Which Canon is the best everyday/portrait lens?

EvilGrin

I have a new 40D, and no lens. I'm agonizing over the decision! Price is not that much or a concern but I'm hoping to keep it to $1500 or under. I have decided that I would like one very good lens for now that I can use as my everyday and also begin taking some portraits. Maybe these two things don't go together so well? I am very much an ameteur, so I really don't have any idea. But those are the two ways I will use my camera most.

I've demo'd a few lenses including the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L. But like I said, I'm pretty clueless. They all take unbelievable pictures! And for the price, I can definitely add the 50mm f/1.8.

Anyone have any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks for your help....

StephaneB

EvilGrin wrote:

I have a new 40D, and no lens. I'm agonizing over the decision! Price is not that much or a concern but I'm hoping to keep it to $1500 or under. I have decided that I would like one very good lens for now that I can use as my everyday and also begin taking some portraits. Maybe these two things don't go together so well? I am very much an ameteur, so I really don't have any idea. But those are the two ways I will use my camera most.

I've demo'd a few lenses including the 24-70 f/2.8L and the 24-105 f/4L. But like I said, I'm pretty clueless. They all take unbelievable pictures! And for the price, I can definitely add the 50mm f/1.8.

Anyone have any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks for your help....

I hope you won't be annoyed by what I am about to say, but really, if you don't know, don't spend that much money. Go step by step with much more affordable lenses.

To start in portraiture with a 40D, I'd suggest a humble 50/1.8. For you everyday going around, try the 28/2.8, another affordable and amazingly good lens. You'll have spend $300 on a couple of lenses you'll keep forever and after a few weeks (preferrably months) with just those two, you'll know a lot more about what you want.

EvilGrin

StephaneB wrote:

I hope you won't be annoyed by what I am about to say, but really, if you don't know, don't spend that much money. Go step by step with much more affordable lenses.

To start in portraiture with a 40D, I'd suggest a humble 50/1.8. For you everyday going around, try the 28/2.8, another affordable and amazingly good lens. You'll have spend $300 on a couple of lenses you'll keep forever and after a few weeks (preferrably months) with just those two, you'll know a lot more about what you want.

that's one way to do it. but your method entails buying lenes that I know I will want to upgrade. i've already owned the digi rebel kit lens. its awful compared to these lenses i've demo'd. why not at least try to get the right lens now? i know i'll wind up buying it anyways. and like i said, i can get the 50/1.8. its dirt cheap. if that is great for portraits, then i want another lens for everything else - and hopefully that lens will also be somewhat useful with portraits in a different way. may it be an expensive lens or not so expensive, i'd rather try to get what i will be happy with now and for a long time. i can always sell it if it isn't right. i don't think i should start with something i know im going to want to upgrade. may be just me, but i'd like to try to get the pefect one now. i will check out the 28/2.8 you speak of. i appreciate the advice.

jdryan3

You may want to do a search on this and the accessories forum on the many, many threads on the 24-70 vs the 24-105. They are jam packed on the pros & cons and opinions about these 2 lenses.

I started out years ago on my film camera with a Tamron lens in the same range. Still shooting using transparencies and negatives, I upgraded to the Canon 28-135 (about $400 I think), which I carried over to my digital (300D).

I was fairly happy with it but wanted something much better when I got my 5D. For me the f/2.8 was more important than the extra reach or IS on the 24-105, so I got the 24-70 a year ago and have never looked back. It is the lens I keep on my camera when I travel or just walk around.

I couldn't afford the L glass when I moved from the Tamron, and the 28-135 was a "best value" purchase for me. But since $$ isn't an issue I would go for one of those if a zoom is what you want/need. They are the best all purpose lenses in that range.

Because..... I lied (sorta). I have a new love in my life , the 35 f/1.4.

I think I will start using it as my walking around lens. I have always liked the sorta wide shots that give context to the image and the perspective. But having the 24-70 on hand is great, plus I spent a lot of time shooting with it at various focal lengths to figure out I really wanted to pony up the $$ for a 35 L. It's just that you can't get the 35 L and 85 L for $1500.

StephaneB

EvilGrin wrote:

that's one way to do it. but your method entails buying lenes that I know I will want to upgrade. i've already owned the digi rebel kit lens. its awful compared to these lenses i've demo'd. why not at least try to get the right lens now? i know i'll wind up buying it anyways. and like i said, i can get the 50/1.8. its dirt cheap. if that is great for portraits, then i want another lens for everything else - and hopefully that lens will also be somewhat useful with portraits in a different way. may it be an expensive lens or not so expensive, i'd rather try to get what i will be happy with now and for a long time. i can always sell it if it isn't right. i don't think i should start with something i know im going to want to upgrade. may be just me, but i'd like to try to get the pefect one now. i will check out the 28/2.8 you speak of. i appreciate the advice.

Don't underestimate the 28/2.8. It is a difficult lens to upgrade because its image quality on the 40D will at least match the very best zoom. Handling a camera wth that nimble little lens is a very different experience compared to the weight of the 24-70.

My advice has another reason: prime lenses are the best (only) way to learn to look around and frame quickly, because with time you acquire the lens frame in your eye and see your picture before bringing the camera to the eye.

The above poster story should tell you something. He has the best zoom on the market and just bought a prime.

Now if you're positive you need a zoom, the 24-70 and the 24-105 are dream lenses. The 24-70 is more geared toward interior reportage (like weddings) and the 24-105 more towards travel, but both can do the other thing quite well. Keep in mind that on a 40D they don't provide real wide angle.

LiquidAir

The best choice of midrange zoom is a really personal thing and depends a great deal on how you like to shoot. However, in your shoes, I'd get the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS and the 85/1.8. Both very good lenses that you won't feel the need to upgrade and the pair will run you just under $1500.

claudermilk

The route I went was to get the 50/1.8 and figure out where I wanted to go from there. That ended up being the 24-70. Both are excellent lenses for portraiture and can both live in your bag. I'm looking at adding a 35/2 eventually as well.

EvilGrin

I think I will take all of your advice and grab the 50 f/1.8 today. I'm going to play around with that for a short while and decide what my bigger purchase(s) will be. and I have some new lenses I need to go check out. I appreciate all of your comments and advice. I'd love to hear more...

kini62

EvilGrin wrote:

I think I will take all of your advice and grab the 50 f/1.8 today. I'm going to play around with that for a short while and decide what my bigger purchase(s) will be. and I have some new lenses I need to go check out. I appreciate all of your comments and advice. I'd love to hear more...

Here's more:D

I have the 40D. I recently tried the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 to see which I should make my next purchase.

I found the 85/1.8 MUCH more to my liking for people, half body to head shots.

IMO the 50/1.4 was too short. To get a head shot I was right up in the person's face.

Plus the 85/1.8 is pretty sharp from the get go.

It also has lovely bokeh. It is my choice for portraits and people shots in general.

It also double as a very nice indoor sports/play/ballet etc... lens if you can get close enough or far enough as the case may be.

As for a general use, walk around lens the 24-105 (which I have) is very nice. Nice range, IS, fast focus, nice size.

I "may" end up with the new Tamron 28-300VC though, depending on the general consensus and images after it's been out for a while.

Gene

k2c1959

EvilGrin wrote:

I think I will take all of your advice and grab the 50 f/1.8 today. I'm going to play around with that for a short while and decide what my bigger purchase(s) will be. and I have some new lenses I need to go check out. I appreciate all of your comments and advice. I'd love to hear more...

by far my favorite lense always was the 28mm f1.8, this lense is really a great carry lense on a crop camera as long as you dont need any focal length. i think this lense and hood together is around 400.00 and i never removed it from my camera when i needed a low light lense, such as auto shows, zoo atriums, aquariums, etc. just my 2 cents and also worked very well outdoors on auto shows, etc. (cant tell im an auto enthusiast,lol).. i always found this lense to be extremely sharp. like the 50mm, well worth the money IMHO.

Nikolai

LiquidAir wrote:

The best choice of midrange zoom is a really personal thing and depends a great deal on how you like to shoot. However, in your shoes, I'd get the EF-S 17-55/2.8 IS and the 85/1.8. Both very good lenses that you won't feel the need to upgrade and the pair will run you just under $1500.

EF-S 17-55/2.8 , 50/1.8 (or /1.4 if you want to use all $1500), and 85/1.8 - check

ulrikft

get primes..

Canon EF 24mm f/1.4 USM L

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM

Canon EF 200mm f/2.8 L USM II

And you have what you need..

mrcoons

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

Canon EF 135mm f/2 L USM

Both get my vote.

jsedlak

I absolutely LOVE my 24-105L. The 50 f/1.8 has become very hard to use since the 24-105L allows me to get up close and get a little far away and f/4 looks great in most cases. The lens is sharp as a tack to boot.

The 50 f/1.8 is great for those smooth, creamy, dreamy pictures but for anything else it is 24-105L or bust!

Shima

jsedlak wrote:

I absolutely LOVE my 24-105L. The 50 f/1.8 has become very hard to use since the 24-105L allows me to get up close and get a little far away and f/4 looks great in most cases. The lens is sharp as a tack to boot.

The 50 f/1.8 is great for those smooth, creamy, dreamy pictures but for anything else it is 24-105L or bust!

I second the vote for the 24-105 f4/L. I LOVE that lens. It is my favorite by far. When I just want to walk around, it's the lens on there.

evoryware

I'm about to give my right leg for the 24-70. Currently I'm running my 28-135. It's a good lens.

Poseidon

I have the 24-70 2.8, and the 24-105 4.0, and they are BOTH GREAT! For a portrait lens, I think the 85 1.8 would be the ticket. Remember this though, it is all about the lens, the bodies will change often.... Moral, by the best glass you can!

rpcrowe

There are different types of portraits...
Portraits run the gamut from the standard head and shoulders shots to environmental portraiture designed to show the subject interacting with the environment around (such as a carpenter in the shop showing tools and projects or a artist surrounded by paintings and art equipment).

The photographer normally uses a relatively long lens for head and shoulders work because when filling the frame with a subject's head and shoulders using a wide lens requires a fairly short camera to subject distance. This will usually be unflattering since it will accentuate features like the nose. An 80mm to 150mm or so (equivalent focal length) is a good area. I personally prefer to be on the longer side of that and dearly love my 90mm Tamron f/2.8 SP (macro) lens for portrait work. However, if a person is shooting in a home studio, a shorter lens such as a 50mm (on a 1.6x camera which is an 80mm equivalent) might be needed; since many home studios don't have enough camera to subject and subject to background space to use a 90mm lens on a 1.6x camera (which is a 144mm equivalent).

A bit longer lens is really nice in outdoor portraiture and is sometimes almost essential if you don't want to intrude into the subjects space. My 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is a lovely outdoor portraiture lens. It is my favorite lens for travel portraiture; especially of persons who may feel awkward if they know they are being shot.

If, however, you desire to include the subject's environment in your image, you will need a wider lens. However, still keep in mind that if you are shooting a person from a very short distance, features such as noses can be exaggerated. At times, photographers take advantage of the exaggeration. But, I would use that technique rather sparingly.

What are the essentials of a good portrait lens? IMO; the most important feature is not sharpness but, good smooth bokeh (the rendering of the out of focus portions of the image). That is where, IMO, the "Nifty-Fifty" (50mm f/1.8 Mark-II) drops the ball somewhat. The diaphragm (which controls the looks of bokeh) of the Mark-II is five bladed. This tends (again IMO) to give a somewhat jagged rendering of the bokeh. The 90mm Tamron f/2.8 SP Macro lens provides butter smooth bokeh that is a joy to look at.

It is often nice to have a relatively wide aperture (like f/2.8) so you can throw portions of the image out of focus but, that is not a hard and fast requirement. Photographers of earlier days have shot head and shoulders portraits with lenses that would be in today's estimation terribly slow (like f/32 or slower).

However, in reality, you can shoot good portraits with any lens of the correct focal length. I have shot some very nice portraits using my 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens which was the very first digital lens that I acquired. Now, I most often use my Tamron for portraiture but, will have no hesitation in grabbing my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens to do that job.

LiquidAir

rpcrowe wrote:

What are the essentials of a good portrait lens? IMO; the most important feature is not sharpness but, good smooth bokeh (the rendering of the out of focus portions of the image). That is where, IMO, the "Nifty-Fifty" (50mm f/1.8 Mark-II) drops the ball somewhat. The diaphragm (which controls the looks of bokeh) of the Mark-II is five bladed. This tends (again IMO) to give a somewhat jagged rendering of the bokeh. The 90mm Tamron f/2.8 SP Macro lens provides butter smooth bokeh that is a joy to look at.

I'll second the desire for a smooth bokeh. However, I don't really like using macro lenses for portraits because they generally are slow to focus. When I am shooting with a shallow depth of field, my subject can move out of focus in an instant, so I prefer a very quick lens.

rpcrowe wrote:

It is often nice to have a relatively wide aperture (like f/2.8) so you can throw portions of the image out of focus but, that is not a hard and fast requirement. Photographers of earlier days have shot head and shoulders portraits with lenses that would be in today's estimation terribly slow (like f/32 or slower).

They were using those slow lenses on large format cameras. f/32 has much less effective DoF as well as less relative diffraction on an 8x10 negative that it does on a 35mm negative. However, they were also shooting on very slow film so exposure times were long.

EvilGrin

rpcrowe wrote:

Portraits run the gamut from the standard head and shoulders shots to environmental portraiture designed to show the subject interacting with the environment around (such as a carpenter in the shop showing tools and projects or a artist surrounded by paintings and art equipment).

The photographer normally uses a relatively long lens for head and shoulders work because when filling the frame with a subject's head and shoulders using a wide lens requires a fairly short camera to subject distance. This will usually be unflattering since it will accentuate features like the nose. An 80mm to 150mm or so (equivalent focal length) is a good area. I personally prefer to be on the longer side of that and dearly love my 90mm Tamron f/2.8 SP (macro) lens for portrait work. However, if a person is shooting in a home studio, a shorter lens such as a 50mm (on a 1.6x camera which is an 80mm equivalent) might be needed; since many home studios don't have enough camera to subject and subject to background space to use a 90mm lens on a 1.6x camera (which is a 144mm equivalent).

A bit longer lens is really nice in outdoor portraiture and is sometimes almost essential if you don't want to intrude into the subjects space. My 70-200mm f/4L IS lens is a lovely outdoor portraiture lens. It is my favorite lens for travel portraiture; especially of persons who may feel awkward if they know they are being shot.

If, however, you desire to include the subject's environment in your image, you will need a wider lens. However, still keep in mind that if you are shooting a person from a very short distance, features such as noses can be exaggerated. At times, photographers take advantage of the exaggeration. But, I would use that technique rather sparingly.

What are the essentials of a good portrait lens? IMO; the most important feature is not sharpness but, good smooth bokeh (the rendering of the out of focus portions of the image). That is where, IMO, the "Nifty-Fifty" (50mm f/1.8 Mark-II) drops the ball somewhat. The diaphragm (which controls the looks of bokeh) of the Mark-II is five bladed. This tends (again IMO) to give a somewhat jagged rendering of the bokeh. The 90mm Tamron f/2.8 SP Macro lens provides butter smooth bokeh that is a joy to look at.

It is often nice to have a relatively wide aperture (like f/2.8) so you can throw portions of the image out of focus but, that is not a hard and fast requirement. Photographers of earlier days have shot head and shoulders portraits with lenses that would be in today's estimation terribly slow (like f/32 or slower).

However, in reality, you can shoot good portraits with any lens of the correct focal length. I have shot some very nice portraits using my 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS lens which was the very first digital lens that I acquired. Now, I most often use my Tamron for portraiture but, will have no hesitation in grabbing my 70-200mm f/4L IS lens to do that job.

thanks for taking the time to explain that. I often wondered why so many here said they love their 70-200 L for portraits. now it makes much more sense.

i did buy the "nifty fifty" and have been experimenting with it. maybe i don't know how to get the best out of it, but it doesn't seem as sharp as i might hope. and being new to prime, it's also weird not being able to zoom. maybe i'm just lazy, but I hate having to move for nearly every pic!! i think it's on to the 24-70 f/2.8L or 24-105 f/4L. and if I could afford to add the 70-200 f/2.8L IS to that, I think I would be set!!

noced

I've had my 24-70 2.8L for about a week now and love it. The "L" premium is worth every penny, I now believe. The sharpness is addicting.

Occassionally, I've found myself wanting something faster than 2.8. Eventually I think I'll get a 85mm 1.8 (or faster) for portraiture.