Portrait Lens

I have read adn read and read and my brain is swirling and I want to scream. I am GETTING a lens and need it for individual portraits as well as family portraits...both indoors and out. After posting this I'm going back to "work" and when I get home I'm going to buy a lens....period. I'm so tired of thinking about it and what to get. First I was set on the 24-70L 2.8 but then switched to 24-105 for the IS, and now I'm hearing different things on a 50mm 1.8....someone please solve this so I can put myself out of my misery. This has been two weeks. I'm sooooooo confused. As you can see my list of lenses I fell for teh " package ebay deal". Thanks in advance!!

The 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens, no doubt about that, and excellent if you're on a budget... however... I would seriously consider the 24-105 if you can afford it. 100mm is the optimal focal length for portraiture (or so I've been told; I am a newb!), you have IS, and it's an L.

Saying that, I have no experience with that lens or the 24-70, so I'm only giving you an opinion. I would go for the 24-105 if I could afford it, though.

Good luck deciding!

Well if I've learned anything on this site, it's that everyone has an opinion. And that with some pocket change is good enough for a cup of coffee, as the saying goes.

So here's mine, but you'll have to buy your own coffee.

I just bought the 85 1.8. I love the lens. Am getting great shots with it. But on my 30D, as will be on your 20D, it really is more like a 135mm. And I'm finding that to be, in some cases, too much lens. So I will eventually be getting a 50mm 1.4 for sure.

Paul Tinworth wrote in post #2018199
The 50mm f/1.8 is a great lens, no doubt about that, and excellent if you're on a budget... however... I would seriously consider the 24-105 if you can afford it. 100mm is the optimal focal length for portraiture (or so I've been told; I am a newb!), you have IS, and it's an L.

Saying that, I have no experience with that lens or the 24-70, so I'm only giving you an opinion. I would go for the 24-105 if I could afford it, though.

Good luck deciding!

Selecting a lens is dependent upon frame size...
100mm is the optimal for head & shoulders portraiture with a 35mm film or FF digital, not for an APS-C format dSLR (350/400, 20/30D)

Classic lens focal length definitions from more than 50 years of accumulated 35mm film camera history:

single portraiture waist level is 80-85mm FF, (50-55mm APS-C);
head and shoulders single portraiture is 100mm FF, (60-65mm APS-C);
headshot portraiture is 135-150mm FF, (85-95mm APS-C)

These definitions are derived from framing vs. pleasing facial perspective. You can shoot with shorter distances and wider lenses, if you do not object to 'rounding' of the face. You can shoot with longer distances with longer lenses if you do not object to 'flattening' of the face.

if you have the money get the 24-70, uneless you can afford the 35 1.4 plus an 85 1.2 then I would do that! 50 on a crop camera is a really versatile length for portraits, but might not be wide enough for a lot of group situations indoors especially

Wilt wrote in post #2018259
Selecting a lens is dependent upon frame size...
100mm is the optimal for head & shoulders portraiture with a 35mm film or FF digital, not for an APS-C format dSLR (350/400, 20/30D)

single portraiture waist level is 80-85mm FF, 50-55mm APS-C;
head and shoulders single portraiture is 100mm FF, 60-65mm APS-C
headshot portraiture is 135-150mm FF, 85-95mm APS-C

I stand corrected. Thanks for correcting me, Wilt.

*Secretly runs away to his dark corner and cries at his own newbishness*

Paul Tinworth wrote in post #2018266
I stand corrected. Thanks for correcting me, Wilt.

*Secretly runs away to his dark corner and cries at his own newbishness*

Making mistakes and being corrected is how we ALL learn! What we don't want to do is to spread inaccurate statements. There are personal points of view, and there are factual inaccuracies. Points of view are terrific, factual errors need to be caught.

I've got a 20D and have a 17-40 F4 L and the 50 F1.8 lense. To be honest i nearly always use the 17-40 for portraits and can tell very little difference between the 2 for quality.

Ade

for me i love my 135f2L on the 5d but would never use it on the 30d

Go with the 50mm

i have the fifty and the 24-70 i find myself using the 24-70 for just about everything, single, groups and everything inbetween. if you can afford it go for it

I have the 50mm 1.8. Its a great lens for the money. Its like $80 bucks brand new.

I like low prices. I Just purchased the Tamron 28-75, and I love it. For the prices its a steal. Only around $375

I bought the 50mm f1.8 lens. I just haven't done portraits with it yet. My understanding was that 100mm to 110mm was supposed to be just great for portraits. I read it somewhere years ago. However, if you are shooting with a Canon below a D5 or Mark II ds then you have to take into account the sensor size. What is 100mm x 1.6?
I wanted to the 50mm prime because it is fast, has great depth of field, was inexpensive and Steve Bedell said in a recent article that he used it on beach portrait shoots.

If I were you, I would go for 50mm 1.8. I have it too and I think it is great. If you intend to be a creative enthusiast and not expensive glass collector (no offence to anyone) I think at this point much wider aperture of 50mm (i.e. shallow DOF) will give you an extra creative dimension to the lenses you already have such as Sigma 28-70 2.8-4. Even if money is not an issue then still buy the 50mm first. Once you explore what sort of photography you are primarily going to do, buy a good lens for your specific needs or style. If you buy just one expensive lens now you will feel like you have to use it all the time due to its superior quality and that may even stop you from developing as a photographer.
Just a point to consider, you still have to make your own decision. Nobody is going to put you out of this misery by force

Be sure to remember the crop factor (1.6) of your 20D for which ever lens you do decide on. I sprung for the 35mm lens because I found myself needing more room behind me when backing up to compose group shots and for working in small areas. Just something to consider.