Portrait lenses for 7D

Just got the 7D and now in the process of acquiring lenses.

The lenses are mainly for portrait (indoor and outdoor), secondary for stage, indoor sports, kids running around, and occasionally for animals and zoo.

Which setup you will you pick? I know none of them are perfect.

A: sigma 30/1.4, sigma 50/1.4, EF 85/1.8, 135/2

B: sigma 30/1.4, sigma 50/1.4, EF70-200 2.8 L IS

Thanks.

I'd suggest 17-55/2.8 IS, Canon 85 f/1.8, and one of the 70-200 zooms.

for low light, you cant beat option A.

Easily the first one. I personally shoot portraits with a 85 1.8 but would also like a Sigma 50 if I can find a sharp one. 135 is tough shooting on a crop so I sold it (was using it with a 7D)

Keep in mind that with kids running around switching between primes all the time is a pain.

Also keep in mind that the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is the size of a tree stump.

DrPablo wrote in post #9487209
I'd suggest 17-55/2.8 IS, Canon 85 f/1.8, and one of the 70-200 zooms.

Thanks I have already got the 17-55 2.8 IS for general use. It's sharp but it's bokeh is not pretty. So, I will not use it as my primary portrait.

DrPablo wrote in post #9487234
Keep in mind that with kids running around switching between primes all the time is a pain.

Also keep in mind that the 70-200 f/2.8L IS is the size of a tree stump.

You are right. Excatly why I have hard time to choose. Any idea to share?

TSY87 wrote in post #9487212
for low light, you cant beat option A.

Agree. I am leaning toward choice A too. Just not sure about the 135L will work on 7D handheld.

Digital Panda wrote in post #9487222
Easily the first one. I personally shoot portraits with a 85 1.8 but would also like a Sigma 50 if I can find a sharp one. 135 is tough shooting on a crop so I sold it (was using it with a 7D)

Thanks. So, do you think 135 is too long on 7D for portrait?

You think the 17-55 bokeh isn't pretty? Man, I think it's fantastic.

(Yes, I know I got the wrong eye in focus)

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

nonick wrote in post #9487254
You are right. Excatly why I have hard time to choose. Any idea to share?

Well, I've got a 2 year old and we're about to have another kid, and I've decided to largely have a zoom-based kit for this (and also so that my wife can use it without getting too discouraged). It makes running after him really easy.

My kit is the 17-55 IS, the 70-200 f/4L (non-IS, I've owned it since before the IS version came out), and the 85 f/1.8. If I ever get another prime it will be the Sigma 50 f/1.4. The 135/2L is just too long for indoor portrait shooting on a 7D (if like mine most of your shooting is in a house and not in a concert hall), and I think the 70-200 f/4L is phenomenal for outdoor portraits.

nonick wrote in post #9487179
Just got the 7D ...The lenses are mainly for portrait (indoor and outdoor), secondary for stage, indoor sports, kids running around

Can't beat option A. Nothing beats aperture in low light.

DrPablo wrote in post #9487286
You think the 17-55 bokeh isn't pretty? Man, I think it's fantastic.

(Yes, I know I got the wrong eye in focus)

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

Thanks for the picture. Sharp left eye! Spot on focus there. And cute but messy little baby. Love the carefree expression.

I guess this head shot was taken at 55mm focal length with f/2.8 about 1.5 meter (max) from the baby. But if you move yourself farther back for head and shoulder shots, half body or full body, the lens cannot give comparable bokeh to other better choice such as 24-70/2.8, 30/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 etc.

nonick wrote in post #9487367
the lens cannot give comparable bokeh to other better choice such as 24-70/2.8, 30/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 etc.

If you want to isolate a full body portrait on a crop camera, in typical conditions, you need a longer fast lens. Sigma 30mm won't do it. 50mm f1.4 wont either. 85mm f1.8 is getting there. I'd say 100mm f2, 135L or 200mm f2.8 is going to be the best option.

Also, to clarify, bokeh is just how nice the blur looks, not the amount. 17-55 makes nice looking blur, but wide lenses don't kill the background like longer ones do.

tkbslc wrote in post #9487411
If you want to isolate a full body portrait on a crop camera, in typical conditions, you need a longer fast lens. Sigma 30mm won't do it. 50mm f1.4 wont either. 85mm f1.8 is getting there. I'd say 100mm f2, 135L or 200mm f2.8 is going to be the best option.

Thanks for the tips. that's why I put the 135L there. I had the 70-200/2.8 IS to do portrait on 5D before and I loved it. It's working well on 30D also although a little too long imo. Also I think the lens is quite heavy.

For the 30mm 1.4, I use it for environmental portrait with full body ... just like the 50mm on my 5D before.

Also, with the same focal length but wider apreture on the fix focals, they have the unfair advantage to deliver better bokeh vs. the 17-55/2.8 IS.

But don't get me wrong. I love the 17-55. It's a fantastic all-around lens.

tkbslc wrote in post #9487411
Also, to clarify, bokeh is just how nice the blur looks, not the amount. 17-55 makes nice looking blur, but wide lenses don't kill the background like longer ones do.

But I am talking about the bokeh that producedd at the comparable focal length. 17-55mm/2.8 just can't produce the same quality bokeh that the equivalent fixed lenses discussed produce.