Looking for a fast portrait lens

bobbyz wrote in post #15327761
Thanks.

I love them too, I love the longer focal lengths. It really makes the portraits and photos come alive and they seem life like....almost surreal. Nothing that a 50mm lens could pull off. I'd love to have a 70-200 or 200 2.8.

Sovern wrote in post #15327788
I love them too, I love the longer focal lengths. It really makes the portraits and photos come alive and they seem life like....almost surreal. Nothing that a 50mm lens could pull off. I'd love to have a 70-200 or 200 2.8.

I agree.

FEChariot wrote in post #15326431
@bobby - very nice.

@OP not sure what you have for a standard zoom, but I really like the Sigma 17-50 and 85/1.8 paired up. The sigma 30/1.4 also pairs well with the 85/1.8.

The 50's provide a nice focal length on crop, but the existing options leave too much, for me, to be desired. The 50/1.8 has poor bokeh and inconsistant focus accuracy. I stop it down to 2.8 for sharpness and to increase the DOF for better AF hitrate. At which time, I can use my Sigma 17-50 wide open and it be sharp @50mm wide open so I'm not really losing anything over the 50/1.8.

The 501/4 from Canon is probably the most prone to failurelens in Canon's line up. The Sigma 50/1.4 is known to shift focus based on subject distance, and the 50/1.2L is well more than I can justify.

+1 to everything FEChariot said.

I'm currently using a Tamron 17-50 and canon 100 f2, but pretty similar setup (I might upgrade to the Sigma for the autofocus soon).

The 17-50 is great for indoor event work and the 85 or 100mm primes are lovely for portraits.

Sovern wrote in post #15327455
I'd have to disagree with you. I find 50mm even short on my crop body, can;t imagine how short it feels on a full frame. I'd personally look into a 85 1.8 followed up with a 200 f2.8 L lens. These two lenses should do everything you want when it comes to outdoor portraiture when you have plenty of room.

The 85 1.8 won;t be too tight and will be able to get full body, torso, head and shoulder, and head shot portraits a long with slight environmental portraits.

With the 200 2.8 you will be able to get very. very nice compression and take shots far a far while getting very nice isolation as needed a long with it's amazing image quality.

Both lenses also won;t be huge like a 70-200 would be and both lenses are going to be sharper and have more contrast/saturation than any of the 70-200 lenses a long with being cheaper.

This is the route that I plan on going as I personally don't like zooms much except for their wide end when needed but a wide angle can take care of that, otherwise a few steps back when using a 50mm will give you 35mm, few steps forward will give you 85mm (obviously all without the same perspective as these lenses but it will be close) so if you go with an all prime set up I'd suggest first a wide angle such as the 10-22, 35 2.0, 85 1.8, 135 2.0, and 200 2.8. With those 5 lenses you can cover everything.

Oh I thought you don't like background separation. I really should stop spending too much time here

Just saying doing portrait with anything over 135mm without IS is a PITA. Not that you cannot do it but it is a PITA if you need the critical sharpness in the eyes with a shallow DOF.

bobbyz wrote in post #15323234
Man, I am probably the only one using much longer focal lengths.200mm

I would go for 85mm f1.8 for crop. outdoors what is the issue with space?

Edited: - Saw you mention weddings, then I would be more inclined for the 50mm f1.4

Those are outstanding shots and thanks for posting them.

vaflower wrote in post #15329442
Oh I thought you don't like background separation. I really should stop spending too much time here

Just saying doing portrait with anything over 135mm without IS is a PITA. Not that you cannot do it but it is a PITA if you need the critical sharpness in the eyes with a shallow DOF.

The thing is if you're shooting a portrait with a focal length over 135mm and you're using good lighting (IE an umbrella or softbox setup) then shutter speed does not manner as the flash freezes the action, shutter only controls the ambient.

Otherwise I'd still rather have the optics of the primes such as the 200mm 2.8 over the 70-200 2.8 IS II just because the 200mm 2.8 will focus faster and more accurately, have better contrast, sharpness, more accurate metering thanks to less glass, and color and to me that warrants using a shutter speed of say 200 or 250 vs only 125 like you usually shoot for portraits that don't involve flash.

So with the 200mm without IS you might lose a stop when shooting people but that extra stop to me would be worth what primes are best at and in most portrait situations you have more than enough light to even warrant a 200 to 250 shutter speed without the need to jump up the iso even with natural light.

I'm actually curious if you can get tack sharp photos without IS at 200mm with a shutter speed of say 125 as that high of a shutter should freeze all camera shake regardless of the focal length = suggested shutter suggestion that gets posted quite a bit.

I liked my 50 1.8 on the 60D. Hate it on the 5D.
I liked my 85 1.8 on the 60D. I really shines on the 5D.
I wish I had kept my 135L.

Man, where do you come up with this stuff?

Sovern wrote in post #15332295
The thing is if you're shooting a portrait with a focal length over 135mm and you're using good lighting (IE an umbrella or softbox setup) then shutter speed does not manner as the flash freezes the action, shutter only controls the ambient.

Not true at all. It depends on how much ambient is contributing to the exposure, and even in the case of no ambient contribution, what focal length you're shooting at and what the flash duration of your strobes are.

Sovern wrote in post #15332295
Otherwise I'd still rather have the optics of the primes such as the 200mm 2.8 over the 70-200 2.8 IS II just because the 200mm 2.8 will focus faster and more accurately, have better contrast, sharpness, more accurate metering thanks to less glass, and color and to me that warrants using a shutter speed of say 200 or 250 vs only 125 like you usually shoot for portraits that don't involve flash.

Can you please point me towards the sources you have for this info? I'd be very interested to read the findings, since that seems to run counter to most of the user feedback I've heard (including my own). Also, why would 1/125 sec be the typical shutter speed for natural light portraits?

Sovern wrote in post #15332295
I'm actually curious if you can get tack sharp photos without IS at 200mm with a shutter speed of say 125 as that high of a shutter should freeze all camera shake regardless of the focal length = suggested shutter suggestion that gets posted quite a bit.

Not sure where you got the idea that 1/125 sec was some magic shutter speed that nullified any focal length, but it's not the case. The rule of thumb is 1/focal length as the bare minimum for shutter speed.

Nightdiver13 wrote in post #15332411
Man, where do you come up with this stuff?

Not true at all. It depends on how much ambient is contributing to the exposure, and even in the case of no ambient contribution, what focal length you're shooting at and what the flash duration of your strobes are.

Can you please point me towards the sources you have for this info? I'd be very interested to read the findings, since that seems to run counter to most of the user feedback I've heard (including my own). Also, why would 1/125 sec be the typical shutter speed for natural light portraits?

Not sure where you got the idea that 1/125 sec was some magic shutter speed that nullified any focal length, but it's not the case. The rule of thumb is 1/focal length as the bare minimum for shutter speed.

Next time please be polite and don't say "man where do you come up with this stuff" it's not mature. I wish you all well. Anyways....

Actually it is true, when shooting with flash from a large light source (IE Umbrella and your flash is key of course) and you have a model or whomever you're shooting as your main subject the flash will freeze the subject and the shutter speed contributes to nothing but the ambient (for the most part).

Go to Google and search "dragging the shutter" you'll learn how flash plays a role when it comes to the basic settings of a camera (aperture, shutter speed, iso).

Aperture & iso controls flash output + ambient while shutter only controls ambient. (Remember we're talking about a standard portrait set up with a large light source being your key, the most basic of setups)

I was just simply stating that with good hand hold technique I'm sure that you can get away with lower shutter speeds than the proposed focal length = shutter theory.

If you're shooting fast paced events or weddings the 70-200 IS would obviously be a better choice than the 200 primes though.

Sovern:

You might just want to bite your tongue for a month or two and just not log into the forum at all especially after the mess you created on the 200/2.8 versus Sigma 70-200 OS thread. Nightdiver just gave you a perfectly correct answer and now you are trying to debate him based on google without any real world experience. And I am sure his starting tone would have been more gentle if not for your recent history here.

What he ^ said.

As a rule I don't do 'people' shots BUT if I may throw another option into the pot - how about covering all bases with the Canon 70-200 2.8 mk2 - seriously!

Just my opinion, but worth hiring / borrowing one before you get hung up on primes (especially if your NOT sticking to a set studio etc)

.DAVID.

drzenitram wrote in post #15332842
I really wish you'd stop trying to post "useful information". You're so misguided.

For one, the optics of the 200 2.8 prime are not better than the 70-200 2.8 II. The 70-200 is better in every way but weight and cost.

Source? Care to elaborate?

Lonnie wrote in post #15332858
Source? Care to elaborate?

http://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=0​&APIComp=0

There's just one, and in his review he states "At most identical apertures, the newer 70-200mm f/2.8 L IS II Lens is actually slightly sharper." 200mm @ 2.8 is one of them.

As much as I like the Digital Picture website, the lens image quality page is flawed. I discovered this when I looked at the samples from the 60mm 2.8 macro. The quality looks awful on this page. So bad, that I would never purchase such a lens with those samples. In reality, this lens is the sharpest lens I have ever used. Sharper than my 7 "L" lenses. That's quite a discrepancy! Also... about a year ago, a freind from St. Louis was in town with his 70-200mm 2.8 II. He did a test between his lens and my 200mm 2.8. There was no difference in the IQ between these lenses. The 70-200mm zoom is the best zoom ever made. A real work of art. But I'm tired of hearing general statements of how it blows away the prime.