Help - what canon lens to buy for portraits?

Deadlock

Hi all,

I could really use some advice in buying a lens.

I've started moving over to portraits and have purchased some lighting gear for that purpose.

I have a canon 20D, canon 100mm f2.8 macro, sigma 18-200mm f3.5-5.6.

The sigma has been a handy walk around lens, however I cant stand it for portraits. I love my canon 100mm macro for portraits and mainly shoot between f2.8 and f5.6
However, the working distance is not always suitable.

So I'm thinking now about perhaps getting a canon 50mm f1.4 or a canon 24-70L f2.8

I have used a friends 24-70L for about a week and when comparing to my sigma found the difference to be negligible - slight contrast and colour variations at 100%. Obviously this surprised me when this canon is meant to be such a good lens.
Was it a bad copy?

What should I buy to get similar sharpness, contrast, colour and bokeh to my canon 100mm macro?

Any other possibilities?

Thanks

GadgetRick

I will tell you, without a doubt, the Canon lens you tried is capable of much more than what you saw. I owned the same Sigma lens you did (for Nikon) and it's a decent lens but doesn't compare to the Canon L. What I've found with the better glass is you almost have to learn how to use the particular lens you have properly. When I first got my 28-70 (I have the older version), I wasn't overly impressed with it. But, after shooting a bunch with it, I realized how to shoot properly with it and now I get awesome results--much better than the first shots I took. Takes a little time to get to know the lens.

The 24-70 isn't bad for portraits. A lot of people use the 85mm as well. Might give that a looksee...

ziggy53

For a Canon crop 1.6x camera (like the 20D), I suggest that the EF 50mm, f1.4 USM works pretty well for a 3/4 length and full-length portrait, and the EF 85mm, f1.8 USM for a head shot or head-and-shoulders. The "L" lenses in the above focal lengths do a better job if you have the funds.

For outdoors I do like the EF 135mm, f2L USM if I also have the room to shoot.

You will also see portraits done with many of the f2.8 zoom lenses like the EF 24-70mm, f2.8L USM and the EF 70-200mm, f2.8L USM (with or without IS).

For group portraits I prefer a "standard" zoom and I do use the EF-S 17-55mm, f2.8 IS USM on a 40D for that purpose.

You would love a FF imager for portraiture as it allows more control over DOF than the crop imagers, generally speaking.

red_exclamation

The EF 50 f 1.4 USM (as already suggested) would be a good choice for a crop camera. Except maybe if you go all the way for a 50 1.2 L.

You mentioned trying the EF 24-70 2.8 USM for portraits and not being that impressed, maybe you can rent and try out the EF 24-105 f/4 USM. True, it's an f/4, so maybe not exactly what you're looking for here, but you might still want to give it a go.

(great, 1st post. And already talking nonsense:D)

divamum

Canon 50 1.4 or the Sigma 50 1.4 (which is sharper wide open - the Canon is not at its best below 2.0). It is RUMOURED that the Canon 50 is about to get a (much-needed) facelift, but until/unless it's actually released, who knows?

For portraits I mostly use my 50 1.4 and 135L 2.0. The 135 is without a doubt the better lens in all ways, but it can be hard to use that focal length indoors. I also have an 85 1.8, but I just don't seem to reach for it as often (although am very glad to have it when I need that fl, as it's a good lens).

I keep hoping Canon will release a 24-70is, another lens that's been rumoured for a while. That would, in my mind, be pretty perfect.

Deadlock

Thanks all,

I bought the 24-70 f2.8 L today.

I did a little testing at home and.... I'm not happy with it at all.

I can see slight differences between the sigma and the 24-70 in terms of colour, contrast and sharpness. The canon being an improvement.
But then I switch to the 100mm and I always say 'WOW'!
There is no hesitation in trying to identify minor differences any longer. The difference is immediate. The image is vibrant, strong and definitive.
My reaction is irrespective of whether I am zoomed in to 100%, full screen, or taking up just a few inches of screen real estate.

So I am rather disappointed and will be returning the lens tomorrow.
I'll try another 24-70 and then... I just dont know.

P.S. - tests were at 24mm, 50mm, 70mm and at f2.8, 4, 5.6 and 8 for each (although not always applicable for the sigma) The canon 100mm was obviously just at 100mm for each of the apertures above. I was only interested in colour, contrast and sharpness (and back focussing) for the initial tests.

ziggy53

Prime lenses are almost always better than zoom lenses and prime true "Macro" lenses almost always have more sharpness "and" more contrast, by design. That's the nature of the current technology.

Zoom lenses have a tremendous value in flexibility. The best zooms, Canon "L" and Nikon "Gold" ring lenses, to name a couple of zoom classes, are among the best available, but they will not have the blistering sharpness and strong contrast of a good prime macro lens.

Using high contrast lenses in strong, contrasty light is a recipe for problems with dynamic range. General purpose zooms have a good balance of sharpness and contrast for their intended applications.

Unless you show us samples of the 24-70mm there is no way that we can know if you have a good copy or not, but yes, there should be a visible image difference between a macro lens and even the very best zoom lenses.

Overfocused

I second/third/fourth/fifth (however many) the 50mm F1.4 on a 1.6x camera. That's the first thing that came to my mind. I own the 100mm F2.8 and the 50mm F1.4. The 50mm F1.4 is equally sharp, and would suit portrait lengths a bit better than the 100mm length. Just one warning: the F1.4 (for me personally) has trouble focusing with AI servo at shallow apertures, at least with the camera I use. If I pick single-shot focus it doesn't hunt all over the place. Otherwise, for $ to IQ its #1 on my list.

Deadlock

ziggy53 wrote: »

Unless you show us samples of the 24-70mm there is no way that we can know if you have a good copy or not, but yes, there should be a visible image difference between a macro lens and even the very best zoom lenses.

Good points.
That would actually be very valuable, if you could offer your opinion on its quality.
Is there anything specific I should take a picture of and what format would you like to see the image in? Top quality jpeg or raw?

ziggy53

Deadlock wrote: »

Good points.
That would actually be very valuable, if you could offer your opinion on its quality.
Is there anything specific I should take a picture of and what format would you like to see the image in? Top quality jpeg or raw?

When I test a new lens I often choose a few different subjects for comparison:

1) A brick wall, shot straight on and squared with, using a tripod. This is a pretty good test for front-focus, back-focus, field curvature and vignetting issues.

2) A fence line or similar, shot at an angle to the subject. Put a singular strong-contrast target on the top of the middle post and use a single focus point in the camera to focus against the target. This shows focus accuracy and/or how easily distracting for/aft objects influence AF accuracy (compared to the above wall shot). It also shows bokeh tendencies at different aperture settings.

3) A focus target/chart like in the following:

http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart

I do recommend testing these charts at twice minimum focus distance or greater. Most lenses, especially most zoom lenses, do not do their best at MFD. True macro lenses are the major exception.

4) A US stop sign, or similar very high contrast signage, both centered and off center and to the side and/or corner. This can show chromatic errors and off-axis errors.

5) A spectral highlight at night. (Point source ideally, but a street light at some distance will do.) Try to avoid "blooming" of the source but allow some white clipping. This shows internal reflections and dispersion problems. Again, test both in the center and with the subject at the sides or corners.

6) Now just shoot "typical" subjects for your use of the lens(es). It's important that the lens perform correctly for your intended uses.

Feel free to use JPGs and just give image links or directory links, but any significant issues and comparisons you may want to add inline to a post describing particular issues. These may be crops and display 100 percent if you wish. 100 percent crops aren't really fair unless you intend to print "very" large, but it can be easier to display comparisons for examination and to demonstrate problems.

Deadlock

Sorry for the delay, its been a hectic week. I've finally got round to doing some tests.

Test 1
fairly strong vignetting and some barrel distortion observed.

Test 2
an object was placed on a fence approx 3m in front of the camera, which was itself on a tripod, and set to 70mm and f2.8
the 24-70L will focus consistently 50cm to 1m in front of the object.
When tested with the 100m macro, approx half the AF points were correct with the others 5-10cm forward.

This was too significant so I spoke to canon uk and their local service centre they directed me to. I was told to return the 24-70 as it was too far out and to take the camera in for an hour to let them examine it with my 100mm lens.

So, my thanks for the testing advice.

Deadlock

update: I added a picture to illustrate the variance in the second test. The AF point was located on the red hexagonal shape.
Judge for yourself where you really think the focus point lies.
fence shot
1.3M

Overfocused

Its focusing on that knot/nail hole on the fence really close to the edge. Did you try switching between focusing modes instead of just single points on the camera? Either way, especially for an L lens, that's pretty far off.

Deadlock

Overfocused wrote: »

Its focusing on that knot/nail hole on the fence really close to the edge. Did you try switching between focusing modes instead of just single points on the camera? Either way, especially for an L lens, that's pretty far off.

No, I'm afraid I only tested the single shot setting for each of the 9 AF points. Its the only setting I've ever needed to use for my type of photography.

Good to hear you agree with me!

Overfocused

Deadlock wrote: »

No, I'm afraid I only tested the single shot setting for each of the 9 AF points. Its the only setting I've ever needed to use for my type of photography.

Good to hear you agree with me!

See what happens with single points in AI and Single shot modes

Deadlock

Thanks but I'll have to leave that test for the time being. The camera has been confirmed by a canon service centre to have front focus issues. It will take them 3 weeks to fix due to a backlog and the 24-70L has been returned also, on the basis that it may also have had a front focus bias that compounded the issue in such a significant fashion.

Overfocused

Deadlock wrote: »

Thanks but I'll have to leave that test for the time being. The camera has been confirmed by a canon service centre to have front focus issues. It will take them 3 weeks to fix due to a backlog and the 24-70L has been returned also, on the basis that it may also have had a front focus bias that compounded the issue in such a significant fashion.

A proper diagnosis is one of the best reliefs! You'll probably become much more attached to it when its working smooth and precise like it should

Osprey

try this
Good info at Mike Tapes site: http://www.lensalign.com/

ziggy53 wrote: »

When I test a new lens I often choose a few different subjects for comparison:

1) A brick wall, shot straight on and squared with, using a tripod. This is a pretty good test for front-focus, back-focus, field curvature and vignetting issues.

2) A fence line or similar, shot at an angle to the subject. Put a singular strong-contrast target on the top of the middle post and use a single focus point in the camera to focus against the target. This shows focus accuracy and/or how easily distracting for/aft objects influence AF accuracy (compared to the above wall shot). It also shows bokeh tendencies at different aperture settings.

3) A focus target/chart like in the following:

http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart

I do recommend testing these charts at twice minimum focus distance or greater. Most lenses, especially most zoom lenses, do not do their best at MFD. True macro lenses are the major exception.

4) A US stop sign, or similar very high contrast signage, both centered and off center and to the side and/or corner. This can show chromatic errors and off-axis errors.

5) A spectral highlight at night. (Point source ideally, but a street light at some distance will do.) Try to avoid "blooming" of the source but allow some white clipping. This shows internal reflections and dispersion problems. Again, test both in the center and with the subject at the sides or corners.

6) Now just shoot "typical" subjects for your use of the lens(es). It's important that the lens perform correctly for your intended uses.

Feel free to use JPGs and just give image links or directory links, but any significant issues and comparisons you may want to add inline to a post describing particular issues. These may be crops and display 100 percent if you wish. 100 percent crops aren't really fair unless you intend to print "very" large, but it can be easier to display comparisons for examination and to demonstrate problems.

ziggy53

Osprey wrote: »

Good info at Mike Tapes site: http://www.lensalign.com/

I used to recommend the LensAlign tools but the diagonal test described at http://regex.info/blog/photo-tech/focus-chart will yield more accurate results.

For front focus/back focus a wall is very telling. If the wall test shows consistent mis-focus, then the Regex tools will be more accurate to show the direction of the mis-focus.

Manfr3d

Deadlock wrote: »

Any other possibilities?

Yes, the macro you have already is a great portrait lens use your feet to zoom and you're in the ball park.

Deadlock

I just wanted to thank everyone - especially ziggy53 - for their help and advice.

The 24-70L f2.8 has been utterly fantastic!
The ability to zoom has allowed me to make split second decisions and take shots that I otherwise would have missed with a prime.

Ultimately, I now believe the lens you use has to fit your style of photography and choice of subject matter.

The only downside is the weight. I know it sounds pathetic - I always thought it a ridiculous comment for people to make - but after a solid day of shooting my fingertips swell up for a week.

Deadlock

richy wrote: »

Never buy a 6x7 camera It does get better over time, soaking in cold water used to help me.

Thats a fascinating tip. I never realised that repeatedly dunking a 6x7 camera would improve the quality of its pictures.

Jean Luc Jean

That Canon 100mm macro is a good lens but youd do good with the Canon 50mm 1.4 to compliment it also in my opinion. Glad you found one that you love though which is most important.
Just like there is a lid to every pot, there is a lens for every photographer.

JRSabater

http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_85mm_f_1_8_usm
http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_50mm_f_1_4_usm
Either of these two is valid for portraits, for x 1.6 the 50mm or 85 mm, for full frame 85 mm better.
It's just my opinion