What is your favorite portrait lens?

~Jan~

I always use the 50 mm 1.8. It's the only lens I have besides the kit lens so far. I just purchased my SLR in November, so I'm trying to add equipment slowly. I LOVE my 50 mm for single-person portraits, but for full-body shots and group shots, I have a horrid time getting a sharp focus. I went into a camera shop w/ intent to buy an 85 mm. but he talked me out of it and said 50 mm was good. Nice salesman, huh. Guess they don't work on commission!

I know I want to get a 30-ish mm for this winter when I'll be shooting snaps of my son indoors, but maybe I should get the 85 for full-body portraits? I'm confused...

Seneca

1st choice - 70-200 2.8.
2nd choice - 17-35 2.8

Xandertures

I have similar full frame focus issues with my 50mm 1.4. Lately I have been using my 55-200mm VR lens which is surprisingly sharp for it's cheap price. Not a real large aperture lens but if you back away and increase the focal length to about 100mm, it gives great DOF for portraits.

Ann McRae

Jan

The 85 is not what you need for group shots. Not for full body portraits either unless you have tonnes of space.

I have had the 85 for several years and it is supurb for single or double portraits, but tight for anything else. This whole gallery is with the 85, and trust me when I say I had to back WAAAY up on the group shots.


I love the 135 as well. Typically do individual shots with it.

For any group shots I currently rely on my 17 - 85mm f4 IS.
I just bought the 50 f1.4 for low light (indoor) portraits, but haven't given it a good tryout.

ann

LiquidAir

Note that I shoot with a 5D, so these lenses have a wider field on my camera than on most digial bodies. For headshots I use either the 135/2 or the 85/1.8 depending on where I am working and what feel I am going for. For group shots and full body shots I'll use either the 50/1.4 or the 35/1.4. I prefer primes for people shots because they allow a shallower depth of field and the smoother bokeh compared to most zooms. If I had to pick a favorite among them, I think it would have to be the 85/1.8 because it is so versatile.

Assuming you are using an APS-C body, I think the 50/1.8 is too long for full body and most group shots. If you are already planning on getting something in the 30mm range for candids, that will also be a good choice for group and full body shots on and APC-C body. My first choice would probably the Canon 28/1.8 which I haven't used but it seems reasonbly well regarded and would be a very useful focal length on a 1.6 crop body.

Cuties02q

My favorite is my 85mm 1.8 (not for group shots) but for kids. And I also love my 17-55 2.8mm & my 50-105mm 2.8 (for group shots) they are sooo sharp

ETA: The 70-200 2.8 is on my wish list!!!

Scott_Quier

Seneca wrote:

1st choice - 70-200 2.8.
2nd choice - 17-35 2.8

~Jan~

Okay so I'm going backwards. I was thinking I needed the 85 mm for full-body, but I actually need something like a 30. Thanks for the advice!

pyrtek

~Jan~ wrote:

Okay so I'm going backwards. I was thinking I needed the 85 mm for full-body, but I actually need something like a 30. Thanks for the advice!

I think the 85 would be better on a full frame body, actually.

~Jan~

pyrtek wrote:

I think the 85 would be better on a full frame body, actually.

I have the XTi, so no 85 for me?

pyrtek

~Jan~ wrote:

I have the XTi, so no 85 for me?

No no, that's not what I meant. The 85 will perform smashingly on an XTi
as a portrait lens. What I meant, is that the 30 on a full frame would be
rather horrid as a portrait lens. On an XTi it would be fine, although your 50
is better for that, in my opinion.

Scott_Quier

In years past the magic number, for 35mm film, has been something in the range of 80 - 135mm for head/shoulder portraits.

Most will already know this, but for readers new to the game, if you consider the 1.6 factor, this would equate to the following:

Using a 1.6 crop camera to to duplicate

• an 85mm would require a 50mm lens (85mm / 1.6 is about 53mm)
• a 105m would required a 65mm (105 / 1.6 is about 65mm)
• 135mm would require an 85 (135 / 1.6 is about 85mm)

The longer focal lengths tend to be a bit more flattering in that perspective distortion is not as appearant. But, go too long and your model's facial features start to be come flat/2D - not so good.

Briggie

Seneca wrote:

1st choice - 70-200 2.8.
2nd choice - 17-35 2.8

17-35mm for portraits, Seneca? Wouldn't you have to be almost on top of your subject for head shots and such?... just a noob question!

Briggie

i shot an outdoor family event on Saturday with a 17-55 2.8. Very versatile. Wide end for group family shots, and long end for portrait/candids. Its a bit heavy to be lugging around all day, but it really did the trick. I would have liked a little more reach for candids, but it did quite well.

urbanaries

sounds like confusion a-brewing...

full body portraits = need wide angle on your CROP body (for a Rebel Xti, this would be around 17-35mm)
full frame body = Canon 5D (full 35mm size sensor...no crop factor )

to answer the OP, for group shots and full body shots (wide angle), you can't beat the 17-55 2.8 IS. It's pricey, but not as pricey buying and quickly selling at a loss: the 17-85mm 4.5-5.6 IS, the Sigma 24-70 2.8, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 would have paid for most of the 17-55 2.8 IS i ended up buying (and eventually, we're going to get married). The IS makes this lens hard to beat, especially for someone who likes to shoot available light only. 1/5 of a second, hand held, sharp as a tack? YEAH baby!

For sharp headshots, nothing beats the 85mm 1.8, also a wonderful available light lens, and not too pricey. Sharp as #$%#.

Scott_Quier

urbanaries wrote:

to answer the OP, for group shots and full body shots (wide angle), you can't beat the 17-55 2.8 IS. It's pricey, but not as pricey buying and quickly selling at a loss: the 17-85mm 4.5-5.6 IS, the Sigma 24-70 2.8, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 would have paid for most of the 17-55 2.8 IS i ended up buying (and eventually, we're going to get married).

So, Lynne, does this mean that you have found your life-mate?

Scott_Quier

Briggie wrote:

Its a bit heavy to be lugging around all day, but it really did the trick.

Nah, he ain't heavy, check out his brother! I can easily spend a day shooting a wedding with this combination hanging off me

Camera 1:

• 20D
• 17-55 f/2.8 IS
• BG-E2
• Newton Brackets Di100FR2 bracket
• 580 EX

Camera 2:

• 30D
• 70-200 f/2.8 IS
• BG-E2
• Newton Brackets Di100FR2 bracket
• 580 EX II

Plus spare batteries and CF cards, etc

Now, that's fun!

P.S. - easily might be a slight over-statemetn. I can do it, have done it, but I'm beat at the end of the day!

urbanaries

Scott_Quier wrote:

So, Lynne, does this mean that you have found your life-mate?

well, the 17-55 doesn't talk back, leave the toilet seat up OR eat much. AND he generates an income without whining or needing his own vehicle.

OH and you can credit yourself as matchmaker!

evoryware

I'd like to trade my 28-135 for the 24-70 f2.8 for group shots and portraits.
I haven't really used the 50 1.8 for a group shot. I'll have to try that...
70-200 2.8 to answer the title of this thread, though.

Seneca

Briggie wrote:

17-35mm for portraits, Seneca? Wouldn't you have to be almost on top of your subject for head shots and such?... just a noob question!

Yeah and most the time I am...but you know it's only a couple of shots...and shots that I know will look great. My clients don't mind it...I am a constant talker when I shoot so I can make my clients feel very comfortable. You really can't go wrong with this lens...it's my baby!

Mitchell

I always seem to go back to my Nikkor 28-70mm, f2.8 for portraits. It works well for small groups as well as solo head shots. Mine is particularly sharp even wide open.

I have an 85mm, f1.4 which is a great lens, but the DOF is so shallow that I often wind up with slightly soft shots particularly with moving children. I also find the 85mm a bit long for indoor shooting on a crop body.

Owen

24-70 f/2.8L.

'nuff said.

~Jan~

Owen wrote:

24-70 f/2.8L.

'nuff said.

I really want this one!

saurora

urbanaries wrote:

sounds like confusion a-brewing...

full body portraits = need wide angle on your CROP body (for a Rebel Xti, this would be around 17-35mm)
full frame body = Canon 5D (full 35mm size sensor...no crop factor )

to answer the OP, for group shots and full body shots (wide angle), you can't beat the 17-55 2.8 IS. It's pricey, but not as pricey buying and quickly selling at a loss: the 17-85mm 4.5-5.6 IS, the Sigma 24-70 2.8, the Tamron 17-50 2.8 would have paid for most of the 17-55 2.8 IS i ended up buying (and eventually, we're going to get married). The IS makes this lens hard to beat, especially for someone who likes to shoot available light only. 1/5 of a second, hand held, sharp as a tack? YEAH baby!

For sharp headshots, nothing beats the 85mm 1.8, also a wonderful available light lens, and not too pricey. Sharp as #$%#.

I have the 85mm 1.8 and rarely use it (I'm saving it for my 5D someday!!!). It is too long indoors on my 20D. Even the 50 is sometimes too long. I have the 24-105 f/4L IS, not as fast as others, but the versatility of a zoom is sure nice and the IS is great. If I didn't have it, I would probably go for the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. For indoors I also have the 35mm. At f/1.4 it is a really sharp, and really sweet, light-sucking lens!!! The wider helps when you are 'up close' indoors and for groups outdoors as well. Whatever you decide, don't cut corners. You will never regret buying the best you can possibly afford for a portrait lens.

LiquidAir

saurora wrote:

I have the 85mm 1.8 and rarely use it (I'm saving it for my 5D someday!!!). It is too long indoors on my 20D. Even the 50 is sometimes too long. I have the 24-105 f/4L IS, not as fast as others, but the versatility of a zoom is sure nice and the IS is great. If I didn't have it, I would probably go for the 17-55mm 2.8 IS. For indoors I also have the 35mm. At f/1.4 it is a really sharp, and really sweet, light-sucking lens!!! The wider helps when you are 'up close' indoors and for groups outdoors as well. Whatever you decide, don't cut corners. You will never regret buying the best you can possibly afford for a portrait lens.

I have the 135/2 (which has the same FoV on my 5D as the 85/1.8 on the 20/30D). It is often too long, but I like to use it for catching candid headshots in situations where the scene is too cluttered to use a wider lens. It takes a lot of practice to reliably get good shots when the DoF is less than an inch but I find it is worth the effort. I really like the 135mm equivalent FoV, but it takes dedication to get the most from it so it certainly isn't for everyone. Once you get your 5D, you'll love the 85; it is one of my most used lenses (right after the 24-105).

Wet Oregon

Favorite Portrait lens
First response--been a lurker for some time--I 've just gone digital after many years as a film photographer and my D200 allows me to use all my old lenses--with my 20mm becoming a digital 30mm and my 50mm becoming a digital 75mm etc. etc., which makes the old 50mm now 75 mm producing some very sharp available light portraits.
I can assume that the "now" 75mm is darn close to the popular 85mm

jeffreaux2

I think that on a 1.6 the 50mm 1.8 you mentioned usually works out pretty good. I also have recently purchased an 85mm F1.8, and have gotten some very very good results, but I am still learning to back up.....waaaaay up! The 85mm is beautiful for head and shoulders, or children, and is ok for full length adults if you have 20-30 yards of distance to work with. Buttery smooth backgrounds.

That said, I also use a Tamron 28-75 F2.8 that is very very versitile, and produces excellent IQ. It is my most used lens to date, even though it cannot quite compete with the primes for sharpness.