What is the best portrait lens???

[mikeymike]

I have a 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, 18-55 and a 50 1.8 on the way.
I would like it too be under $500

any help

:D

[timmyquest]

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=58577

Thats how we all voted.

If i were you, i'd pocket that money and save up for the 135 f/2

The 50 f/1.8 should hold its own for a while as a nice portrait lens.

[robertwgross]

It depends somewhat on the camera. If the camera body has a 1.6 factor in there, that changes things.

Traditionally, portrait photographers wanted to use something in the range of 50-100mm (for a 35mm full frame camera).

So, assuming the 1.6 factor, the 50mm f/1.8 lens will put you in that ballpark. Some like it a little shorter or a little longer, depending on the facial features of the subject. A longer lens will have more of a "flattening" effect, so it may be chosen to minimize the look of a very long nose. A shorter lens will have less of the "flattening" effect, so it may be chosen to change the look of a flat nose.

---Bob Gross---

[mikeymike]

Thanks timmyquest.....but that lens did not do very good on the poll.

I have a 300d, would the 135 1.2L put me too far form my subject?

and would the 85 1.2L perform as well?

[timmyquest]

Thanks timmyquest.....but that lens did not do very good on the poll.

I have a 300d, would the 135 1.2L put me too far form my subject?

and would the 85 1.2L perform as well?


As rob stated, it does indeed depend a tad on the camera. In all honesty the 135 on the 1.6 (which comes to an effective 216mm) may very well be a bit too long. This is why the 85 f/1.8 is so popular (it comes to 136mm).

All three are very capable, sharp lenses, so any route you go i'm sure you'll be happy with.

The way i see it though, you've got the 50mm, 85 is kind of in between, in my opinion i'd prefer to go one way or the other rathre then somewhere in between.

Furthermore, the 135 is pretty much the sharpest lens canon still makes now . Keep in mind, i'm saying all this and i dont own it :rolleyes: But i do know that many of my portrait shots that i take with my 70-200 are at 135-ish mm...that is why i lust so much for this lens, among a few other things which you'll quickly see if you do a little research and see some examples.

Under $500 though, i think the 85 f/1.8 is your best option...i'm just not sure if you really need it.

[mikeymike]

I could save my money and get a better lens. I have read all over the net for a year about photography and have been reading in here for a few weeks and trust the peoples knowledge here the most so i thought i would ask in here for help.

I have become addicted photography.

The first lens that i had was the 18-55 that came with my 300d

The 2 one i got was the 75-300 IS "and i thought it done well untill.........."
I got my 28-135 IS

that is a really good lens

and if there is alot better out there then i really want it..price does not really matter but it well take longer too get it :(

Thanks for the help
:D

[robertwgross]

Take your 28-135 I.S. lens and use it to shoot some test portraits. Once you finish that, notice which shots were the best, and what focal length you used for them.

Start from that focal length as you search for the perfect lens. Everybody is looking for something a little different. Personally, I use something around 55mm (on a 1.6 body).

---Bob Gross---

[Soumitra]

Dont all people here feel portrait is relative subject ????? someone shoot with wideangles too to achieve certain effects for certain beautiful looking portraits too so I think if u dont look at the rules of photography U can use any good lens for portraits. Anyway 50mm to 100mm would be ideal for 20D,10D or300D Anyway all of people HAPPY SHOOTING
Regards
Soumitra

[SkipD]

I have a 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, 18-55 and a 50 1.8 on the way.You already have lenses that cover the conventional range that would be suggested for portrait work. The only thing you might want is something that is really fast (or maybe a tad sharper, or whatever) at a certain focal length. Like has been suggested above, use what you have until you discover what you "need". I think you'll find that your present collection is going to cover the task - at least as far as focal length is concerned - quite nicely for portrait work.

[Andy_T]

Above all, try out that 50/1.8 once you receive it.

It is a very capable portrait lens on a 1.6 body.

Best regards,
Andy

[gasrocks]

I agree with Soumitra it does vary a bit with who is doing it. I find it interesting that the "port." lens has been changing over the years. If you look at an older (1920?) book they would say about 60-70mm. Then, 1960? it was 80-100. Now, our idea of a good port is driven by what we see on TV and in the movies and 100-300 is most often used.

[Steve Parr]

I've been happy with the 50mm f/1.8 and the 85mm f/1.8...

Steve

[timmyquest]

I agree with Soumitra it does vary a bit with who is doing it. I find it interesting that the "port." lens has been changing over the years. If you look at an older (1920?) book they would say about 60-70mm. Then, 1960? it was 80-100. Now, our idea of a good port is driven by what we see on TV and in the movies and 100-300 is most often used.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that over the years the film format has changed, this is going to have a huge effect on what lenses are used.

Furthermore, i'm not so sure i agree with your last statement, i dont see too many photography movies.

[marcosfalcao]

I took about 120 portraits this weekend using a 50mm F1.8. I am very happy with the results and I'm quite sure it will suit even better in a camera with 1.6 factor (I am still on film). But the best protraits came up from this little 50mm. My best investment so far (it costed only CAD $119!

[drisley]

Don't forget the 35 F2.0. It's cheap, great optics, and allows for wider portraits.

[eosster]

I've heard results from the EF 85 f/1.8 are excellent.

[Headcase650]

If you plan on taking studio style portraits in the future with some monolights or some flash guns than your 28-135 should be more than enough. With lights you would be able to have an apiture between 8 and 16 at ISO 100-200. Stop your 28-135 down to 8 or 11 and it can produce some nice and sharp portraits.