Crop Sensor Portrait

On a crop sensor camera, my main portrait lenses are:

50/1.4 and 85/1.8 primes, 24-70/2.8 zoom.

I am currently experimenting with a Tamron SP 60mm f2 macro lens, too. (I'll use it when I am not sure I'll be shooting any portraits or macro and simply want to keep my camera bag to a minimum.... since the Tamron can take the place of three lenses: the 50, 85 and a 100mm macro lens.)

There are two key things I look for in a portrait lens.... One is how it renders perspective, the other is a large aperture to be able to blur down backgrounds when necessary.

Short telephotos render pleasing perspective for portraits. On a crop camera, the focal lengths from about 45mm to 85mm are about right.

Most zooms are f2.8 at best... Same with most macro lenses. And for portraits that's really only marginally large enough an aperture at times, other times isn't as large as I'd like for more complete control over the background. Hence the f1.4, f1.8 and f2.0 prime lenses.

Sometimes a zoom is necessary... kids and pet portraits for example. With them you often have to be quick and the flexibility of a zoom can outweigh it's limited aperture, size and other factors.

Often really fast AF isn't necessary for portraiture (the 60mm Tamron I mentioned above isn't terribly fast focusing... neither is Canon's 85/1.2L II, one of the most premium portrait lenses available). But sometimes it can help... such as shooting candids or portraits during an sports activity.

P.S. IMO, there are many types of "portraits". They range from "candids" to formally posed... single tight head shots to small groups or even large groups... studio to environmental... amatuer subject to professional subject... and many more. The type of portrait being shot can call for a certain type of lens. For example, for a candid shot I want to be unobtrusive and to work fast. That's where a quick fosusing and relatively small prime lens comes in handy. For a fashion shot in a studio with a professional model, a big intimidating lens is less of a concern, focusing precision is more important than speed (usually) and a carefully controlled background doesn't demand a large aperture.

gonzogolf wrote in post #16833257
But the OP didnt as for a candid lens. He mentions the need for a portrait lens so there is an assumption until proven otherwise he will be taking portraits with said lens.

But OP started with, "I originally began looking into the 70-200 range for a better portrait lens, since everyone seems to either point at the 70-200 or the 85mm as the preferred portrait." Clearly the OP as well as many of the repliers THINK that 200mm at the long end makes for a 'better portrait lens'...otherwise a lot of folks should have said 24-105mm is a fine 'portrait lens' -- for both FF and APS-C!

Wilt wrote in post #16833271
But OP started with, "I originally began looking into the 70-200 range for a better portrait lens, since everyone seems to either point at the 70-200 or the 85mm as the preferred portrait." Clearly the OP as well as many of the repliers THINK that 200mm at the long end makes for a 'better portrait lens'...otherwise a lot of folks should have said 24-105mm is a fine 'portrait lens' -- for both FF and APS-C!

Thats still a major leap to the implication that long lenses only result in candids. I dont have any problems with your distance selections, although the "in the studio" seems to miss what many people are doing with portraits these days. Its that last part that I have an issue with.

I use the following lenses for portraits:
Canon 35 F2 IS, inside and out. It is great for low light, multiple people, and general purpose use.
Canon 50 F1.4 - the same, but it gets more use outside.
Canon 8F1.8 - an outside lens for me.
Canon 24-105 F4- really flexible lens for portraits, especially outside.

As the OP let me elaborate. I understand the FF/APC difference this is why I was thinking the Sigma 50-150 might do the trick. It seems to be the most equivalent to a 70-200 on a crop.However, since I would likely be shooting at the low end around the FF equivalent to 85, I am wondering If a mid range might be more suitable. I have a 35 1.4, bokeh is amazing but I am concerned about he distortion of my subjects. I also need to be sure to have a AF since my 35 is manual, and doesn't allow me to do much candid work/street photos with quickly moving subjects. I was also going for a "two-fer" but getting some distance out of the lens, but I need no less than 2.8. I recently started looking at the 17-70 sigma 2.8 but wanted to get more ideas in the mid range arena since I have a crop instead of going long. By coupling my 35 1.4 with a mid range is this more ideal for MY setup than trying for longer zooms, or is the Sigma 50-150 the best bet for a crop sensor. If I go 85 prime im thinking at least a 1.4, but then im stuck in prime territory (with the now added bonus of AF)

My primary desire for the longer length is that everything I read seems to suggests subjects are most attractive at that length.

Bracetty wrote in post #16833336
My primary desire for the longer length is that everything I read seems to suggests subjects are most attractive at that length.

Thats a pretty broad generalization. You can end up with unflattering perspective distortion if you work too close. Its the distance, not the lens, that induces the distortion. But the two are tied to some degree. But with a crop camera anything longer than 50mm and its less of an issue, and you certainly dont need to go all the way to 200.

Seems we have lost focus on my actual question.

I'd suggest get two primes for portraits: a 50mm (could be as simple as f1.8 - works great when stopped down, in studio environment) and an 85mm (could be f1.8, better Sigma f1.4) - for outdoor portraiture with background blurring. Between your 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm you should be pretty well covered in the portraiture department.

heres the counter to the 85...on a crop sensor is an 85 going to be the desired focal length? Shouldn't be I aiming for just over 100 on a crop?

Bracetty wrote in post #16833388
heres the counter to the 85...on a crop sensor is an 85 going to be the desired focal length? Shouldn't be I aiming for just over 100 on a crop?

Considering that my favorite portrait lens on a ff body is a 135L which is roughly the same field of view as the 85 on a crop I would say not.

Bracetty wrote in post #16833135
Honestly given the crop and my existing 35, I would want to be in the 40/50-120 range. Under 750 if possible. Id like a bit of zoom but I don't have anything to cover the 85mm. Haven't actually shot at 85, but I am noticing the facial feature distortion caused by shooting at 35 currently.

A used 24-105? Only f/4, but seems to be in the range you want for f/l and price

gonzogolf wrote in post #16833394
Considering that my favorite portrait lens on a ff body is a 135L which is roughly the same field of view as the 85 on a crop I would say not.

And the Canon 85mm f/1.8 is dirt cheap compared to other telephoto lens. This is what is use on a crop body.

To avoid bulbous noses, 6ft minimum distance, 8ft better, so whatever it takes FL wise to get the framing you want.

if you have the room i think using a longer focal length is nice, because of the background blur it provides as well

for $750, you could look at third party 70-200f2.8 alternatives...you won't get blazing fast AF, but i think it would suffice for portraits

don't get hung up on what focal lengths you are supposed to use, and all that...but i noticed you don't have anything longer than 55mm, so it'll be hard to figure out which focal length you prefer in a longer lens