Recommended lens for portraiture

If you've answered many, many posts of this sort of question, my apologies. If you're still willing to answer yet another, I thank you.

I'm a rookie when it comes to photography and even more so when it comes to knowing the equipment. I know the kit lens on my 350D isn't the greatest and I'm looking to replace it.

I take mainly studio portraits of children, but sometimes do small families or groups. My studio is not really large either.

What is a recommended lens for the 350D that will provide nice, sharp portraits?

Forgive the lack of "techie talk" in this question, but I truly know very little about lenses. Hey - I'm open to being directed to websites that may be able to explain the difference in lenses, as well as educate a bit.

Thanks much.

A nice, rather inexpensive option is the 35 f2.0. Often can be found used on eBay. 50mm 1.8 and 1.4 are also fine but may be a bit long in a small studio.

50 1.4 or Tamron 17-50 2.8 would be my choices.

For children 50 or even 85mm. For small group Sigma 30mm, Canon 28, or 35mm.

thrumyeye wrote in post #2168802
What is a recommended lens for the 350D that will provide nice, sharp portraits?

Traditionally, photographers have preferred lenses of focal lengths 1.5-3 times the normal focal length for a given format. The idea is that this provides a pleasing perspective on the face. I've used lenses even longer without losing that perspective, but shorter lenses tend to pin the ears back and make the nose a bit more prominent.

It isn't the lens that controls this, of course, but rather the camera position. But the relatively distant camera position that provides a pleasing perspective will force you to crop your images significantly if you use too short a lens.

I use a lens that is at least 1.5 times normal in medium format for group portraits. That's 120mm for a camera whose normal lens is 80mm. My favorite lens for individual portraits and head-and-shoulders compositions is a little over twice the normal focal length, at 180mm.

For the small sensor, this is equivalent to lenses in the 50-85mm range. Thus, for individual portraits where you have some room to work the 85/1.8 is mighty hard to beat without spending real money. And the 50/1.4 is also good in this application, though the background rendering isn't quite as smooth as with the 85. You might even need something as short as 35 for group shots where you can't back up. The 135/2L lens can produce awe-inspiring results, but for the small sensor it will require very long working distances.

In general, for outdoors I'm able to use the 85 routinely, but inside the 50 is a little easier to manage. I think both are worthwhile to own, and both together cost much less than a zoom covering the same range that could approach their resulting speed and image quality.

For longer work outdoors, I have been quite pleased with the 70-200/4L, even though it isn't as fast and won't blur the background as much. At the 180-200 end, though, it will provide plenty of blur for tight head shots and the rendering is actually quite good.

Rick "whose favorite portrait lens is a 180mm Sonnar on medium format" Denney

Another vote for the 50mm f/1.4 great for portraits, if money is tight and bokeh not important then the 50mm f/1.8 is a cheaper option.

tamron 28-75 2.8 is killer for the price and sharp as can be. for a zoon anyways

https://photography-on-the.net …php?p=2163479&p​ostcount=7

Note the focal lengths for short telephoto and moderate telephoto...those are the classic focal lengths for portraiture (as established many years before digital was invented!) If you take those ranges and break portraiture into 4 types, you come up with some generalizations that the majority would agree work; individuals might take issue where the transition focal length occur:

full length = about 35mm (50mm on 35mm SLR)
waist up = about 55mm (85mm on 35mm SLR)
head and shoulders = about 65mm (105mm on 35mm SLR)
tight head shots = about 100mm (150mm on 35mm SLR)

Rick did a great job talking about the rationale for choosing focal length for portraiture. If you chose longer lens for waist up than in the chart, your perspective changes as he noted. What YOU or the portrait sitter decides looks best and allows a manageable level of intimacy or separation of interaction between you and the client is what is important on the working distance, too!

Another vote for the 50 f/1.4. I've used zooms for portraiture, but prefer primes for their sharpness and image quality.

50 1.4 all the way.
if you need more than think of 85L or 35L
i got 135L, so Amazing, here is a sample posted on another thread

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/png'

On a x1.6 body, I can wholeheartedly recommend Canon's 60mm f/2.8 macro. Maybe a bit more pricey than you were looking for, but it's a damn fine 1:1 macro as well as a razor, razor sharp portraiture lens.

Sadly, I don't have any of my "good" portraits to hand on this PC. These two were just spontaneous street ones that I liked. They've been processed and softened, but still retain something of the original sharpness:

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

HTTP response: NOT FOUND | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Redirected to error image by FLICKR

I would use 35f2 or 35L. Maybe the 50f1.4 or the 50L (if I could get my hands on one!).

So if your not in the market to buy a new lens and you are shooting a 20D. Would you use 24-70 70-200 or 100 macro?

50mm f/1.8 II

You can not beat this lens for the price. However, get used to focusing manually; mine hunts all over the place.

I use the 50 1.4 mostly, 24-70L second.