Help! Need the perfect portrait lens...
kingmamaof2
Registered Users Posts: 195 Major grins
Hi Everyone,
It's been a while since I've posted. I have searched through this forum and others to help me deceide on the perfect canon portrait lens and there is mixed reviews. So, I have a Xsi and a budget of $1300. I will be shooting mostly outdoors and occasionally in the studio. What is the best all around canon port. lens? I like the zooms, but would a prime be better?
Another question: Regaurdless of price, if you could *only* purchase two Canon lenses for portrait work, what would they be??
Thank You so much!!
It's been a while since I've posted. I have searched through this forum and others to help me deceide on the perfect canon portrait lens and there is mixed reviews. So, I have a Xsi and a budget of $1300. I will be shooting mostly outdoors and occasionally in the studio. What is the best all around canon port. lens? I like the zooms, but would a prime be better?
Another question: Regaurdless of price, if you could *only* purchase two Canon lenses for portrait work, what would they be??
Thank You so much!!
0
Comments
I have (or have had) all of these and used them on an xsi. I will always use the 135 if I can get far enough away, as it is simply the best lens I have ever had and never lets me down. If I don't have space, I usually opt for the 50mm 1.4 for smaller quarters or wider shots. The 85 is good too (although my copy of the 100 was sharper wide open than the 85 I used to have).
I haven't used it, but the 85L is regarded as a fine, fine lens, but very pricy (and apparently the AF is faster on the 85 1.8, which is also a supersharp lens)
A lot of people also seem to like the 70-200 2.8 (see the many gorgeous wedding and senior portraits by jeffreaux and Heatherfeather, just to name two), but it's large and heavy.
135L
50 1.4
85 1.8
100 f2
You say you've got $1300 for this... why just one lens if you can get two or more for that amount?
The 50mm f/1.8 is so cheap (less than $100) that it's almost unnecessary to make an argument for buying one. The 50mm f/1.4 is somewhat more expensive (about $350, I think) but still quite affordable by SLR lens standards, and I would say the 1.4 is a better portrait lens due to having better bokeh than the 1.8.
The other primes divamum mentioned are all good choices. For $1300, you could easily get the 50mm f/1.4 and either the 85mm f/1.8 or the 100mm f/2, and still have a fair amount of money left over. That's what I would recommend.
The Canon 70-200mm lenses are all great, but for portrait work I would have to recommend the f/2.8 IS version (unless you expect to be using a tripod), which is well beyond your $1300 budget.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
For a $1300($1297) do-it-all portrait package:
-70-200mm f/4 ($599)
-85mm f/1.8 ($379)
-35mm f/2 ($319)
I've heard too much negative feedback on the $100 Canon 50mm to recommend it. Plus, on a crop body I find the 50mm is less useful than a 35mm.
I'd use the 70-200 at 135mm+ anywhere possible, if you need shorter glass go with the 85mm, and for large group shots the 35mm will be great(also great for creative close up portraits).
That's a great do EVERYTHING package! Excellent suggestions, Josh. My only reservation would be whether or not the f4 of the tele might be limiting - I find that to keep shutter speeds up for portraits using my longer length lenses I really need the wider apertures. Outside in good light, they're fine, but if it's overcast, late in the day, or indoors, I really want the extra light that a 2.8 or 2.0 lens offers.
Even so, really good suggestions (especially from a Nikonian
Probably the only constant in my shooting has been Sigma lenses......they seemed to have what I wanted and needed when camera mfg'ers did not.....as for quality, I have always gotten real good quality lenses from Sigma......I know ....I know I have read the horror stories also.......
The current Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II is very cheaply built, true, but the price makes up for it. Just be careful not to bump it into anything.
Another alternative, possibly slightly pricier, is to look around on eBay for the original EF 50mm f/1.8 (not II), which was better built -- about the same as Canon's EF 35mm f/2. It has a distance window and a metal mount. These are all about 20 years old (made between 1987 and 1990), but they're nice little lenses. Optically they're identically to the current model.
However, I think the EF 50mm f/1.4 (about $350) is a better choice. Wider aperture, nicer bokeh, faster and quieter focusing, but otherwise very similar to the f/1.8.
On a 1.6x crop camera, 35mm is pretty much "standard", and so a very good thing to have, but 50mm is equivalent to 80mm full-frame, so it is useful for the shorter end of the portrait spectrum.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
Thanks. I nearly became a Canon guy when the 5DMK2 came out, but the D700 proved a better fit for my current needs. The Canon 85mm f/1.2 may still make a convert out of me.
I agree, the 70-200 f/4 is not the best lens for indoor or low light use - but neither is the 2.8, IMO. For no-flash, low-light work I almost always reach for a fast prime...and that's not for lack of good high ISO performance(I shoot D700's).
The OP asked for a good portrait lens package, not event coverage package. For portraiture you have the luxury of reflectors, studio lighting, speedlights, and even video lights. So, for the purposes of portraiture, the 70-200 f/4 is an unbeatable value. As I've said elsewhere, if Nikon had a similar offering, I would be all over it(and I have the 2.8 already!).
OP, I'm really starting to love the 50 1.4 as my "tight spaces" portrait lens. I just did a session of my daughter in my (small) living room and it really performed well with fast and accurate AF and very sharp results. I've only had it for a couple of months so am still in the "gettign to know it" phase, but as I do, I'm happy with the pictures it's giving me.
I've been shooting Canon primes for a few years now and regularly use the 50/1.8, 35/2 and 135/2L.
Of course, the 135/2L is amazing, as everyone says. (Just read the Fred Miranda reviews.) It is too long on a crop camera for indoor work, but for outdoor portraits, it is simply amazing. A tiny bit of CA wide-open but really only if you pixel peep.
The 50/1.8 is a great all around portrait lens. A little long for group shots indoors and for kids that always want to get close to the camera to see what you're doing. Super sharp. I don't mind the focus noise or the build; what bugs me is the 5-blade aperture which definitely shows up in the background blur. The 1.4 is reportedly much better in this regards but for $100, it is really hard to beat.
I use the 35/2 the most because its focal length is about perfect for my current shooting---family environmental shots and the occasional close-up of kids. However, I find it is very soft up until f/3.2 or f/4. (But the 35/1.4L is much more expensive and well, big. And the 24L lenses even more so.) Still good though. It is much more usable for indoor group shots.
I'd say to rent some for a weekend or shoot and see what you think. SmugMug, last I checked, had some deals to get 5% off of borrowlenses.com.
Yes, the five-bladed aperture is really the worst thing about the 50mm f/1.8. In my uses it's rarely an issue, but when it does crop up, it's not nice. I'm thinkiing of getting an f/1.4.
Nikon's 50mm f/1.8 has seven aperture blades... (pout, pout)...
This not my experience at all; my 35mm f/2 is pretty sharp at f/2.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
get the cheap 50mm 1.8 and then decide how to spend your money, besides lens, lighting is also a big factor in portraits. If you don't like the background blur with the "nifty fifty" you can change it in Photoshop !
Hm. Do you have some sample shots wide-open? I have thought about having Canon re-calibrate the lens, but haven't gotten around to it yet.
There's one at f/2 here, taken with a Rebel XSi.
If your camera has AF micro-adjustment, you could probably just fix it up that way rather than sending the lens in for service.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
I second the prime thing; If you like 50mm, I'd highly suggest the 1.4 over the 1.8 though. I've had the 1.8 and have the 1.4. Even though the 1.8 is a decent lens and definitely good value for money, the 1.4 is MUCH better.
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
I don't want to do a lot of lens changes so maybe zoom lenses would be better but then again, I've heard primes are much better in image quality...so it's either a 50 1.4 (or 35 f/2), 85 f/1.8, 135L(or 100mm macro).
Or...(I know-I'm sorry guys- this is such a big decision) what about just get a 18-55mm IS kit lens for stobes indoors, then get a 70-200 f/4 and 24-70L when I save up a little more??
#1:
18-55 IS-for indoor strobes
50mm 1.4
85mm 1.8
135L 2.0
#2:
18-55 IS-for indoor strobes
24-70L 2.8
135L 2.0
Thank you in advance!!
In version two, why even bother with the 18-55 at all? Unless you're shooting full length in a 5x5 room, the 24-70 will be fine. You don't really want to shoot portraits wider than about 35 (on a crop camera) because of the distortion factor (not flattering at all).
Even though my own setup is closer to your number 1 (17-50/50 1.4/135L) I personally would jump on #2 in a heartbeat if I had the $. Much though I love the 85 1.8, the 24-70 is a very popular portrait lens and outside in good light you won't need the extra speed the 1.8 offers. Just my 2c (and bear in mind I don't actually HAVE a 24-70, but I know that togs I respect use it as their "go to" portrait lens).
You certainly don't want to do individual portraits at 18-24mm even on APS-C, but for a large group sometimes the physical circumstances make it necessary (that is, if you have no room to back up further). It really doesn't look all that bad -- 29mm FF equivalent is not so wide that you get really gross distortion even in the corners. There is always the pano solution, but I don't trust a large group of people to stand still enough for that. I've tried it a few times and the stitching is always much more painful than for, say, a pano landscape.
I have an EF 24-70mm f/2.8L. On an APS-C camera it's excellent for short-range head-and-shoulders portraits at 50mm (80mm FF equivalent), but generally one prefers to take such shots from more than a few feet away, and then you want a bit more length even on APS-C. Of course the lens goes out to 70mm, but it gets a little softer at f/2.8 when zoomed in all the way, so I'd probably reach for my 70-200mm f/2.8 f/2.8 IS.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.
But wouldn't the 24mm end of the L zoom cover that nicely?
Agreed, but she has the 135L listed there too - that would without question be my go-to lens for longer, although as I've mentioned I'll do everything I can to use that lens whenever I can, in any and all circumstances just cuz it's so satisfying to shoot with it
OP, this is why there's different lenses that can do similar things - depending on your own shooting style, you'll figure out what works for you. Why don't you rent the combo in #2 and see how it suits you? Then if you find you'd prefer the faster lighter 1.8 or whatever, you can go with that. It's all higly personal, and there are no "right" or "wrong" answers, just finding the best tools for the job the way YOU need and want to use them
Not on APS-C, where 24mm is equivalent to 38mm FF.
Got bored with digital and went back to film.