Good portrait lens for DRebel?

[FlipsidE]

I want to find out what you all think is a good (doesn't have to be the best) portrait lens for a DRebel. Not lookin to spend tons right now, but I don't want to get a POS either.

Thanks

FlipsidE

[Jesper]

Try searching the forums - questions about which lenses to get are asked almost every day, and I'm sure you'll find a lot of info about which lenses are good for portaits too.

One obvious choice is the Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II - it's a very sharp and cheap (about $70) lens, which has a good focal length for portraits on an 1.6x crop factor camera like the Digital Rebel.

[Alexandre Gabriel]

50 f/1.8 is a must for you.
Cheap, very good (even in FF), sharp.

[FlipsidE]

Ya know, I get recommendations about this lens left and right. I see recommendations for this lens every single day of the week. I've heard nothing but good things about it, and almost every signature that lists lenses owned lists this one. Yet, I went to both Wolf Camera locations in town (as they are the only camera shops in good neighborhoods in town), and neither of them have the lens. As a matter of fact, they seem almost shocked that I would ask for it. The guy behind the counter last night when I dropped by there was even more shocked to find out that it was extremely popular on the message board I visit. I wonder about Wolf sometimes. I mean, I know they aren't a great camera shop. But, I'm finding out more and more that they are even below good...sub-par would be the better way to describe them. I would honestly love to pick up this lens from a local shop (even if it meant spending a few extra bucks on it). But, I can't seem to find it. I honestly can't believe that Wolf wouldn't carry such an extremely popular lens. They have like 6 or 7 Canon lens and racks full of Quantarray lenses. I just don't get it.


FlipsidE

[Adam Hicks]

Pick up a 50mm 1.8 for cheap, and then spend a few hundred on the Tamron 28-75 f2.8. You'll love it and it will last you for many years to come. It'll even satisfy your craving for the 24/28-75 Canon L which is many times more expensive but not many times better :)

Good luck,
Adam

[Andy_T]

Flipside,

as you rightly suspect, your 'camera shop' manager's reaction tells you more about the quality of the shop than anything he tells you to make you believe he knows the first thing about Canon cameras.

The other explanation is, if he knows something about cameras, then his own business success by selling you one of the great 'Quantaray' lenses is obviously dearer to him than your satisfaction.

Stay away and go to the B+H website for your further transactions. The help and guidance you need to select your lenses you will find here in the forum.

Best regards,
Andy

[roanjohn]

Cheap:

50 f1.8

Expensive:

50 f1.4 and 85 f1.8

Very Expensive:

85 f1.2............and 35 f1.4 (for full body shots).

Ro1

[pcasciola]

As a matter of fact, they seem almost shocked that I would ask for it. The guy behind the counter last night when I dropped by there was even more shocked to find out that it was extremely popular on the message board I visit.
FlipsidE

Salesman are taught to act surprised and try to make you feel stupid when you ask for something they don't have.

What he really meant to say, or what he was thinking anyway, is "Why would you want that 50mm when I can try to talk you into buying something we have in stock and would earn me a sale today".

Just get the 50mm already. You will be amazed at the picture quality. It blows away the kit lens.

[robertwgross]

The 50mm f/1.8 lens is relatively inexpensive. Camera shops can't make much profit on them. They would much rather sell you some hideous Quantaray zoom lens that has better profit margins.

That lens doesn't zoom, so it is not very high on the priority list for normal consumer photographers, who typically would not know how to control depth of field if it bit them on the butt.

I just hinted about this. It is the f/1.8 aperture in an inexpensive lens that makes this attractive to enthusist photographers.

---Bob Gross---

[ron chappel]

The 50/1.8 is a must have-even if you don't use it alot for portraits.

I prefer the 85/1.8 as it gives the perspective of a 135mm-on-film look that i like so much.
....but i mostly do head and shoulders at the most,you'll prefer something wider for full body shots,etc

The tamron 28-75 is also a very good option.
The maximum f2.8 aperture may possibly feel limiting to you compared to the f1.8 lenses.I must say that i'm finding very large apertures don't look entirely right on digital,they seem to look better with slightly less blured background.Just a minor observation so far as i haven't done alot

[chris.bailey]

A lot of portrait pros use a 24-70/2.8 when using 35mm.

The 50/1.4 allows you to play with depth of field and the bokeh is better IMHO than the 1.8. The 85/1.8 is nice for head and shoulder shots, especially with natural lighting.

At a multiple photographer shoot, where you tend to be further from the model, one of the 70-200's is useful.

In a small studio the 17-40 can be useful.

My conclusion therefore is there is no one best portrait lens. Most of them have a place.

[Jesper]

The 50/1.4 allows you to play with depth of field and the bokeh is better IMHO than the 1.8.

That's true, but the difference is not very large (f/1.4 vs. f/1.8), so the question is if you think it's worth paying $300 for the f/1.4 version, while the f/1.8 version costs $70.

[Andy_T]

That's true, but the difference is not very large (f/1.4 vs. f/1.8), so the question is if you think it's worth paying $300 for the f/1.4 version, while the f/1.8 version costs $70.

You are absolutely right, Jesper.

The question is whether you are a person that likes solid things that are built to last, so you rather invest 5x the price in the 1.4/50, or if you say 'what the heck, if it breaks, I'll buy a new one' and invest the savings in other camera gear.
It's really down to your personal preferences.

... that's also about the bottom line of this very readable comparison of the lenses: http://www.photo.net/equipment/canon/ef50/

Best regards,
Andy

[chris.bailey]

I agree with you both (Andy/Jesper), the 1.4 is a lot more than the 1.8 and it is very dubious and very personal as to whether it is worth the considerable extra dosh. To me the way out of focus highlights are rendered is as important in many shots as absolute sharpness so having owned both the 1.4 and the 1.8 I would say the 1.4 is worth it. The 1.4 is also a little more contrasty.

Hey, its only money !

[roanjohn]

Hey, its only money !

I hear that!!!

Ro1