28-135MM for Portraits?

I have been using my 28-135MM for Portraits. So far the results are excellent. But lately I have been wondering if the lens is really built for portraits, or am I using the wrong lens? Thanks.

From what I've learned most people use a prime lens not a zoom on studio portraits, I truley believe what ever you & your client is happy with.
here is a link to check out and I do know most of the high end photographers prefer. 80mm, 100 & 135 lens
http://www.usa.canon.c​om …application/por​trait.html

Good Luck

Wouldn't a 50mm standard lens become a 80mm on the 10D? (Therefore ideal for portraits?).
I've not done portraits before, but it was just a thought that occurred to me.

Susan

I have the 28-135mm and recently got the cheep but very good 50mm f1.8 and I like it. For the price, it's a pretty cool lens and I've manage to get some nice portraits of my daughter without having to use the flash. The 28-135mm stays on as my primary lens, but the 50mm f1.8 is sure nice when the lighting gets lower.

Yalemba, your lens is fine for almost anything you'll shoot, including portraits. Whether a long or wide lens is best depends on what you want, what you see in your mind's eye.

People use long lenses for portraits, because they flatten out the facial features, producing a more classic, flattering look. But this is only one approach; at times, a wide angle may capture a subject's essence, at least how you see him, better.

As far as the f-stop, the potential problem is not having enough light, thereby limiting your options. I dunno, is losing a couple stops going to cause problems? That's something that you have to determine.

In the past (pre-digital days), I always used a fixed, 135mm (2.8) lens for portraits-- I used to shoot a lot of head shots and portfolios for actors. I used my 135mm fixed for exactly the reasons AliasMoze mentioned ("...they flatten out the facial features, producing a more classic, flattering look."). But I don't have a fixed 135mm lens that is compatible with my 10D. I do, however have a 28-135mm zoom and it works pretty well for portraits, especially when zoomed all the way in. I wish I had a 28-135 that was a little faster (it's 3.5-5.6 which means it's shooting with more depth-of-field than with my old 135mm-2.8 lens). I prefer shooting portraits with a minimum of depth-of-field (again, for the same reasons AliasMoze stated). That's pretty much the only drawback to using the 28-135 for portraits from my POV.

I think (as Susan) the 50/1.8 will be an excellent portrait lens for almost no money. It's fast, cheap and small, and the 1.8 will be very good in low light situations and it keeps the DoF shallow. And as a prime the image quality is very good. Probably the 50/1.4L will be better (or it has a too shallow DoF?) but it's 3x the cost.