Is the canon EF-S 17-85mm good for portraits

Is the canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM good enough for indoor wallet size portraits or do I need a L lens? Which L lens should I purchase? Thanks

I have the 20D with 18-55 kit

The only issue you'd have with that lens for portraits would be obtaining creamy background blur. It has a relatively slow maximum aperture (f/5.6) at the long end (85mm) where you'd want to shoot portraits. As for inherent quality, it'd be more than enough for wallet size prints.

The only other thing you need is a background that won't distract from the photos.

actually the background will need to stand out. The background will be lighted and will glow which makes the pictures very nice.

For wallet sized portraits, anything should be ok. As long as it's long and fast enough (85 at 5.6 SHOULD be okay, as long as the subject is sufficiently far away from the background)

However, if you'll be shooting portraits I'd suggest investing in a fast prime (50/1.8 at the very least)

That EFS is possibly the worst choice for portraits. Very sharp but basically blind at f/5.6. Not to mention the huge DoF. 50 1.8 or, better still 85 1.8. Once you've shot f/2 you will never want to go back to a horribly slow zoom with enough DoF to be mistaken for a P&S.

Unless those portraits are outdoors, f/5.6 would be fine. Most people stop down for studio shots anyway since that's pretty much the only way to control exposure other than actually adjusting the lights themselves. Keep in mind these are wallet size prints and the OP has already stated they want the background in focus...

what is a focal lenth of the 50 1.8 on a 20D say from 10-15 ft away? Anyone has any example pictures of that? also the 85 1.8 example too if anyone has them. thanks

Could someone please explain to me how a lens can be very sharp but basically blind? The two terms seem to be contradictory.

Also, as long as you have a decent backdrop place a suitable distance behind the model, whiy is huge DoF such a horrible disadvantage? Are we trying to get a photo where the eye is sharp but the nose and ears are soft?

At f/5.6 a lens is "blind". At least for my standards. The amount of light it swallows has nothing to do with sharpness. What didn't you understand ?

Because we don't always have "a decent backdrop place a suitable distance behind the model".

As long as we are not hired to do mug shots for the police why not? The freedom of the "Artist" can be fun. Just try it.

https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=149144

just f/2.8 because the lighting was not good enough to allow perfect manual focusing. An 85mm 1.2 L whould be even more fun

Show me some of your portraits so I can understand what you are talking about.

http://www.photo.net/p​hotos/Dragos Jianu

Since the OP doesn't yet own the EF-S 17-85 I think it is safe to recommend, for the same $$, a combination of one or two of the following lenses 35 f2 / 50 f1.4 / 85 f1.8. That is if he is really into portraits. Even the 50 f1.4 would be enough, better and much cheaper then that horribly slow EF-S. Oh, wait, who care about f5.6 as long as it has IS. I'm so yesterday...

Here are pics I took with each for comparison...
#1: 17-85 at 85mm f/5.6
#2 50 at f/1.4

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

No offence but some proper portraits would have been more useful. Your examples are not well suited to real life portrait work. It depends on the setting and the light, it can sometimes be done with a zoom at 50 f/5.6 (i should know ), but i would pick a 50 1.4 prime any day. My zooms have become dust magnets lately.

I was just giving a point for comparison... didn't say it was perfect.

Here is an example of a studio picture I want to take. This picture was taken by a nikon 35mm camera at f/11 90 with a main light and a fill light and background light with a blue filter. The ef 50 1.4 lens should be sufficient using the 20D, correct? And what lighting equipment is good for the use with digital cameras? And if I want a soft look should I use a soft filter or use photoshop? hope you can help thanks.

The picture is a little blurry, I didn't have a scanner so I use my camera to take the pic.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I don't understand this statement at all. Would you please elaborate as to what you are talking about? The "blind" term doesn't make sense to me at all.