1 year now w/my 50mm 1.8, what now for primarily portraitsin natural light?

I just discovered a marvelous sticky about lenses. And I promise I've been reading all kinds of stickies (how I missed it, I don't know)! I'll spend a few hours going through the sticky and save you all from repeating yourselves. And thank you to those who responded, I really appreciate it!


I have had my 30d and my 50mm 1.8 for a year now. I absolutely love the body and the lens. So much so, that I've been reading various posts on this forum for a couple days now trying to decide which lens to make for my next purchase (I recently purchased a 430 ex II flash to begin experimenting w/more than natural light, also).

My major dilemma lies in that my dream is to move into professional photography: knowing that, how do I spend my money? Should I go for the less expensive lenses, such as a 85 1.8, or purchase an "L". I have been 2nd shooter for two weddings (using my 50 and then using main photographer's lenses) and had the pleasure to take a couple's engagement photos. All other photography have been mostly of my children and family.

I would love some help thinking this through. I have even debated taking a day trip to B&H in hopes of being able to see a lot of glass in one place and get a feel for the various focal lengths and what they offer.

Although I could spend the money to purchase a higher end lens, it would at least another year before I could afford any other equipment. That is, w/o making any income from photography. Which, is a whole other issue I need to research and figure out.

Another question, is that sometimes I feel like I can only get so much from my 1.8. I know in certain situations that my photos will be amazing, but I feel like other photos look flat and bland. I know there are many variables, but I look at some amazing portraits on here and know that although some of my could come close, there is a certain incredible crispness that mine lack.

I look forward to hearing your insight.

I think the first thing is to define what shots you are unable to get with the 50mm f/1.8

Subjects too far? Get a telephoto
Wide angle?
Macro?
Low light?
Zoom? Super zoom?

Me personally, I started with the 18-55 kit and the 50mm 1.8 and I went towards the low light photography and now I have the 50mm 1.4, 24L 1.4 II, and the 100mm 2.8 Macro

ctrlcctrlv wrote in post #10628340
I think the first thing is to define what shots you are unable to get with the 50mm f/1.8

Subjects too far? Get a telephoto
Wide angle?
Macro?
Low light?
Zoom? Super zoom?

Actually, I am incredibly pleased w/the 50mm 1.8. I feel like for the portraits I've taken the photos look great and I am very comfortable with moving around to get the composition I want. But, I do wonder what my photos would look like with, let's say, same focal length, by over 1,000 more in dollars (the 50L).

So, even just hearing your opinion on that would be awesome.

Now, I've missed quite a few great photo opportunities b/c I couldn't fit the desired subject in my frame. So, definitley a wider angle would be nice. I also find I make other small children (my kids are used to being my little models) uncomfortable when I am photographing head shots. haha

I just wish there was a lens, even if was thousands, that could just do everything! i.e. wide angle, great for portraits, and not scare toddlers at close range nor tempt babies to smear the end w/their spit. : - )

If you like the 50mm F/1.8's build and optics, you're going to like the 85/1.8 even more. There's quite a diminishing return on the 85L, although it's a beautiful lens. 85mm is definitely a better head shot lens, or even the 135mm, but then you're talking L prices....

Alternatively, for wider, consider the 35mm F/2 or 35L. It kinda really depends how much you want to spend. Since you're very satisfied with the 50/1.8, either the 35/2 or 85/1.8 are excellent choices.

dr4gon wrote in post #10628426
If you like the 50mm F/1.8's build and optics, you're going to like the 85/1.8 even more. There's quite a diminishing return on the 85L, although it's a beautiful lens. 85mm is definitely a better head shot lens, or even the 135mm, but then you're talking L prices....

Alternatively, for wider, consider the 35mm F/2 or 35L. It kinda really depends how much you want to spend. Since you're very satisfied with the 50/1.8, either the 35/2 or 85/1.8 are excellent choices.

I notice in your signature that you have the 70-200mmL. There is another thread that is talking a lot about that lens being incredible for portraits. Please forgive my ignorance, but is there another learning curve getting used to a fixed aperture?

I like the idea of the 35 mm, for photographing my family and life. When do you think one should consider purchasing the "L" over the 35/2?

What is your budget?

For a 30D, some good prime lens options are the Canon 35mm f/2, Canon 28mm f/1.8, and Sigma 30mm f/1.4. However, if you are starting to use a flash, then I'd recommend you think about an f/2.8 zoom lens. Maybe the Tamron 17-50mm (original non-VC version) or Tamron 28-75mm, or if you can afford it the Canon 17-55mm IS lens. In my opinion, any lens over 75mm on a 30D (or any DSLR body with an APS-C size sensor) will be tough to use indoors because you won't be able to back up far enough.

Lizzytra wrote in post #10628278
Another question, is that sometimes I feel like I can only get so much from my 1.8. I know in certain situations that my photos will be amazing, but I feel like other photos look flat and bland. I know there are many variables, but I look at some amazing portraits on here and know that although some of my could come close, there is a certain incredible crispness that mine lack.

You should post some example pictures that aren't "crisp" to let others see what's wrong. More than likely it is something you are doing and not a fault of your camera or lens. That said, there are lots of people that complain about auto-focus inaccuracy with the 50mm f/1.8 lens.

shaftmaster wrote in post #10628812
You should post some example pictures that aren't "crisp" to let others see what's wrong. More than likely it is something you are doing and not a fault of your camera or lens. That said, there are lots of people that complain about auto-focus inaccuracy with the 50mm f/1.8 lens.

Thank you so much for all your input. I'll have to look through some photos later and post, as you suggest. Although, having "real" veteran photographers look at my work, already makes me nervous. haha

And, I am willing to spend $$$ as I have been using the nifty fifty to learn my camera and to take time to consider other lens purchases. Before I bought my 30d a year ago now, I used film or a point and shoot digital. BUT, I don't know if something like L glass would benefit from my use as I'm just not that great yet. It would be a lot more fun to buy 2-3 different lenses to play around with over 1 L lens.

Oh, and I for sure have to take my camera off auto-focus for closer up shots. It just gets annoying otherwise. Especially in low lighting, being more open. So, if that what others have found, that is relieving, as I thought it was my ill-use at being fast enough w/that choose-the-focus-area button (sorry, forgot the proper term for that!)

I would recommend first deciding on the focal length and then checking which options are available at this focal length.

If you still need help with focal length this is a great article: http://www.digital-slr-guide.com/focal-length.html

As for a practical, visual guide this is pretty useful also: http://www.juzaphoto.c​om …al_length_compa​risons.htm

If you are just uneasy with a fixed focal length and are looking for a walk-around zoom, perhaps go for the Tamron 17-50mm f/2.8* ($300), Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM* ($900), or even the kit lens, 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS* ($100).

*Note: these will not work on full frame cameras. If you are definitely moving to full frame soon then the 24-70 f/2.8L is best.

This sites also gives good advice http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Canon-Lenses/
Hope this helps,

So, I've read through many links. I've been reading stickies. And I think my brain has now turned to complete mush. I think the answer to my dilemna is to purchase three lenses, but I'd rather start by just getting one.

I'll be taking a lot of candid of my kids, some family portraits, and 2nd shooting at a wedding in October. I'd love to experiment w/the effect a little compression would have on portraits that a longer lens would give me.

And I discovered an affordable "L" lens: the 70-200 mm f4. I have come to think of attaining an L lens like.... just arriving in the photography world. haha I was all set to think about the 85 1.8 as possibly my next purchase, but then I'm wondering if this lens would give the nice portrait length AND be versatile in grabbing ceremony shots and candids at the wedding. Not to mention just kind of fun at getting candids of kids.

But, should I be thinking of a zoom that might include a wider angle for versatility (still won't get those tight spots.... but then what about that compression of a longer focal length)? And then maybe a non-canon lens (off brand) to save $$ as all my photography has been for free, and well, I'm just not THAT great yet.

What do you think? Tamron 28-75??

The 85 1.8 is a superlative lens and is even superior to the 85L in many ways. It's is certainly NOT a second-rate lens. It's a great choice of lens to get. But I would get a good primary zoom first. Consider the Tamron 17-50 instead of the 28-75.

The 70-200 F/4 is an amazing lens, but the one of choice for wedding shooting is the 70-200 F/2.8 IS version I or II.

DON'T get caught up in the L-hype. Because often it is more hype than need. There are excellent selections in the non-L and third party categories. I am a full time pro, but most of my lenses are not L.

I'm going out on a limb here but I recommend the 28-105mm F3.5-4.5 lens...it offers the flexibility of the zoom in the range perfect for portraits...it is a compact, light-weight unintimidating lens...and is very affordable....
It is plenty sharp for portraits (sharpness is not the most critical element in a portrait lens...otherwise why would so many people use the soft focus feature of the 135mm SF lens)...
It has little discernible distortion, and renders colors very nicely....
Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it....even though I have plenty of primes perfect for portraits (including the classic 85/105 Nikkor lenses, which if you're good at manual focusing should be considered too), this little lens is my all 'round people lens.

For family ports on a 30D body, I'd recommend three lenses. Two are nearly identical in price, and all three have excellent image quality when used in their sweet spots.

The first is the Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS - the image stabilized version of the kit lens. It has remarkable center sharpness, especially when used in the f/5.6-11 f range. Not as good when used wide open for landscapes because of edge sharpness, but that's not an issue for most portraiture. Its a clear winner in the "bang for your buck" category. Don't confuse it with the first series of mediocre kit lenses that did not have IS.

A better choice, and far more expensive, is the Canon EF-S 17-55mm IS. It has a constant 2.8 aperture, and is a terrific lens. Its the EF-S lens equivalent to an L lens in image quality. Because of its high IQ over most of its range, its one of the best walkaround lenses in that focal range. It was my "go to" lens for a long time. I sold it to buy the next lens on my list.

As I use both FF and crop, I have gone to the Canon EF 24-105mm IS. While its less useful on a crop body because of its 24mm wide end, it is nonetheless an exceptional lens. It has excellent sharpness and contrast, and phenomenal color saturation. I absolutely love it.

Others to consider - Canon EF 17-40. Sharp lens, solid performer in most situations except low light. If you can live with its f/4 aperture, it would also be a pretty good walk around lens as well. Tamron 28-75 XR Di - not as wide at the 28mm end, but a reliable lens for under $500 new, plus, its a constant f/2.8 and great image quality on a crop body.