Portrait Lenses

I'm thinking about dabbling in some portraits...

My current arsenal consists of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f4L.

Can these guns cover this territory or do you guys have any ideas/suggestions?

Thanks for looking!

I had the 17-50 (replaced w/ 24-105 when 5d2 came) and I have the 70-200L (mines the 2.8 IS version though).

While both do pretty well for portraits (esp the 70-200); for the money, it's hard to go wrong with a Canon EF 85 f/1.8.

Those can get you a good start. Try shooting a bunch with those lenses, and see if you need something different. Buy from there.

I think you also need a 50 1.8

Karl Johnston wrote in post #7688683
I think you also need a 50 1.8

Have any pics? I haven't seen a lot of 50 1.8 shots that I've been too impressed with so far.

deming wrote in post #7688469
I'm thinking about dabbling in some portraits...

My current arsenal consists of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f4L.

Can these guns cover this territory or do you guys have any ideas/suggestions?

Thanks for looking!

Both of these can serve dabbling just fine. The 70-200 actually has very good bokeh, and not just by zoom standards, and can do very well at 70-135, which is prime portrait length even for a small sensor. I do not believe that adding the nifty fifty would improve the portrait experience by all that much compared to these, even though it is faster and will provide more selective focus. The 50/2.8 end of your Tamron is plenty fast to provide selective focus, especially if you know how to position your subject with respect to the background. I'd rather see you save that money for an 85/1.8 if you decide the dabbling is bearing fruit.

Rick "though it depends on what you mean by 'portrait'" Denney

If you're on a crop sensor, the 85/1.8 is just wicked good. I know Karl likes the 50/1.8, but I would DEFINITELY recommend the 50/1.4 (Canon or Sigma) if you can afford it. If not, get the 50/1.8, but be aware of the limitations that come with it.

If you're getting just one lens, and you want to focus (he he) on portraits, the 85/1.8 is it (IMHO).

Karl Johnston wrote in post #7688683
I think you also need a 50 1.8

I don't think it is any better than the 17-50 at f2.8, so I would pass on this one.

I say a 24-70 or 28-75 f2.8 zoom or an 85mm prime.

Not knocking the nifty fifty but the one I had was softer them my blanky. I plan on getting the 85 1.8 though, it is a different creature all together.

I played with an 85 f1.8 at the camera store on some still objects and I will admit it is a fun little lens

A Canon 85mm f/1.2 L lens gets my vote for portraits.

deming wrote in post #7688469
I'm thinking about dabbling in some portraits...

My current arsenal consists of the Tamron 17-50 f2.8 and the Canon 70-200 f4L.

Can these guns cover this territory or do you guys have any ideas/suggestions?

Thanks for looking!

These lenses will do the job fine..

I must have gotten a sharp copy of the 50 f/1.8, as I've gotten some nice shots w/ it. My next lens will probably be an 85 f/1.8. It will be fast enough for gym sports, and have a decent amount of reach. And it will make a nice portrait lens. Everything I've seen shows it to be much sharper than the fifty, and it's just as fast.