perfect portrait lens

[manthey10]

what u have or wish u could have

[blonde]

i LOVE my 24-70 for portraits but i do wish that i could justify buying the 85 1.2....

[liquefied]

Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L

[dave kadolph]

Agree with blonde--hard to beat the 24-70 as an all around work horse.

[cdifoto]

i LOVE my 24-70 for portraits but i do wish that i could justify buying the 85 1.2....

Ditto.

[sswanson]

Some may say it's too ghetto, but I use the nifty 50 most of the time. Though I'm on a 1.6X crop camera, so this is like an 80mm (35mm equiv.).

My other standby is the tamron 28-80, though I try not to get below 50 if at all possible.

[ed rader]

i LOVE my 24-70 for portraits but i do wish that i could justify buying the 85 1.2....


you're in the process of justifying it now but you probably already know that :D !

make sure to post some shots wide open :D !

ed rader

[sswanson]

Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L

So, what tabloid do you work for? :-)

[Medic85]

I'd go for the 50 1.2 or 85 1.2

[blonde]

you're in the process of justifying it now but you probably already know that :D !

make sure to post some shots wide open :D !

ed rader

naha, i have been saying that for over a year but i know that i really don't need it at this point. i have a whole list of items that needs my credit card's attention and that 85 is at the bottom of the list. i need to get some studio lights, 100 macro, a 70-200 of some kind and a few other small items... besides, every time i shoot my 24-70 that itch for the 85 1.2 goes away (i am sure that i would be singing a different tune if i shot low light a lot but i don't) besides, as you can see from my gear list, i am all about having the absolute minimum amount of lenses because i hate having stuff that i don't need or use.

[WMS]

Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L

:confused: isn't that more than a little on the long side for a portrate lens? Or is this just a lens you would like to play with but cant justify the several thousand dollar price of.

WMS

[DVS_WiNdz]

i LOVE my 24-70 for portraits but i do wish that i could justify buying the 85 1.2....

same. the 24-70L is a great lens for portraits.

[manthey10]

so the 85 1.2 is preferred over the 50 1.4?

[ed rader]

same. the 24-70L is a great lens for portraits.

on a crop camera it is but not on FF.

ed rader

[blonde]

cant justify the several thousand dollar price of.

WMS

i have never heard anybody refer to $95,000 as several thousand dollars ;)

[manthey10]

that was a dumb ?.... i know the answer.. would the 85 1.2 work well with my xt? i do mainly portraiture

[blonde]

so the 85 1.2 is preferred over the 50 1.4?

that is not a fair comporison to be honest. the 85 1.2 is a specialized lens that is almost designed specificaly for portraits. the 50 1.4 is a great little lens that does very well in portraits but is also more of a general purpose lens. don't forget about the price difference as well: $1600 vs. $300....

[blonde]

that was a dumb ?.... i know the answer.. would the 85 1.2 work well with my xt? i do mainly portraiture


personally, i found 85 to be too long for portraits on my 20D. i think that on a 1.6 crop, i would instead look at the 50 1.2L or even the 35L if you like to shoot a bit lighter.

btw, i am going to give you the advice that a really smart guy gave me: instead, of buying the 85L or 50L, go for the cheaper 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 and after you shot them for awhile, you will know exactly which L lens is right for you. then, you can sell the 2 cheap lenses and lose $80 at most and know that you are making the right decision based on your shooting style and needs.

[manthey10]

well here is my situation, these are my lenses 35-80 1:4-5.6, the kit lens and quantaray 70-300 1:4-5.6.... i know i need a new lens, but dont know which to get.. lets say money is know object. would u then get the 85

[WMS]

i have never heard anybody refer to $95,000 as several thousand dollars ;)

My senator thinks of $100,000 as lunch money. :lol:

WMS

[Bubble]

82 f/1.2 II. Would never go back for anything else. Oh well..might want to try the 50 f/1.2 too. :)

[ed rader]

well here is my situation, these are my lenses 35-80 1:4-5.6, the kit lens and quantaray 70-300 1:4-5.6.... i know i need a new lens, but dont know which to get.. lets say money is know object. would u then get the 85

the 85 1.2 is a quantum leap from the lenses you are now using and while it is a superior portrait lens you may want to work your way up the ranks a bit first.

i'd start with the 50 1.8, 50 1.4, 85 1.8 or maybe the tamron 28-75.

ed rader

[blonde]

well here is my situation, these are my lenses 35-80 1:4-5.6, the kit lens and quantaray 70-300 1:4-5.6.... i know i need a new lens, but dont know which to get.. lets say money is know object. would u then get the 85


like i said, i wouldn't because 85mm on a 1.6 sensor would often be very long unless you are shooting in a very large studio. i would go with either the 50 1.2L (if money is no object) or what i would really do (because money is an object for me) is just get the 50 1.4 AND the 85 1.8 and use them both for a few months (they are both KILLER lenses btw) and later on when i know which focal length works for me, buy one of the L's...

[manthey10]

so if i get the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 that would be waaayyy better than what i have, and will probably make my photos sharper and crisper hence the better lens

[ed rader]

so if i get the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 that would be waaayyy better than what i have, and will probably make my photos sharper and crisper hence the better lens

waaaay....waaaaaaaay better!

but you know the one variable that we can't be certain of is you :D .

ed rader

[narlus]

Canon EF 1200mm f/5.6 L

he said best 'portrait' lens, not 'prostate'...:lol:

[Stan43]

I have the 85 1.2LII and love it. Contrast ,sharpness, bokeh, build, it's got it all .

[blonde]

waaaay....waaaaaaaay better!

but you know the one variable that we can't be certain of is you :D .

ed rader

agreed!!!!

[ed rader]

agreed!!!!


was i "tactful'? you know i'm working on that ;) !

ed rader

[blonde]

was i "tactful'? you know i'm working on that ;) !

ed rader

haha, yes it was an imporvement ;)

[JeffreyG]

was i "tactful'? you know i'm working on that !

Must be Ed, since I'm not arguing. I find myself arguing with you when we are in agreement sometimes.

My 135L is a great portrait lens. I used to use walkie talkies to communicate with the subject but I found the radio in their hand distracting. Now I use a semaphore. Great color and contrast.

[samnz]

Have: 85/1.8
Want: 85L/1.2 - FF: 135L/2

[ramblingman]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I think I've decided on buying the 85mm f/1.8, but am hearing that the 24-70 f/2.8L might be just as good as a portrait lens and it could be used as a great walk-around as well.

See, I want the 85mm to learn to play with dof, but if I could do the same with the 24-70, then why not get that instead and apply the $300 that I would have used for the 85 to the 24-70, which I may be getting later anyway, or would I be better off just buying one now and the other later or just buying the 24-70 and never needing the 85mm?

[Jim G]

My workhorse used to be the 50mm 1.4 on a crop body but since I've bought the 24-70 I'm not sure I've actually taken a single shot with it. I'm seriously considering selling it because the 24-70L is that good that it's replaced it in everything but extreme low light situations which I haven't been in for a while...

So for me the 24-70 is the main lens, I do quite like the 135L for head shots though. Both are beautiful lenses to use.

[Jim G]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I think I've decided on buying the 85mm f/1.8, but am hearing that the 24-70 f/2.8L might be just as good as a portrait lens and it could be used as a great walk-around as well.

See, I want the 85mm to learn to play with dof, but if I could do the same with the 24-70, then why not get that instead and apply the $300 that I would have used for the 85 to the 24-70, which I may be getting later anyway, or would I be better off just buying one now and the other later or just buying the 24-70 and never needing the 85mm?

If you already have the 17-55 in your signature the 24-70 overlaps that quite a bit and on a crop body (for me at least) the 17-55 is a better walkaround.... 24-70 just isn't wide enough for me. Works great for portraits 'cos I don't want to go wider than 24 pretty much ever but for a casual walkaround with landscapes included 24 is pretty long.

[troutbreath]

If you are really interested in just portraits, I would take the advice given earlier about getting either the 50mm 1.4 or the 85 1.8. Both are great lenses, especially for the price. Big, wide, apertures, so you can get creative in low light.

The 24-70 (just got it Friday) is a big jump. It's 50% more expensive than the other two . . . combined. It's heavy. Great build. And it opens up a whole array of options for shots.

The 1200mm is overkill. Sometimes. (but I have the feeling one is trained on me right now . . . )

[ramblingman]

If you already have the 17-55 in your signature the 24-70 overlaps that quite a bit and on a crop body (for me at least) the 17-55 is a better walkaround.... 24-70 just isn't wide enough for me. Works great for portraits 'cos I don't want to go wider than 24 pretty much ever but for a casual walkaround with landscapes included 24 is pretty long.

I just noticed after you saying that I have the 17-55, that I mistyped. I have the 18-55mm kit lens which doesn't quite open as wide. So, given this info, would you say the same thing?

The 3.5 isn't wide enough I think.

[mR_CaESaR]

I've got the 3 portrait lenses that i've wanted for a long time. If/when i upgrade to FF maybe ill look at the 135L, but i think that might be negated because of the 70-200 f2.8 and 85 1.2

[W3C]

85L 1.2

[ed rader]

Don't want to hijack the thread, but I think I've decided on buying the 85mm f/1.8, but am hearing that the 24-70 f/2.8L might be just as good as a portrait lens and it could be used as a great walk-around as well.

See, I want the 85mm to learn to play with dof, but if I could do the same with the 24-70, then why not get that instead and apply the $300 that I would have used for the 85 to the 24-70, which I may be getting later anyway, or would I be better off just buying one now and the other later or just buying the 24-70 and never needing the 85mm?

not exactly. the 85 1.8 is better but the 24-70L is good enough that you may not want to switch to the prime if the 24-70L is already on your camera.

in other words, when i had my 20d i used my 24-70L for portraits because it was already my walkaround. the 85 didn't get used as much.

now, if your walkaround is something like the 17-50 or 17-55 then the 85 1.8 is the lens to get for portraits, imo :D .

of course that's only if you want an 85mm portrait lens on a 1.6 crop camera.

one more thing....besides IQ another reason the 85 1.8 is better is because it's faster and will render narrower DOF.

ed rader

[ramblingman]

of course that's only if you want an 85mm portrait lens on a 1.6 crop camera.

ed rader

What is wrong with the 85mm in the 1.6? It's either that one or the 50mm 1.4. The only knocks I've heard about the 85mm on the crop is that you sometimes can't shoot indoors. I'd figure the 85mm would be good for some indoor, a lot of outdoor portraiture and if I get a FF later, it will still be great to use. I was also thinking I could use it as a macro with extention tubes. Is this possible?

[blonde]

What is wrong with the 85mm in the 1.6? It's either that one or the 50mm 1.4. The only knocks I've heard about the 85mm on the crop is that you sometimes can't shoot indoors.

is that not enough? with the 50 1.4, you can always move closer to the subject but you can't always move away with the 85.

[ed rader]

What is wrong with the 85mm in the 1.6? It's either that one or the 50mm 1.4. The only knocks I've heard about the 85mm on the crop is that you sometimes can't shoot indoors. I'd figure the 85mm would be good for some indoor, a lot of outdoor portraiture and if I get a FF later, it will still be great to use. I was also thinking I could use it as a macro with extention tubes. Is this possible?

nothing's wrong with the 85. for portraits, i actually prefer 85mm on a crop camera to a 50mm lens but i have been unable to get everyone to agree with me :D .

either the 85 1.8 or the 50 1.4 will be a fantastic portrait lens. choose the length that suits YOU.

ed rader

[ramblingman]

is that not enough? with the 50 1.4, you can always move closer to the subject but you can't always move away with the 85.

This is true, but I might also like to use it for outdoor evens like concerts or school plays for my kids when not only is the wide ap is at a premium, but I need a bit more reach than a 50 or 80 on a crop body.
Wouldn' this serve my need better?

It's like damn, these lenses can be so specific for use and are so costly. So you have to choose wisely and you don't know until you play with one.

[ramblingman]

nothing's wrong with the 85. for portraits, i actually prefer 85mm on a crop camera to a 50mm lens but i have been unable to get everyone to agree with me :D .

either the 85 1.8 or the 50 1.4 will be a fantastic portrait lens. choose the length that suits YOU.

ed rader

I hope that if I get the 85mm I will be able to agree. Then we can go out and change the world. :D Bythe way, no one answered and maybe Ed, you know. Can you use the 85mm as a macro with extention tubes?

[blonde]

This is true, but I might also like to use it for outdoor evens like concerts or school plays for my kids when not only is the wide ap is at a premium, but I need a bit more reach than a 50 or 80 on a crop body.
Wouldn' this serve my need better?

It's like damn, these lenses can be so specific for use and are so costly. So you have to choose wisely and you don't know until you play with one.

and this is why god created zoom lenses ;)

[ramblingman]

and this is why god created zoom lenses ;)

Lol, but zooms are not nearly as perfect as heavley primes right?:p

[TMR Design]

I've fallen in love with my 85mm f/1.8 as a portrait lens. I use a crop body and it's perfect for head and head and shoulder shots.

[cdifoto]

24-70L. EXIF embedded. Made my 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 pointless.

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/marfor/2007-03-30-148.jpg

[ed rader]

I hope that if I get the 85mm I will be able to agree. Then we can go out and change the world. :D Bythe way, no one answered and maybe Ed, you know. Can you use the 85mm as a macro with extention tubes?

i'm pretty sure you can tho i've never tried it.

the one thing i really don't like about the 85 1.8 or 100 f2 is the close focussing distance isn't close at all.

i'm sure with with tubes you can get decent close ups but without tubes these lenses really weren't meant for close-ups...they are more for portraits and sports.

ed rader

[blonde]

Lol, but zooms are not nearly as perfect as heavley primes right?:p

says who? the 24-70 2.8, 70-200 and even the 17-40 are all regarded as top choices for portraits..

[WMS]

For macro I would recommend a 100mm Macro, yes this can be frustrating, and Canon does have a reason for having so many different lenses. One other than having more to sell us that is. Prime lenses are better than zoom lenses in that they can be optimized for one focal length, This is also there limitation in that they are only one focal length where a zoom can and do cover a range of focal lengths, and thus can in theory be all things to all people. This is why there are lenses such as the 18-200 zooms and 28-300 zooms.These ultra zooms are also not well thought of by many due to the compromises necessary to there construction.

WMS

WMS

[ramblingman]

I've heard it around the forum. Most responses are that you can't beat primes. I dunno since I am still a newbie, but here's a thread (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=308442&highlight=primes+vs+zooms)on primes v. zooms that you might find of interest.

[darktiger]

Is the 70-200L IS f/2.8 a good portrait lens?

[cdifoto]

Is the 70-200L IS f/2.8 a good portrait lens?

No. It sucks (http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a304/cdifoto/marfor/2007-03-30-079_8x10.jpg).

[The Imagician]

The nifty fifty. I long for a 85 f/1.8. My 75-300 USM has done a decent job at 100 f/4.

[Franko515]

Is the 70-200L IS f/2.8 a good portrait lens?

An exellent portrait lens, if you have the room to use it. It creates smooth OOF background.

[ofdphoto]

I'm surprised it took so long for the 70-200 2.8 family to be mentioned here. Even on a crop camera I love my 70-200 for portraits.

[TMR Design]

I'm going to try out my 70-200mm f/4 L for some head shots. I suspect it's going to perform quite well.

[graelinephotography]

:confused: isn't that more than a little on the long side for a portrate lens? Or is this just a lens you would like to play with but cant justify the several thousand dollar price of.

WMS


not if you dont want your portrait person knowing your taking the picture ;)

[dontblink]

i have never heard anybody refer to $95,000 as several thousand dollars ;)

Does that lens qualify for double rebates?

[manthey10]

would the 24-70L be good for portraits, i also help another photographer out with weddings. would the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 work well with weddings, i am having a hard time deciding what lens to buy

[cdifoto]

would the 24-70L be good for portraits, i also help another photographer out with weddings. would the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 work well with weddings, i am having a hard time deciding what lens to buy

I'm sorry, have you even been following your own thread? Not trying to be rude...but it appears you basically ate the top and bottom bun without even seeing the meat.

[kobe629]

For indoor the 85 f/1.2 MK II and outdoor 200 f/1.8..

[manthey10]

well you know what, i didnt. and i am soo sorry i have never bought a lens and i want to make sure its the right one, so sorry for asking another question that i might have already asked or someone already wrote about,

[ofdphoto]

Here's a few tips, to sum up and help you move forward (rather than just answering the same sort of question with the same sort of answer):

1.) Decide between primes and zooms. Your current lenses aren't that great, but by using them, you should have worked out by now whether you need zoom lenses or could work with primes. If you do weddings, I suspect zooms will be a better choice (otherwise you'll be swapping lenses a LOT, but some wedding shooters do it). I'm a wedding photographer and have 3 zooms (10-22, 24-70, 70-200) and 1 prime (50). I'll be adding a 100 macro and 85/1.8 soon. But the 3 zooms are my main lenses. (And yes, the 24-70 is excellent.)

2.) Look for fast, sharp glass. For zoom lenses, f/2.8 is fast (except on the ultrawide end I would never buy anything slower). On your Rebel, the 17-55/2.8 would be an excellent walkaround, but not long enough for all of your portraits. So you could go with a 24-70 instead or perhaps a 17-55 + 70-200 combo would work for you. These are just ideas. Figure out which focal lengths would suit you (using your current equipment) then figure out which lenses are worth buying in those focal lengths. (There are lots of reviews. I particularly like www.photozone.de for reviews.) If you want to go with primes, I can't help you so much. Except to say that you should go for f/1.8 or faster glass (and steer clear of the 50/1.8).

3.) Buy a few lenses. If you're a bit undecided, pick up some second hand lenses (or you could always rent them). Then you can sell them and lose nothing. I've changed lenses more times than I'd care to admit in pursuit of the perfect kit.

Hope that helps.

[schmoelzel]

Just to add my 2 cents, I have written this many times on these forums.........there is no better portraiture lens than the 85L (either mark 1 or II). Yes it is a specialized piece of gear; yes the 85f1.8 gives almost comparable quality for a lot less $$; but the colour and the contrast cannot be superceded! I use my 85L on my 1D and my 20D and don't think 85mm on a 1.6 crop body is too long for portaiture........I do prefer the 1.3 crop of the 1D though with this lens........so, to put it bluntly, best portrait lens.....

85f1.2 L!:)

[timbop]

well here is my situation, these are my lenses 35-80 1:4-5.6, the kit lens and quantaray 70-300 1:4-5.6.... i know i need a new lens, but dont know which to get.. lets say money is know object. would u then get the 85

I would say the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. If you can't afford both, then the 50/1.8 instead of 50/1.4. The 85 is great for headshots, but for full body it is too long.

[Imaginee]

I would love to see a few portrait photos with the 85 1.2, 85 1.8, 50 1.4 and 50 1.8 on a chop. I've been saving up and may be able to buy one soon. I take mostly head and shoulders and mid waist shots. Thank you~Linda

[radiohead]

For versatility and all-round goodness, the 70-200/2.8IS without a doubt.

[dfindr]

85L M2 --- 5D, ISO 100, 1/40, f/4, handheld

[ed rader]

how about the 100 f2 + 5d :D ?

ed rader

http://www.fototime.com/615002A10B6047D/orig.jpg