Best Portrait Lens

canon400d

Which would you say is the best lens for portraits. I have quite a few lenses but mainly use 17-55 2.8 and 70-200 F/4 which hasn't IS. Also 60mm macro. I am getting a 24-105 F/4 soon. By the way I use a 580 EX11 flash with diffuser. Your suggestions and recommendations would be mostly appreciated.
Regards
Bob

JimFuglestad

Bob, my favorite portrait lense are the 50 1.4 and 85 1.8.

I also use a 70-200 2.8 for at least 50% of my portraits.

divamum

My favorite is my 100 f2 if I have enough room (or the 85 1.8, which I used to have -t hey're very similar); I use a 50mm if I need something a little wider due to space constraints (read: my living room), either the long end of my Tamron zoom or a 50mm prime (formerly the 1.8, but I just bought the 1.4 and am excited to try it out when it arrives tomorrow!)

I also enjoy the portraits taken with my 200L 2.8 prime, but you need LOTS of space and a fair bit of light, since without IS camera shake can be a problem if the speeds aren't way up there. It makes for some gorgeous shots if the conditions are right, though

Jacobovs

My latest favorite is the 135 mm f2 DC. It has changed the way I look at portraits. I used to use the 50mm 1.4 and the 85 mm 1.4 but the 135 has so many more possibilities.

canon400d

Jacobovs wrote:

My latest favorite is the 135 mm f2 DC. It has changed the way I look at portraits. I used to use the 50mm 1.4 and the 85 mm 1.4 but the 135 has so many more possibilities.

Thanks for replying the only lenses I have what has been mentioned is the 70-200L F/4 which doesn't have IS. I also have a 50mm 1.8 prime which I have never thought of using for portraits. The problem I find with the wider lenses like the 17-55 is you have to be so close to fill the frame and when I use the 70-200 I have to keep a high shutter speed to avoid camera shake at F/4.
Regards
Bob

kini62

I only have 2 lenses. The 24-105 and 70-200/2.8 non IS. While I like the 24-105 I'm not thrilled with it as a portrait lens. It's just not fast enough to get the background blur I like. I mainly use my 70-200, but then I feel like I'm too far away when doing full length shots. Especially when using fill flash in HSS.

So I just bought a used 35/2. I should have it in a day or two. I'm hoping it works for what I now want to shoot.

Gene

du8die

When I shoot portraits, I always take my Tamron 28-70/2.8. Awesome lens. I alternate between that and my 70-200/2.8 Non-IS. I usually will have my kit 18-55 in the bag because I actually like the barrel distortion at 18 occasionally. Especially when there are leaves on the ground. I haven't done much yet with my 50/1.8. I should.

So, my bag looks like this (in order of use)...

28-70/2.8 (Tamron)
70-200/2.8 (Canon)
18-55 (Canon)
50/1.8 (Canon)

Seriously - if you're looking - consider the Tammy 28-70...

ChatKat

What's the budget
My first question is what is your budget? You can do a lot with a little if that is all you have.

My favorite lens is the 50 1.2 but the 85 1.2 and 135 2.0 are all great for portraits. There are 50 1.4 and 85 1.8 that do beautiful portraits if that is all you can afford. I know you are in the UK so I won't talk dollars and cents.

I've done some wonderful portraits with an older 50 2.5 Macro lens as well as the 70-200 2.8is. If you have hte 70-200 4.0 you can do lovely portraits with it. I've also taken some incredible shots of people with the 24-105 4.0is.

Swartzy

Guess I'll stand my ground. The 24-105 L IS is still my lens of choice along with a 70-200 on a full frame.

canon400d

Swartzy wrote:

Guess I'll stand my ground. The 24-105 L IS is still my lens of choice along with a 70-200 on a full frame.

Thanks ever so much for those additional replies which I really appreciate. I think I will probably stand next to you Swartzy. However, I will be receiving my 24-105 L IS later this month. As I initially said with the 17-55 I almost have to get up their nostrils for a full frame but the end product is quite exceptional and worth it especially with the flash. But this is really off putting for the person who is being photographed. Will I have the same problem with the 24-105 or will I be able to stand back a wee bit and still get the same result as the 17-55?
Regards
Bob

canon400d

du8die wrote:

When I shoot portraits, I always take my Tamron 28-70/2.8. Awesome lens. I alternate between that and my 70-200/2.8 Non-IS. I usually will have my kit 18-55 in the bag because I actually like the barrel distortion at 18 occasionally. Especially when there are leaves on the ground. I haven't done much yet with my 50/1.8. I should.

So, my bag looks like this (in order of use)...

28-70/2.8 (Tamron)
70-200/2.8 (Canon)
18-55 (Canon)
50/1.8 (Canon)

Seriously - if you're looking - consider the Tammy 28-70...

Hi Du8die, I am sure you are right about this lens it will probably be in the same league as the Canon 24-70 2.8. It is very expensive but is regarded as an awesome lens. I have stood next to guys using the 24-70 and they all love it and prefer it to the 24-105 because of the 2.8. I have the 24-105 coming later this month and it was expensive so I couldn't afford the two.
Regards
Bob

Katie Beth

I loved my Canon 24-105 f/4L IS until I bought the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS. The 70-200 w/ IS is so sharp. It does require more light but so does the 24-105. I am extremely shaky due to rheumatoid arthritis and hereditary neuropathy but even having to contend with that I get much better pics with the long lens. IMHO, the IS on the 70-200 works better than the 24-105.

I have a pro friend that uses the 70-200 f/2.8L IS for portrait and outdoor sports shots. She finds, as do I, that it puts people more at ease when your not right up in their face taking their picture. It's harder for them to tell exactly where you are pointing the camera so she ends up getting great candids. She purchased a used 85 f/1.8 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS several months ago and most of her portraits since then have been taken with the 85mm and they are awesome! The 17-55 is awesomely sharp as well and gets used mainly for group shots.

Hope you have better luck than I've had with the 24-105. I guess it's all in what you have to compare it to. Like I said, I was thrilled with it (my first L lens with IS) until I got my 70-200 f/4 IS. I'm actually thinking of trying to do a trade, my 24-105 for a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S. It would be nice to have a faster lens. I have a 50 f/1.8 but I rarely use it. I really can't do primes since they don't have image stabilization, except on the really big, expensive ones.

canon400d

Katie Beth wrote:

I loved my Canon 24-105 f/4L IS until I bought the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS. The 70-200 w/ IS is so sharp. It does require more light but so does the 24-105. I am extremely shaky due to rheumatoid arthritis and hereditary neuropathy but even having to contend with that I get much better pics with the long lens. IMHO, the IS on the 70-200 works better than the 24-105.

I have a pro friend that uses the 70-200 f/2.8L IS for portrait and outdoor sports shots. She finds, as do I, that it puts people more at ease when your not right up in their face taking their picture. It's harder for them to tell exactly where you are pointing the camera so she ends up getting great candids. She purchased a used 85 f/1.8 and 17-55 f/2.8 IS several months ago and most of her portraits since then have been taken with the 85mm and they are awesome! The 17-55 is awesomely sharp as well and gets used mainly for group shots.

Hope you have better luck than I've had with the 24-105. I guess it's all in what you have to compare it to. Like I said, I was thrilled with it (my first L lens with IS) until I got my 70-200 f/4 IS. I'm actually thinking of trying to do a trade, my 24-105 for a Canon 17-55 f/2.8 EF-S. It would be nice to have a faster lens. I have a 50 f/1.8 but I rarely use it. I really can't do primes since they don't have image stabilization, except on the really big, expensive ones.

Hi Katie,
First of all and more important, I am sorry to hear about your present health condition and sure wish you well and hope things improve for you.
I use my 70-200L but as I have said it doesn't have IS. I use this lens all the time at car rallies but I have to make sure the shutter speed is high at all times at F/4. I have never used it for portraits but I was at a car rally last weekend and I was asked to take some portraits of some top rally drivers including Ken Block from the States. I used my 17-55 and got some awesome shots but I am sure Ken thought I was going to climb up his nostrils. I never thought about using my 70-200. The thing is you have to act so damned quick and it takes time to change lenses and these guys are so popular they will not wait around.
I would certainly agree the 17-55 is absolutely ideal for close up group shots and now winter is approaching the 2.8 will no doubt come in handy.
I will certainly have to experiment with the 24-105 and see how I get on with it. As you will have seen swartzy stands by the 24-105 for portraits so I don't know. From the aforementioned posts most people don't use the 17-55 or 24-105 for portraits so I don't know. Probably more people with the 24-105 can tell us what they think about taking photos with that lens.
Best of luck and take care.
Regards
Bob

Ed911

Maybe it's just me...but I like my 24-70MM f2.8 Nikor on my D300 for portraits...so it's actually a 37 to 105 full frame equivalent. I find that it never leaves the camera. I also have a non IS/VR 70-200 f2.8 Sigma that's tack sharp at 3.5 and up. I've used it on occasion...and it works really well for head-shots, PJ, and candid kind of stuff from across the yard at events etc.

But, as you can see, people use all ranges of lenses to take portraits. It really depends on what you call a portrait...indoors, outdoors, how close you can get, or how far away you'll be.

Using any lens within reason will work...just make sure that you are far enough away so that you don't distort the subject by being too close.

Art Scott

i HAVE 2 FAVS My 24-70 and 70-210 both f2.8.....I now need to get them in Nikon Mount:D:D

canon400d

Art Scott wrote:

i HAVE 2 FAVS My 24-70 and 70-210 both f2.8.....I now need to get them in Nikon Mount:D:D

Thanks Ed and Art, yes I don't think you can go wrong with the 24-70 because so many guys next to me say it is an awesome lens. It really is expensive. I think Art knows from the past I am not making money from my shots it is a hobby.
Regards
Bob

canon400d

canon400d wrote:

Thanks Ed and Art, yes I don't think you can go wrong with the 24-70 because so many guys next to me say it is an awesome lens. It really is expensive. I think Art knows from the past I am not making money from my shots it is a hobby.
Regards
Bob

Here are a couple of shots I took with the 17-55 of Ken Block. I was up his nose with the 17-55 if you nunderstand what I mean. I could have posted more but comment if you will.
Regards
Bob
1

2