Best lenses for portraits

CollegeKid wrote in post #16848662
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.

No one is second guessing your work (Haven't seen any.)

Just because you can drive a dump truck around a race course, doesn't make it the right tool.

Photography is not just an art, but can have documentary purposes. Accuracy will be affected by the tools you choose. To suggest that all photos can be taken with an 8mm lens (or 800) is ludicrous.

CollegeKid wrote in post #16848662
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.

I'm not sure why you're so touchy about Tapeman's response. It appears that you idea of lens selection for portraits is fairly similar to his.

I will suggest, however, that there is such a thing as a "right" tool. If clients come to you to have a portrait done they have certain expectations. Unless you are renown for a particular artistic style, these expectations are that the image will be a flattering and accurate likeness of how they view themselves. The "right" tool in some cases might be a 35mm, but for more traditional portraits, the "right" tool is something in the range of 50-135mm. This doesn't imply that other tools are "wrong," just that they are not usually ideal for traditional portraits.

On the other hand, if you do specialize in non-traditional, artistic portraiture, then the "right" tool is the lens that produces the effect you desire.

Going back to the OP, sharpness is not necessarily all-important. In the film days, many a portrait was shot using soft focus lenses, soft focus filters, or simply a piece of nylon stocking in front of the camera or enlarger lens. To this extent, people who shoot only digital are somewhat spoiled by the ease at which they can selectively soften or even remove blemishes and wrinkles. Any reasonably-sharp lens can be used for portraits. I don't always want to be able to count the pores on the model's face or cut myself on the sharpness of their eyelashes. Of course it's nice if you have this capability because you can always back-off the sharpness in post. But extreme sharpness is rarely needed for commercial portraiture.

If I was going to specialize in portraiture as a commercial endeavor, I would want to have a 35, 50, 85 and 135 of reasonably-good sharpness wide-open, with a maximum aperture of at least f/2.8, and preferably wider. I could probably get by with just the 35 and 85. That would give me the ability to shoot everything from full length bridal and environmental portraits up to tight head shots. I'm not worried about the 85's infamous CA in portraits; I've never seen it in a portrait shot and, if I did, it is easy enough to correct in Ps/Lr for this type of subject.

I agree with the gist of the OP, which is that extreme sharpness (while nice to have), simply is not that important of a lens characteristic for portraiture/people photography.

When I read the reviews on the Sigma 50 Art, I briefly considered making a switch from my 50L. But, I quickly realized that for the shooting I do at that focal length (mostly environmental portraits), the extra sharpness of the Sigma does not outweigh the advantages of the 50L (lighter weight/more compact size, color rendition, very smooth bokeh, (relatively) reliable AF near and far). My copy of the 50L is more that "sharp enough" for my purposes at 1.2.

Having said that, I can definitely see the appeal of the Sigma for those that want a 50 for more general purpose photography.

bumpintheroad wrote in post #16848898
I'm not sure why you're so touchy about Tapeman's response. It appears that you idea of lens selection for portraits is fairly similar to his.
...

I did not mean to come across as upset. Perhaps I should have used a smiley-face icon. I merely meant to point out that we all apply our craft as we see it. Of course, there are accepted focal lengths that generally apply to certain tasks. I was really only picking on the right tool comment. I don't do any paid work, so clients' desires are not part of my calculus. Yes, if someone is paying you, give them what they want!

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?

The 100 f2 was a workhorse lens for me for two years, shooting all sorts of sports, portraits and candids with it. The AF and sharpness of the lens was such a big step up from the 50 1.8 and 55-250. It's compact size was another great thing about it, and there is a part of me that hated selling it when I upgraded to the 135L.