Portrait Lens.

cdonovan · September 6, 2009

I need some help shopping!

I recently upgraded to the 5dMKII and realized that I need to find a new portrait lens. I do a lot of children, babies, weddings that require me to have some type of wider angle, close focal range.

I've been very happy with the 17-85mm so am looking to replace that with something similar!

My price range would be comfy around the $1000 mark.

What I've found most appealing, well in my price range anyway is the 16-40 lens. I'd love the 16-35 f2.0, but it's right now, beyond what I can handle.

Does anyone have the 16-40, what do you think of it, is there another that I should know about?

I have a 70-200mm f2.8 IS and the dinky little 50mm 1.8

Thanks!

Swartzy · September 6, 2009

I think you'll find the 24-105 IS "L" to be a most magnificent lens. Right in your price range too. I use mine almost exclusively for portrait work along with the 70-200.

HiSPL · September 6, 2009

Do you mean the 17-40L?

If so that's an ultra-wide on the 5d2. You'll want to avoid that. It makes people look fat, and it will be hard to isolate the subject from the background. Unless you work really close, in which case they'll look fat.

Your 50 1.8 is a fine lens, nothing wrong with it at all. I would suggest maybe buying an 85 1.8 for portrait work, and a tamron 28-75 for wider angle stuff like groups and a general walkaround lens. Both of these lenses together would come out to be way less than 1000 bucks if you shop wisely.

Scott_Quier · September 6, 2009

I'm with Swartzy on this one (like that's something new

) - the 24-105 f/4L is a premium lens in your price range. For portrait work, it rivals my EF 85mm f/1.8 and is so much more convenient.

1. EF 24-105 f/4L at 75mm, f/8, ISO 100

2. EF 85mm f/1.8 at f/8, ISO 100

If I hadn't made not of the EXIF, could you have told me which was the prime and which was the zoom?

Nikolai · September 6, 2009

+1 with 24-105 on an FF body.

While it's stops at f/4, I rarely find myself shooting portrait below f/4 anyway (and if really need to go shallow DOF, I can go with my 50/1.4)

zoomer · September 8, 2009

The 70-200 is an excellent portrait lens. That is what I take all my portraits with at f2.8.
Of course if you just feel the need to spend more money on cool stuff......

RBrogen · September 11, 2009

I also shoot 5D Mk II and 5D with 70-200L, 24-70L or the 24-105L and get really sharp images. The only downside to the 24-105L is the f/4 bottom. In lower light is stay with the 24-70L and if I have room enough to maneuver I use the 70-200L because that is my favorite glass.

bloomphotog · September 11, 2009

My vote is an 85-135mm prime. I say sacrifice convenience for quality every time, it is "work" after all. If you really want a zoom, I say go with the 70-200 f/2.8 you already have. It's a fantastic lens. Anything below 70-80mm is too wide for 1-head portrait work, IMHO. I just used a 300mm for outdoor headshot work(as do a few photogs of much higher repute than I). If I had a big studio, I would definitely use it for indoor work as well. The long focal length is a great tool for "slimming" the subject.

Here's a new shot with the 300, at f/4, all natural light in the front yard:

marikris · September 11, 2009

@bloomphotog : you don't find the 135L too long indoors? I just did a shoot with the 5d2 and I found myself constantly unable to find enough space. It was kind of funny, really, because I had to have a stool (it's frustrating sometimes being only 5 ft tall) and foot zooming was like a scene from a Monty Python comedy.

bloomphotog · September 11, 2009

marikris wrote:

@bloomphotog : you don't find the 135L too long indoors? I just did a shoot with the 5d2 and I found myself constantly unable to find enough space. It was kind of funny, really, because I had to have a stool (it's frustrating sometimes being only 5 ft tall) and foot zooming was like a scene from a Monty Python comedy.

I think most any prime lens will make your work extra hard when composing that great shot. For anything but closeups and 1-head a portraits, yes, 135 is a little harder to work with. But that's when you pull out your 50mm. The 50mm is probably the closest thing to a do-it-all prime on a FF body. But, the OP was looking for a portrait lens, in which case there is better glass for the job.

cdonovan · September 13, 2009

Thank you all so much for your help!

I searched high and low for the body only when I upgraded to the 5D, wish I had of asked this question before I purchased it, There was quite a heft discount to buy the two together.

However, at my last wedding, because I had no alternative, I had to use the 50mm and the 70-200 and didn't feel like I was wanting for anything, never did I feel, oh I wish this was wider.

I had no idea the difference that a full frame would provide

Now to clean up the 17-85mm and sell it!

Portrait Lens.

Comments