Portrait lens on a budget

[LastLine]

I'm looking to get a good portrait lens on a budget, say somewhere £300 or less if possible, not worried where from, E-bay's usually a good source of kit for me.

Anyway, jsut curious what people's views are. Any suggestions?

(Running a Canon 350d as a side note)

[Keiffer]

You can go with the plastic fantastic/nifty fifty .

[darkdrakon]

85 1.8 get's my vote. plastic fantastic is the Tamron 19-35...50mm 1.8 I have both the 85 1.8 and 50mm 1.8 mk 1

[tim]

Get a prime, and don't get the nifty fifty - it's cheap for a reason. 85mm F1.8, or 100mm macro are both great *portrait* lenses.

[Dante King]

Welcome to the forums LastLine. To clarify Tim's post, If I am reading it correctly, is that you could use the 100mm macro or just about any macro as a portrait lens. There lies the savings as the lens does double duty.

[condyk]

How big is the room you'll be shooting in? With a prime you need to 'zoom' by walking towards or away from the subject. If you're in a small room that may make a difference to what you get in your frame and so your focal length. I like the shots from the 85mm and the two 50mm's, 1.4 and 1.8, and they're good suggestions. For some, a zoom may be more practical though you may lose that last tad of quality. The Tamron 28-75 and SIgma 24-70 are worth a look at £300 price point, if zooms appeal. Also depends on your lighting set up I guess. For some situations you might want a wider lens too. So, it's kinda what will you do, how, in what conditions and where. What do you have already?

[tim]

Welcome to the forums LastLine. To clarify Tim's post, If I am reading it correctly, is that you could use the 100mm macro or just about any macro as a portrait lens. There lies the savings as the lens does double duty.

I edited my post to clarify. I did mean the 85mm or 100mm are both great portrait lenses, depending on how much space you have available.

[eosnob]

If you're quick, there's a used 85mm f/1.8 + hood going for £220, in mint condition. Else, the nifty-fifty is going for £54 at 7dayshop.

[FScott]

Portrait lenses are typically in the 80-105mm range so you don't have to get too close, are generally fairly fast so you can isolate your subject if you want to, and need good bokeh. Then it all depends on your budget. My next lens will be the 85 1.8 since it does pretty much all of the above. The macros (60mm EF-S, and 100 mm EF) would do double duty but are a bit slower. The 50mm lenses make great portrait lenses on the 350D as they come out with a FOV equiv. of an 80mm lens on a full-frame camera. The 50mm 1.8 is very inexpensive but is very sharp. The 1.4 has better construction, a distance scale, a metal mount, and I hear better bokah (7 instead of 5 leafs in the aperture) but costs a lot more. Luckily you have a lot to choose from.

-- Scott.

[wintoid]

I'd say 50mm f/1.4 for head-and-shoulders portraits, 85mm f/1.8 for head-only or outdoor portraits. I find the 50mm f/1.4 much more useful generally, and the price from 7dayshop was well within your budget, leaving some change to get a hood and a UV filter :D It's an unbelievably good lens.

[LastLine]

Well I actually do have a 50mm f/1.4 at the minute, was looking for some clarification which I got. What about the the 85mm f/1.8. Anyone got any suggestions for where's good to get that?

[eosnob]

Can recommend Aperture who currently has a used one:
www.apertureuk.com/used-Can.htm

[schmoelzel]

Get a prime, and don't get the nifty fifty - it's cheap for a reason. 85mm F1.8, or 100mm macro are both great *portrait* lenses.

I must agree with Tim!! :D

While the 50 is cheap and optically good, it will not inspire many people to take or attempt to take great pics...........

[LastLine]

So what's a prime? Apologies for the ignorance, very new to this.

[blue_max]

So what's a prime? Apologies for the ignorance, very new to this.

It don't zoom!

Graham

[Curtis N]

So what's a prime?Prime lenses have a fixed focal length, requiring you to move either the camera or the subject to change the field of view.

They are generally less expensive than zoom lenses and faster, (larger max. aperture / smaller f-number) allowing you to shoot with less light, faster shutter, or lower ISO settings. larger aperture settings also decrease depth of field, which could be good or bad depending on your goals.

[FScott]

budget lens will give U budget pictures...

W

I'm sorry but this just isn't true. The 50mm 1.8 is a very sharp lens. Even the lowly kit lens is an excellent performer at the wide end and stopped down a bit. The skill of the photographer far outweighs the quality of the equipment. You can substitute a bit of the later for the former but not very much. We aren't discussing P&S cameras here, most of the equipment we are discussing including the kit lens and the nifty-fifty can produce excellent results.

-- Scott.

[Curtis N]

budget lens will give U budget pictures.I have taken portraits with a cheap zoom lens that outclassed the prints taken by a "professional" with $20,000 worth of equipment. They were sharp enough that you could count the woman's nose hairs and see blemishes not visible from 3 feet away.

Budget lenses can produce excellent pictures, as long as you understand their limitations and work within them.

[CyberDyneSystems]

The budget surely includes the 85mm f/1.8

This is one of the most highly recomended lenses for Portraits period.. at any price,. and it very usefull as well for other applications. Super fast AF and fast optics.

You can't do any better without paying 4 times the price.

[Sean-Mcr]

I have the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8. Both great for portraits i use the 50 much more though i have to say but i'd not part with my 85.

You'll use the 50 much more then the the 85 indoors because of the crop on the 350.

[LastLine]

How do you mean crop?

[DocFrankenstein]

What's a budget lens? A cheap lens? a 50/1.8 isn't cheap

the 85/1.8 isn't cheap either... at 300 bucks... it's very expensive and fast.

Get that 85/1.8

[Curtis N]

How do you mean crop?Since the image sensor on the 350D is smaller than the 35mm negative for which the EF lenses are designed, it has the effect of "cropping" the edges off the image.

Thus, with the 350D and similar cameras, a lens with a shorter focal length is required to creat the same field of view as a lens 1.6 times longer on 35mm film.

[AjP]

I also have 50 1.4 and it is great lense!!!!!!!!!! with 1.6 crop of my 20D

[erik-nl]

I just recently bought the 50 1.4 and I am very, VERY pleased with it!
I made some wonderful full body and torso-head portraits with very shallow DOF.
But one thing I noticed is that wide open it produces a sort of hazy halo around high contrast contours that can of course be used for a 'romantic' soft focus effect (and I did, *blush*), but it can also be very unwanted.
With my 100 2.8 Macro I didn't get that effect.

[InskiP]

I don't know, the the nifty fifty might serve you well.
I've seen Ann aka MOMOFAIRFORCEBRATS take some beautiful and sharp portraits with it. I don't have a link redily available, but look her up in the people forum.
But the 50mm 1.4 and 85mm would be better.

[Andy_T]

I have taken portraits with a cheap zoom lens that outclassed the prints taken by a "professional" with $20,000 worth of equipment. They were sharp enough that you could count the woman's nose hairs and see blemishes not visible from 3 feet away.

Well, sometimes professional photographers with expensive equipment produce crappy pictures.
On the other hand, they might actually decide not to have visible blemishes and nose hairs in a female portrait on purpose :p

As to the original question:
Take a look at this thread about the limitations of the 50/1.8 (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=69785)

I have the 50/1.8, and while it is a very sharp lens, its bokeh is definitely making its use for portraits more complicated. I am much more happy with my Tamron 28-75/2.8 XR DI, which is marginally softer and not as fast, but has considerably better bokeh.

Other than that, my suggestions would be the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8.
Those 2 are next on my personal wish list (together with one of the 70-200 L's ... also very nice portrait lenses :wink: )

Best regards,
Andy

[Devil]

Get a prime, and don't get the nifty fifty - it's cheap for a reason. 85mm F1.8, or 100mm macro are both great *portrait* lenses.

I was thinking about buying a 100mm Canon Macro from BHPhoto for purely macro use and was going to order the 50mm/1.8 at the same time due to the large number of satisfied photographers with it.

Would you recommend not spending the extra $75US on the nifty fifty in this case ? My main intent was to use the nifty fifty for portrait shots (when not using the kit lens).


Thanks !

[PixelJack]

85 f/1.8 will serve you just right.

It is an awesome little guy that delivers.

[ed rader]

get a zoom like the tamron 28-75 or the 50 1.8 if you really want to save money.

imo, if someone has to ask i would never recommend a specialty lens like the 85mm canon which is effectively 136mm with the 1.6mm crop factor.

the tamron is a super portrait lens and you can actually use it as a general purpose lens until you figure out your wants and needs.

how about that!

the 50 1.8mm is a tad long for general photography but it's cheap so if you use it every six months what the hell.

my advice is to keep it simple until you discover what's best for you.

and whoever said the 50mm 1.8 is not a sharp lens is full of baloney.

ed rader

i shot this wide open with the 50 @ 1600 iso.

http://www.fototime.com/16FFE44553CFFDD/orig.jpg

[Andy_T]

Ed,

I agree with you that the Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a great portrait lens.

The 50/1.8 is *not* too long for portraits, IMO.
For general photography, yes, but not for portraits.

And nobody ever said it's not sharp. It is razor sharp at f/2.8.
Problem is that it was optimized for sharpness at the cost of pleasant bokeh :confused:

Best regards.
Andy

[KevC]

85/1.2L and 135/2L!!!

Oh wait, you said "budget" :D

I'd say the 85/1.8. If you already have the 50/1.4, then you've got two of the best value portrait lenses out there :)

[ed rader]

Andy -- the 50mm is a perfect length for portraits and is the quintessential budget portrait lens on a camera with a 1.6 crop factor.

if someone new to photography asks me for a budget protrait lens this is the one i will recommend, tho i will also recommend a mid-range, inexpensive zoom that can do so much more than just take portraits.


lenses i would not recommend are the 85 and 100mm. great lenses but for the guy who knows exactly what he wants but not for the guy who does not even know what a prime lens is.

okay maybe i read betwen the lines on the 50 1.8mm. but here is what i read.


>>budget lens will give U budget pictures. That's why people buy the good stuff.<<

>>While the 50 is cheap and optically good, it will not inspire many people to take or attempt to take great pics...........<<

>>Get a prime, and don't get the nifty fifty - it's cheap for a reason. <<

bokeh? we are talking about a $70 lens and a guy who doesn't even know what a prime lens is.

baby steps, i say.

bokeh can come later and for many it will never be a serious consideration in lens selection.

my recomendation is to keep it simple until you figure out your needs.

ed rader