40mm pancake as a portrait lens?

I'm currently shooting most of my outdoor portrait/engagement sessions with a 600D 50mm 1.8, old sigma 90mm 2.8 and my 10-22mm. I've been able to make do (and fairly well) with those 3 lenses but I feel there is too much of a gap between 22mm and 50mm and besides the nifty fifty, I don't have anything super sharp with a nice bokeh.


My budget is between $4-450 so the 40mm 2.8 comes under budget by a mile! Has anyone used the pancake as a outdoor portrait lens?


I'd be open to buying 3rd party like tamron or sigma too. I thought I'd ask the community here before I pull the trigger on the 40mm 2.8

Thanks!

I'd say the 40mm is to close to the 50mm to have both. A Sigma 30mm would be better if you don't have much room to back up. Otherwise, I'd just stick with the 50mm of its working for you. If you want even better subject/background separation, I'd suggest a longer focal length like the 85mm f/1.8. Of course, it will have a narrow angle of view on a crop sensor body.

The 40 is too close to the 50 IMHO and the 50 is as short as you'd want for portraits. The 40 is a nice lens and is very useful as a SMALL lens, but if looking for a portrait specific lens, I'd look at something more along the lines of a 85 f/1.8 as frugivore suggested. The 100 f/2 isn't bad either and still inside your budget.

Here's one of a million articles explaining why longer is better on portrait lens.
http://www.mcpactions.​com …photographers-experiment/

Considering the OP has a 90mm, I don't think an 85 or 100 would be that beneficial...

I agree that 40mm is quite close to 50mm, so maybe consider the Sigma 30mm as suggested, or one of the 35mm primes?

There is no fixed rule on what focal lengths you should be using for portraits either... have a scroll through the 35mm L or Sigma 35mm threads and you'll see some absolutely amazing portraits. Most of the images posted are taken with a FF camera, however.

I use the Canon 35F2 IS for an outdoor prime. It is about $100 over your budget, but I have also used the older 35F2 for years and it is under budget, sharp and has good AF. If you want F2 or faster, the Canon 35s are worth the cost of admission, but I highly recommend the newer version with IS. It is a hair sharper, has IS, and much better resistance to flare. I would go for the newer Sigma 30 Art, before the 40 F2.8, because I would rather have the faster max aperture.
My F2.8 primes are macro lenses. It is unfortunate that Tokina stopped making their 35F2.8 macro, because that lens is great for a trip to the gardens. It is also a fine outdoor portrait lens...for environmental portraits.

its gonna produce some weird distortions (cant think of the actual; term right now). Big heads, skinny legs etc...Im sure there is a workaround for this, but Im not sure how.

I really like the tammy 17-50 for that budget, and you'll find it a nice convenient general purpose lens. If you REALLY want to go with another prime, then the 35/2IS will probably fit in nicely. I have the 40 pancake, and it just doesn't "wow" me. It's plenty sharp and all, but at least on my FF cameras it is a little too long for wide angle. I'm actually thinking of selling it just because I have never ever used it other than for test shots

gnome chompski wrote in post #16463779
its gonna produce some weird distortions (cant think of the actual; term right now). Big heads, skinny legs etc...Im sure there is a workaround for this, but Im not sure how.

Stand further away. This "distortion" is just the natural operation of perspective, and the only way of altering it is by adjusting subject distance. Focal length is not the cause.

So:
Stand where you need to for the perspective (and to some extent the composition) you want;
Choose the focal length that gives you the framing you want (or a bit looser if you must and are willing to crop);
Choose the aperture for the DoF you want, given distance, focal length and format;
Adjust shutter speed to freeze any subject movement;
Pick your ISO to get the exposure you need.

xarqi wrote in post #16464736
Stand further away. This "distortion" is just the natural operation of perspective, and the only way of altering it is by adjusting subject distance. Focal length is not the cause.

So:
Stand where you need to for the perspective (and to some extent the composition) you want;
Choose the focal length that gives you the framing you want (or a bit looser if you must and are willing to crop);
Choose the aperture for the DoF you want, given distance, focal length and format;
Adjust shutter speed to freeze any subject movement;
Pick your ISO to get the exposure you need.

Great process! Too often I see people suggesting a change in shutter speed or f-stop to control exposure, but that is really their secondary function IMO.

I'd argue that angle of view (which affects composition) is more important than the amount of linear perspective distortion in most photographs.

Heya,

With your budget and your current lenses, the EF 85mm 1.8 seems like a straight go to.

Very best,

If you are fine with f2.8, I'd just get a Tamron 17-50 f2.8 which gives you a lot more flexibility.

frugivore wrote in post #16466723
I'd argue that angle of view (which affects composition) is more important than the amount of linear perspective distortion in most photographs.

There are many trade-offs, and I'd agree that a key component of position is to get the best angle of view possible also, in order to incorporate the background features that are desirable (especially important in "environmental" portraiture) and exclude those that are detrimental, less of an issue in studio work of course. That's one of the reasons I qualified my comment about perspective control and composition; that and the role of framing in composition.