Best Portrait Lens??

135L or 100mm macro for non-indoors, or 35L on a crop, or 50L on FF for indoors or outdoors when people are expecting the camera to be in their face.

I love my 135L for portraits on the 5D. Bit long on the 400D.

fWord wrote in post #7013783
Compression.

Say that one word in the same breath as 'focal length' and you'll have some people screaming 'Bloody murder!'

Let's wait and see.

hahaha. probably right. bring it on! might not be the right term, but i know what i mean. even if no one else does

perhaps "when using longer focal lengths, a narrower FOV combined with a generally larger subject-sensor distance LOOKS like it compresses the scene" would be better...

You can shoot a portrait with any lens you've got.
Put it the other way...if you would not be able to use a specific lens for shooting a portrait I would not buy it.

Portraits will look different depending on what you choose.
On crop FL around 70 mm I find very convenient for indoor, UWA for fun or group shots, 100 mm or longer for tight or outside work.
Most happy with shots taken using my 100/F2, this one allows for nice head and shoulder framing at a working distance I find very convenient.
Too long... that is what separates the men from the boys

Conventional choice is the 85L II on a 5D or 1DSMII. The unconventional choice is the 200 f/1.8 on either the 5D or 1DSMarkII. I am sure the 5DII and 1DSMIII would suffice as appropriate bodies as well, I just can't comment as I have no experience on these new additions to the Canon lineup. However, hope springs eternal.

Another vote for the 85 f/1.8. For the money you cant beat the images it'll produce.

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

TheGreatDivorce wrote in post #7013931
hahaha. probably right. bring it on! might not be the right term, but i know what i mean. even if no one else does

perhaps "when using longer focal lengths, a narrower FOV combined with a generally larger subject-sensor distance LOOKS like it compresses the scene" would be better...

Well the meaning is clear enough I think, as the example shows. Ultimately the technicalities are too intricate to follow. Just stand in the correct place and use the correct lens. That's it!

JAcosta wrote in post #7014387
Another vote for the 85 f/1.8. For the money you cant beat the images it'll produce.

For those that said 85 f/1.8, do you own 70-200 or similar focal range and felt the need to get 85mm? Or did you already have 85mm and later got the longer zoom lens?

yuriyo923 wrote in post #7016943
For those that said 85 f/1.8, do you own 70-200 or similar focal range and felt the need to get 85mm? Or did you already have 85mm and later got the longer zoom lens?

For me it was the former, I had a 70-200L f/2.8 IS and a 24-105L f/4 IS THEN I ordered th 85 f/1.8.

It wasn't so much about focal distance, more so about speed, IQ, & value.

I use the 85 1.8 exclusively when I have to do portraits. It makes the work much easier for me. But if I had the money to get the 1.2, I think I'd be happier with that one. Just don't need it yet.

yuriyo923 wrote in post #7016943
For those that said 85 f/1.8, do you own 70-200 or similar focal range and felt the need to get 85mm? Or did you already have 85mm and later got the longer zoom lens?

I have owned 3 different 85 f/1.8's. I love the lens but I cant get used to the focal length. I normally end up selling it after using it for a month or two.

I only have the longer zoom because I got it in a trade + $ for my old 1D Mark IIn. I honestly have used the 70-200 f/2.8L IS for maybe 10 shots in 2+ months of owning it. My 50L is basically welded to the front of my 1VHS. Primes to me are a better way to shoot. To me it makes composing easier as I dont have to worry about setting a focal length like I do with a zoom. I like being able to have my aperture, shutter speed, ISO, and focal length set. It only leaves me the need to "point and shoot".

For 'standard' close up portraits I love my 85L but IMHO portraits can be much more than that, photographers like Arnold Newman frequently shot some of the best portraits I've seen with lenses around 20/30mm.

echo wrote in post #7017582
For 'standard' close up portraits I love my 85L but IMHO portraits can be much more than that, photographers like Arnold Newman frequently shot some of the best portraits I've seen with lenses around 20/30mm.

I cant get used to my Sigma 30mm.. I like the lens, it's sharp, good IQ, but just cant get used to it. I got it listed for sale, but when I took it out today to take some test shots, I don't want to sell it anymore... good little lens.

For head shots I can use my 70-200 and group shots, my 17-55 or 30mm. But I still want 60mm or 100mm macro.. It's never enough..

Even though I have the 85L, I also really like the 70-200 f/4L IS for portraits

The 35 is not so good for headshots, it makes the head seem rather large

smorter wrote in post #7030299
Even though I have the 85L, I also really like the 70-200 f/4L IS for portraits

The 35 is not so good for headshots, it makes the head seem rather large

35mm on FF would be nice for environmental portraits however.

300mm f/4 L (non IS) - the only lens I use just for portraiture.