Crop Sensor Portrait

In a studio setting where I have off camera modified speedlites and a Muslim or paper background where I don't need to blur the background, my 24-105 is my pick. I think the Sigma. 50-150 OS or even the older Non OS would be good too. Tokina made a 50-135/2.8 if you find one used.

If you are shooting outside, I prefer primes on crop. This is because a 1.8 prime is going to give the same blur as a 2.8 zoom at 1.6 times the length. So a 85/1.2 on crop will blur and frame like a 135/2 on FF. It's because of this that I feel fast primes are a must for crop users. So maybe a 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 or 100/2 pair which combined cost less than a new Sigma 50-150 OS might do well.

I have to also say that I think Wilt is being a little too restrictive in the focal length department. Maybe this is because he lives in CA where rent is stoopid expensive and large rooms might not be as prevalent. But I have no problems using my 70-200/4 IS to do headshots on crop. And yes the subject is aware of the shot and can follow my cues. I can stand 12' or so from the subject and still have a good 6 feet behind the subject to set up the background in both my loving room and family rooms. Depending on the shot, I use anywhere from 30mm to 200mm on crop.

pulsar123 wrote in post #16833376
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.

This is pretty solid advice. OP, if you're not sure I'd suggest doing what I did and pick up some cheap vintage lenses in the FL's you're considering (harder to do for 85mm, very easy to do for 50mm) and try them out, then decide where you want to spend the real money.

Be warned though, you may find that you actually prefer to use MF lenses and find yourself without any AF lenses... like I did

frugivore wrote in post #16833488
And the Canon 85mm f/1.8 is dirt cheap compared to other telephoto lens. This is what is use on a crop body.

Yes I love my 85mm for headshot. 50mm was a bit in-your-face but the 85mm seems a bit more comfortable with the subject.

Bracetty wrote in post #16832963
Given the crop sensor I was looking into the sigma 50-150 but that price is still a bit steep for me.

It is not a cheap lens but it is well worth the cost and just about perfect for what you want.

That said, if it is too far out of your price range then a 50mm and 85mm would be a good option as well

Its a hard choice. One I have been toying with or months (for slightly different reasons).

I think the 85 1.8 is a superb lens for the price. My favourite lens, but so limited indoors on a crop. If you just got that and don't like the distortion from your 35, then you may still need a 50 1.4 to fill the gap.

On the other hand if you get a medium telephoto zoom, you are limited to f2.8. By and large I find that is fine indoors, but slightly limiting outdoors creatively, in terms of DOF and bokeh.

I think ultimately, you may be looking at 2 lenses: 2 primes: a 50 for indoors and a 85 for outside; or a telephoto zoom and one of the above primes. As you don't have anything very long at the moment, I would recommend the first. Sigma 50-150 wold complement your kit lens ideally. Once you get that, you can decide on what prime you want.

Numenorean wrote in post #16833249
What a load of rubbish. Okay, so less than 50mm you can have distortion that is unpleasant.....IF you fill the frame with your subject. You could do environmental portraits with 35mm with no issues. Then you start talking about studio portraits...uhm where did the OP mention that? Not all portraits are studio.

Also, choosing longer shooting distances has NOTHING to do with being "shy" or "amateur". If you want spacial compression in a hallway or to compress distance with something in the background or get a really nice fall color but not have definition in the leaves/etc. to be distracting - those are all good reasons for a long focal length. I shoot 200mm portraits all the time. And that's on FF. So 85mm on crop is not an issue at all. It just depends on what you are wanting to do.

Also, a longer shooting distance does not automatically mean candid. That's ridiculous.

I agree with this reaction to Wilt's statements. I think Wilt used to be a military officer, cause he is very strict with his rules. Yes, some of the rules he states about portraits and focal lengths are traditional and certainly can be used as a guideline. However, part of the fun and beauty of photography is breaking these "rules" and experimenting. And some wonderful creativity can come from it. I also use some very long focal lengths when shooting portraits and would recommend that others experiment with this as well. I'd love to see Wilt take a 200mm or 300mm lens one afternoon and shoot some portraits. I bet he'd come up with some surprisingly great photos. He might even break into a smile.

Bracetty wrote in post #16832963
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. But, once I consider AF, the price seems to jump up to 1K if I want the zoom abilities of a 70-200 at atleast 2.8. I don't want another prime, but I don't see myself taking many distance shots. Given the crop sensor I was looking into the sigma 50-150 but that price is still a bit steep for me. Would I be better off looking at like the sigma 17-70, to cover the low end on the 70-200 for a crop, or would it be better to try to go for a longer zoom. If so, what other recommendations would you make? any help would be awesome.

Bracetty, after reading all of this, I guess I want to know what type of portraiture are you wanting to do? Mostly head shots? Environmental? Waist up? You've already mentioned you need f2.8 at the least.

I've used my 70-200 in all it's range, depending on who I was shooting and what I wanted.. it is non is, and as long as you have the shutter speed, quite doable. I can use it on the 70 end for head/shoulders and do quite well.

But if you don't want to break the bank, I would certainly recommend you try out an 85mm f1.8. As long as you aren't doing mostly fast moving children, zooming with your feet is an option for the price tradeoff, imho.

for a comparison, here is my 100mm on a crop in my house, I'm about 6-10 feet from the boys with this shot:

IMAGE LINK: https://www.flickr.com …denrockranch/12​307153625/

I suppose my desire for the 2.8 is simply to have something more all around (low light) since I don't like carrying a bunch of gear. I think I prefer full body portraits but I have been given some excellent info here today. I have actually been heavily researching the "vintage" primes to cover that 50 and 85 range, maybe even add a 20 and sell my 35 altogether and break even. But even with those three in my bag I need something with AF for when other users have my camera and just want to take quick shots. Its mostly hobby for me and I don't do too many shoots so everything is kind of impromptu and all of my subjects aren't as patient as I need with the manual. Not sure how much you know about compatible lenses but im now thinking if I can add those primes I mentioned before and a 105 (low 100 range) lens I might have the perfect setup for shoots and just add a mid zoom later for candid/street stuff. I really just want to get my initial lenses as my workhorse group (primes, low 100, mid/zoom) and then add on at higher f stops later. Im sort of a pixel peeper so I guess its my Achilles heel at least for 3-600 bucks. if I run into something cheap or a good deal ill definitely buy