which 50mm for studio portraits?

I've shot a lot of studio portraits in my living room. With my current lens, I've been sticking to my 70-200L as it provides the best quality photos. HOWEVER, it puts my back completely against the wall with just enough space to do full body individual vertical shots. I've been considering buying a 50mm to allow more movement and allow more than 1 subject in the shot.

Which 50mm lens gives good quality, sharpness, etc? With my settings, I usually shoot at f8 (so I won't be shooting with wide apertures). Budget isn't sooooo tight. I'm willing to buy the 50L if the quality is so obviously better than the 50 1.4 to rationalize the price.

So which 50 would you guys recommend?

PS - I know I have a 35mm but I don't like using wide lens for portraits

Here we are again:

For me, the 50L is really worth it. It is sharp right on 1.2 if the focus is right. It needs a little getting into it but if you know how to use it, it will produce better images then any of the other 50mm around. Still if it wouldnt be sharp at 1.2 you still can go to 1.4 which is then really sharper than the max 1.4 version. Because of the shallow DOF (depth of field) it might be too tiny for whole person shots, so id say the 1.4 could serve you just as well as you anyway have to use apertures of f/2 or so (if its intended to get the person from the nose to the ears sharp)

Its up to you now. If you want to use that lens for much possible background blur and isolation as well as shallow DOF photography the 50L is your lens. If not, better go the route with the 50 1.4 or maybe even the 50mm 1.8. The 1.8 is a real bargain and if you go the 1.8 way you still could get another lens..

After all, i love my 50L but for portrait work the DOF is too small wide open, and i dont buy a 1.4k lens to shoot at f/2 when it has the possibility to go 1.2

davidfarina wrote in post #16263495
and i dont buy a 1.4k lens to shoot at f/2 when it has the possibility to go 1.2

This pretty much sums it up.

No one buys a f1.2 lens to shoot @ f8.

The creamy/smooth bokeh characteristics won't be utilized in a studio environment.

50 1.4 all the way.

kin2son wrote in post #16263499
This pretty much sums it up.

No one buys a f1.2 lens to shoot @ f8.

The creamy/smooth bokeh characteristics won't be utilized in a studio environment.

50 1.4 all the way.

Id go with the 1.8 as it is just a fragment of the prices of the 1.4 or the 1.2. I think the 1.8 mark II is the lens where you get most for your money. I dont think there are sharper lenses around at that price tag. However the build is a bit plasticky so its up to the OPs preferences

Plus you can save up for another lens a nice tripod or something else if you take the 1.8...

Sigma 50mm f1.4 is nice. Sometimes even with modelling lights, 50mm f1.8 had AF issues.

At smaller apertures, f/4.0-f/8.0 go with 1.4

If you don't need f/1.2 then I wouldn't get the f/1.2 lens. Unless it is extremely important to you to have the real USM and build quality of this lens. If you shoot mostly at f/5.6 or higher than honestly I'd probably get the f/1.8 lens. At smaller apertures (even f/4) it's basically as sharp all over the frame as almost any other lens. The only thing I really don't like about the 50mm f/1.8 is the manual focus. Overall, I'd get the f/1.4 or the Sigma...

Shoot at f8 and budget is tight? Screams 50 1.8 to me. In studio focusing won't be an issue since you will have plenty of light, and in studio you're backgrounds will be controlled, and you're at f8 so pleasing bokeh isn't really an issue. 50 1.8 will do everything you need well within your budget.

Screams like Sigma 50mm f/1.4 to me. Beats both the Canon 50/1.4 and 50/1.8 in color rendering, focus (ring motor vs micro-USM) and bokeh thanks to it's more modern optical design. Granted color rendering is a personal preference so I suggest taking a look at the lens sample threads to help make up your mind. And no, I think the 50L would be waste of money. At f/8 you will not see any difference with 50L and Sigma 50mm.

P.S. Even if you would end up with a badly focusing Sigma (I'm not saying you do), at f/8 that is not a problem as the DoF is quite huge. Plus Sigma has the longest warranty. And there is always a chance that the Canon 50\1.4 USM motor will fail, it's notorious for failures after few years of use due to bad design...

For a studio environment, the biggest bang for the buck is still the nifty fifty. It is sharp at f8 just like the other more expensive 50s. If you can bear the whining AF noise and the toy look, go for it. However, if you have a bigger budget, I would get the Sigma 50. Looks pro and you get more quality shots if you decide to go to the harsh outdoors with it. The Canon 50L produce images with its own unique qualities at f1.2 that none can reproduce. But that is top $$$ as you know.

I've used my 50mm f/2.5 compact macro quite a bit in the studio as well. It's extremely sharp at all apertures, even at the corners wide open, although I usually use it at f/5.6 - f/8. Also it focuses pretty quickly from shot to shot especially since I'm shooting from several feet away instead of at macro distances. The only downside is it's so sharp and has such good resolution that touching up flaws in skin takes a bit more work than with some of my other lenses.

Studio portraits? 24-105L. You'll be stopping down to f/5.6~f/11 anyway.

I've only used (and currently own) the 50L and f/1.8; I can't speak for the Sigma or the Canon 1.4.
If price is a major consideration, by all means go with the nifty fifty. At f/8, there's not much differenc among any of the 50s, I think. Build quality is another thing entirely...
You didn't say if you were a professional photographer. If I were (and I'm not), I'd be very hesistant to use such a cheap lens for studio portraiture jobs unless I had a second one in reserve. Sure, it won't get knocked about like it would outside, but still. On the other hand, I'd have no fears about the build quality of the 50L. It's built like a tank.
Also, the manual focus on the 1.8 absolutely sucks. Yeah, AF is easy in a studio, but really, there are going to be times when you want to use it and I guarantee you'll curse its existence when you do.

24-105 for studio stopped down work

I love the feeling of how the f1.4 is built. I'm guessing the f1.8 feels like my 18-55mm kit lens which I don't really like because of the focus ring. But it's the only real reason I went with the f1.4.