need a portrait lens

NinetyEight wrote in post #8799742
Canon 60mm f/2.8 macro makes an excellent 'portrait' lens on a crop body like the 40D, and guess what... It can also be used for macro shooting

Depending on how much room you have indoors and what sort of portraits you intend shooting, the 85mm may be a bit long.

I would agree, the 60mm is a stunning lens but for me the Canon 85mm f1.8 is my all time fave (non L) lens. It really is a peach!

hannibal31 wrote in post #8799471
I just have extra money to spend thats all.

If that's your only requirement, then any lens within your budget will do.

Also: https://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthre​ad.php?t=86975

hannibal31 wrote in post #8798923
Hi all first time poster. I am looking for a portrait lens around $500. My current lens lineup consists of a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, and a Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, and a Canon 100-400.
I currently have a Canon 40D body. Any suggestions ?

hannibal31 wrote in post #8799318
Nothing. I plan on keeping both of those... I love the tamron as a landscape lens. I want a prime for portraits.

hannibal31 wrote in post #8799471
I just have extra money to spend thats all.

As others have said above, you already have lenses that will do just fine for "portraits" with your camera.

You have not defined "portraits" well enough for anybody to give you a valid suggestion for a single "prime" (fixed focal length) lens for the task. What type(s) of portraits do you intend to make (head and shoulders, waist up, full length, etc.)? What distance(s) would you want to make the portraits from? These factors and more come into play when choosing a focal length to produce what you want in a portrait.

My suggestion - don't waste your money until you can properly define at least what focal length you want in a "prime" lens. Then, you should also define any other factors that would come into making the lens-buying decision such as the maximum aperture requirement and other variables.

There are possibly much better things you could spend your money on if it's burning a hole in your pocket. I can think of several such as a good light meter (like the Sekonic L-358 ), lighting equipment, and more.

With your present set up, what focal lengths have you tried shooting portraits at? Try doing some portraits (at 2.8 or 3.2) with the Sigma at various focal lengths (85mm, 100mm, 135mm...) and see what you think. If you really want another lens for portraits, the 85mm 1.8 is a good choice, but I'd also suggest the 100mm 2.0 which is my preference.

I've used my 200/2.8 L, and my 100 macro, both with lovely results. Took the 200 to Obama's inaug. and got some very fine faces, with pride brimming.

another vote for the 85 1.8

On a crop, a fast 50 would be just about perfect. It is comparable to an 80 on full-frame. If you would prefer a slightly longer focal length, a 60 or 70mm lens will give you that, but then you are looking at macro lenses with slower max apertures.
For outside portraits, the 85f1.8 would be great, but you are going to be limited to little more than headshots indoors on a crop, unless you live in a large home. When I shot film, the 135 became my outside lens, and was not used as much after I got an 85.
You can also consider a 35mm focal length - this will do for waist-up photos or for more than one person indoors (like a normal lens in the old days). I know of only a few lenses at this focal length -the Canons and the Tokina macro f2.8. I got a Canon 35f2 for this purpose. If I had the money handy, I'd get the f1.4 version.