's not like I know from experience. The 85/1.8 would probably be my choice if I were big into portraits, but on a realistic budget.

Oh, and are you talking outdoor or indoor portraits...you could definitely use more length outdoors. The 135/2, 200/2.8 (don't count this one out), or 70-200 2.8s would all work well...though the 70-200 may be a bit intimidating to some subjects.

[farrukh]

I got Sigma 70 macro especially to resolve skin detail in my small experimental studio and it works perfectly for it. Its one lens that i dont need to add sharpness during PP.

[Mark_Cohran]

The 70-200 f/2.8L is quite capable of excellent portraiture. I bought mine specifically for that reason and it's never disappointed me.

Mark

[gardengirl13]

Don't know from experience with the EF lenses only from my old FD stuff. But for good smooth backgrounds either 85 or the 135 would be good choices. (personally I'm trying to decide between the two right now for future purchase.) The 200 is a great lens (and one I actually currently own) but you do need quite the working distance for people, but you have the space it's a great choice.

[JimAskew]

Hi,

For portriats I use my 85MM, my 50MM, my 100MM, and my 135MM primes in that order. 90% of the time it is the 85MM or the 50MM.

When I want a zoom I use my Canon 24-70MM EF L in the 60MM to 70MM range.

[Bruce Hood]

I don't shoot in a studio but this "portrait" of an old Mayan farmer was shot with the 24-70 and the detail is superb at 13x19. I use the 70-200 f2.8 with equally good results as well. (Web jpg's are not a fair representation of the original)

[Andy_T]

EOSMan,

in your gear list you mention the EF 24-70/2.8 L ... as good a portrait lens as it gets on a 1.6x crop, IMO.

Why are you not happy with this one for portraits? Too short? Too slow? (assume that otherwise you would not be looking at the 135).
In the first case, consider the 85/1.8, in the second, also the 70-200/2.8 L.

I normally use my EF 50/1.4 @ f/2.0 or f/2.8 or my 80-200/2.8 L @ f/2.8 for portraits.

Best regards,
Andy

[digitaljoe]

135mm too long on a crop body - inside its even too long for ff.

Around 100mm is a good portrait length on ff.

24-70 is a stunning portrait lens.

I am sure the 85/2 is superb (I don't own this one)

[goatee]

The 85 f/1.8 is a superb portrait lens. I love mine to bits - though this summer I'm getting a 70 - 200 f/4, but even then, I'd need to go way back to use a long enough focal length to narrow the depth of field.