Best lenses for portraits

The last releases from Sigma got me thinking. There is a lot of excitement about the Art 35 and 50 mm lense and I got excited myself and replaced my Zeiss Distagon 35 with the Sigma.

If I analyse my own portraits, be it headshots or einvironmental, sharpness is very-very important, but not the most important.

1. The lens should be relatively sharp, you need to have eyes sharp
2. Very-very reliable AF. MF is a no go for me...not on my Canon 5D MKIII
3. Creamy and pleasing bokeh, it cannot be nervous as in the case of Sigma

I do most of my portraits with 70-200 because it is sharp...as sharp as primes, has super AF and really nice bokeh.

I still think 85L and 50L are better for portraits simply because of the bokeh.
I would say Zeiss would be best of all, but I will never bother because of the MF.

AF wise

85L
135L
and I would take 200mm f2 L before any Zeiss glass.

I forgot 135, you are right. Reason I went for 70-200 is because I have anti-GAS, I feel better with less gear. The new 70-200 is so good that you do not have a need for 85 and 135 anymore. It is more comfortable to use 70-200.

In any case, I came to a point when I do realize sharpness is far from everything. It matters more for landscape than for portraits, esprcially the corner sharpness.

Bokeh and reliable AF, also the weight is what makes a difference for portraits.

Ever thought about the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS? Nice focal length for portraits, and you get the bonus of a top-notch macro lens.

LV Moose wrote in post #16847841
Ever thought about the 100mm f/2.8L Macro IS? Nice focal length for portraits, and you get the bonus of a top-notch macro lens.

Yes, but again...I have it with 70-200 II and I do not do macro. My point is more on what lens qualities help to create a good portrait and bokeh is very critical

Weight might be a consideration, if you shoot hand-held.

I dunno. For portraits I would grab:

85, 35, 135, 14, 300mm 2.8, 200 F2, 50mm

Really any lens can do portraits and you forget that portraits can be in the studio at F8. It's up to the photographer to create what he wants and a good photographer can create magic with any lens made period.

It is not the gear at all.

Why does everyone skip the EF 100mm f/2 USM lens when discussing portrait work? Is it that much different than the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM?

So many correct answers, 85L, 35L, 200 f2 are my favorites

pmarz wrote in post #16848232
So many correct answers, 85L, 35L, 200 f2 are my favorites

I can do portraits with an 8mm fisheye. Just all depends on the photographers creativity. I've seen portraits done on most any lens made. Portraits is such a vague word.

CollegeKid wrote in post #16847982
Why does everyone skip the EF 100mm f/2 USM lens when discussing portrait work? Is it that much different than the EF 85mm f/1.8 USM?

Yeah, I think it's different. I think the 100mm f2 is better. It has less CA and from my experience with both lenses, the 100mm f2 has smoother bokeh. And I personally like the slightly longer focal length. Because the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro is so popular due to it's macro capabilities, the 100mm f2 is relatively unknown. I have the 100mm 2.8 L and it's a good portrait lens, but it's no where as good as the 100mm f2.

nightcat wrote in post #16848376
Yeah, I think it's different. I think the 100mm f2 is better. It has less CA and from my experience with both lenses, the 100mm f2 has smoother bokeh. And I personally like the slightly longer focal length. Because the Canon 100mm 2.8 macro is so popular due to it's macro capabilities, the 100mm f2 is relatively unknown. I have the 100mm 2.8 L and it's a good portrait lens, but it's no where as good as the 100mm f2.

Thanks for the support. I had the 100mm f/2.8 Macro. Too big and focused too slowly for me, but I didn't use the limiter. I sold it and got the 60mm f/2.8 Macro, which makes a nice mid-length portrait lens on crops, and the 100 f/2, which work nicely on both formats.

Noses can be quite large using 8mm for portraits. As mentioned in another post 85mm is widely considered to be the most flattering for facial features in fairly close portraits. (head neck type)
(Going out on a limb here, thinking you want to make the subject look good.)

Obviously you can take a "portrait" with any lens. Maybe it is better to use the right tool.

Tapeman wrote in post #16848530
Noses can be quite large using 8mm for portraits. As mentioned in another post 85mm is widely considered to be the most flattering for facial features in fairly close portraits. (head neck type)
(Going out on a limb here, thinking you want to make the subject look good.)

Obviously you can take a "portrait" with any lens. Maybe it is better to use the right tool.

Photography is an interpretive art. There is no "right" tool. Sometimes a 35mm lens on FF is the right tool. Other times it is a 70-200 2.8 on a crop camera. I see no reason not to do portrait work with an 8mm lens, or an 800mm lens for that matter. I won't second-guess your work, please don't second-guess mine.

light_pilgrim wrote in post #16847831
I forgot 135, you are right. Reason I went for 70-200 is because I have anti-GAS, I feel better with less gear. The new 70-200 is so good that you do not have a need for 85 and 135 anymore. It is more comfortable to use 70-200.

In any case, I came to a point when I do realize sharpness is far from everything. It matters more for landscape than for portraits, esprcially the corner sharpness.

Bokeh and reliable AF, also the weight is what makes a difference for portraits.

I am guessing that GAS equates to Gear Acquisition Syndrome....??