Question RE: Portrait Lens Question on a 40D (1.6x crop)

[DeCeccoNET]

Hi Everybody!


(I'll try not to make this too long, but any advice would be greatly appreciated, as I am hoping to make a final decision by tomorrow afternoon when I am going to B&H).


My situation is this; I am about to start taking quite a few head-shots & model shots (possibly full body). I intend to mainly shoot indoors, with my 3 Speedlight = Transmitter setup (a reflector and backdrop may be used as needed also).

On my last job, I shot with a 50mm 1.4 and I liked it, so since I just sold my zooms, I decided to pick one up the other day. I do intend to pick up a 17-55 f2.8 IS ASAP to use as my main lens however...

Currently my only other lens is the 70-200 F4L IS, which borders on the long side portraits, but I feel may be too slow for head-shots if I want to do natural indoor light.



My 3 questions (no more, no less ) are;

- In terms of sharpness/DOF Would it then be redundant to continue using the 50 1.4 as opposed to the 17-55IS which I am under the impression is a sharper/more versitle lens despite the difference in aperture?

- Would it make more sense to exchange the 50 for the 85 1.8 since that would give me a more significant speed advantage over the 70-200 when shooting low-light/indoor portraits? That being said in testing the 70-200 around 85mm, I do find the field of view to be quite narrow on the 40D, but i can imagine situations where it may be nice to have a faster lens within that range. Furthermore, I am under the impression that the 85 has better bokeh than the 50. But I am going to assume that the 17-55 and 70-200 would blow either out of the water in that regard anyway.

- Finally, am I just going crazy? I found using a prime lens to help my creativity when shooting portraits/model shots in that I don't have to worry about changing focal length. In physically moving myself to crop the shot, I find that I come up with more creative angles then had I zoomed from a stationary standpoint. But that aside, the only other advantage I could see with either of these primes is having the faster aperture for if/when i may need it. Based on my needs as listed here, do I make a strong case for the 50 or 85 at all? or should i forget about primes and their faster apertures altogether?


Follow up question (ok, so this makes 4)... What about using the 60mm efs Macro 2.8 lens for portraits? Granted the apeture is still limited to 2.8, but I could try macro in the future, and at the very least it would give me something outside of my pre-existing focal range. And trying macro could be fun...


Thanks!

-John

[mson]

I'm no expert so take my advice with that in mind.

1. I've heard good things about the 17-55IS, but I'm pretty sure the 50 1.4 will be sharper with better IQ. BTW, why the 17-55 instead of the 24-70 2.8L? You lose IS, but I think what you gain in IQ is worth it. You will be in a studio and be able to use a tripod, I don't think you would miss IS in that situation.

2. There is a general rule that 85mm is the best for portraits. 50x1.6 is 80mm so I don't see a significant reason to use the 85 over the 50 unless you want/need to be further away from the subject. Depending on your lighting f/4 might be enough. Have you taken any test shots?

3. It sounds like you are overthinking it. Primes will give you (general rule) better IQ, faster, for less money. I would stick with the 50 1.4 and get the 24-70 2.8L or if you want a wider angle and can spend a little more get the 16-35 2.8L. Really, you can do everything you described with the 50.

4. See #3

Hopefully I helped. I'm going crazy myself trying to decide which lens to get next.

[4g63photo]

I really think the 17-55 would give you great portraits. I hate to say this, but the 17-55 IMO has better IQ than the 24-70. Thats probably the first and last time I will ever say that.
The fast lenses are great for portraits. You can really separate the subject from the background. As I am learning, the fast lenses give you razor thin focusing. My problem is that when I try to photograph a child, they are moving around a lot. Using a lens at f/1.8 is a bit rough. At least for me it has been. One eye will be in perfect focus and the other slightly off. The 17-55 is a bit short when I shoot children. I really like the 85mm length on the 20D.

[tonylong]

The 85 is a great head-and-shoulders lens for use on a FF camera, such as the 5D, but it might be more limited with a crop camera, depending on the space.

If you're hand-holding, the 17-55 IS would serve well, but with a tripod it would lose its advantage. I like to think of dual cameras in close settings: one on a tripod (either the 24-70 or a prime) and one with the 17-55 to dash around and get more "casual" shots.

For all hand-held, unless you are using bright studio lighting, the IS may make the day depending on how stable you are at hand-holding if you're shooting at 2.8 or narrower. In that case, though, I would think the faster primes should be at hand.

[DeCeccoNET]

Thanks for the replies.

I ended up going to B&H today and returned the 50 1.4 From my tests, it was a great lens, but the 17-55IS was definitly sharper (although not in stock for me to actually buy

I decided to go a different rout for the time being; the 85 was definitely too long for my crop body and my specific needs; I have a mobile setup, so working distance isnt always an option for me.

What I did do was test out the ef-s 60mm 2.8 macro, and all I have to say is WOW! First off, the backround blur is amazing! Second, this puppy is noticably sharper, still about the same price of the 50 1.4, and (obviously) offers the macro feature. The focal distance also seems to work well for my portrait needs, and from my tests in the store and at home, this baby is tack sharp even at 2.8.

In the end, I am ultimately going to get the 17-55, and will probably use it for portraits if I need the space, as well as my everyday walk-around lens. If space isnt tight, I plan to use my 60 (which i was further able to justify in that it does not overlap any of my other lens ranges).

I have also thoroughly enjoyed playing with the macro since i got home!

[tonylong]

Well, good for you!

Maco lenses do have a good reputation for sharp all-around lenses, although they tend to be not as fast at AF from what I gather, and they don't come in the fast variety that your fixed lenses do. So, when setting up a shoot, you need to pay attention to lighting, but also to your desired depth-of-field. One of the advantages of having a fixed lens is that you can fine-tune your depth-of-field to some great levels -- with a 2.8 or slower lens you have to do more compensation of distance between your subject and the background to get that smooth blurring affect. The same would go with the 17-55...it would do great as a casual portrait lens but maybe not as good as the 50 1.4 for those special glamour shots.

[DeCeccoNET]

Tonylong,

I definitely agree with regard to AF speed. In good light, the 60 is faster and quiet than my 50 was, but it does seem to get stuck hunting in lower light situations. I also do notice a difference with regard to loosing the faster f stop, but should that become an issue, I can always borrow my friends 50 1.4 untill i reach a point where I may "need" another prime of my own