Portrait lens

[rbat]

Would love to hear your favourite for flexibility and sharpness.

[jjphoto]

1/ Leica R 180/2.0 (on Canon FF body)
2/ Leica R 80/1.4 (on Canon FF body)
3/ Contax 135/2.0 (on Canon FF body)
4/ Various enlarging lenses on a helicoid such as TTH (Taylor, Taylor & Hobson) Ental 3.25" F4, Schneider Xenotar 80/2.8, Meopta Meogon 80/2.8, mainly for their harsh bokeh and the interest they add. It's not everyones taste.

None of the above (or probably any other manual focus primes for that matter) have any 'flexibility' in that you have to use them the way each lens needs to be used for best performance, be it Bokeh, wide open sharpness, minimum focusing distance or perspective that each lens imposes. Some people like long tele's for portraits, others like relatively normal focal length's. It comes down to preference, not right or wrong.

If you want 'flexibility' then use a 24-70/2.8 zoom, that's what I tend to do. Optically it's a fine lens and the fact it's a zoom and has AF are both a bonus. Even if the resulting images don't stand out, they are none the less excellent.

Regarding sharpness, you already have all you need from the 100 Macro in your sig. Sharpness isn't everything, especially in portraits, although I do prefer to have razor sharp wide open performance in a lens, especially at portrait distances.

JJ

[rbat]

Thanks JJ, I don't think I can afford the 24-70 f/2.8. My budget is $1000. My 100mm is awesome for portraits I agree but outside only. I would like something for inside that is not 50mm as I really do not like the length at all.

[Brian500au]

The problem with inside is if 50mm is not of your liking, and 100mm is too long you are left with either the 24-70 or an 85mm. In some cases the 85mm is too long and this is where I definitely pick up my 50mm. I have the 85, 50 and the 24-70 and I use them in that order for portrait work inside. If you only have the one lens for inside then you are going to need a zoom. The other alternative is the 24-105 but at f4 it is very limited what it can do inside.

[William W]

On an EOS 450D and within a Budget of $1000, my favourite Portrait Lens, for use inside would be the EF35F/2 (new) or, preferably the EF24F/1.4L, if possible to get in good condition for $1000, second hand.

WW

[Xenedis]

Would love to hear your favourite for flexibility and sharpness.

My 85/1.2L II is my main portrait lens.

If I want a longer lens, I tend to use my 135/2L.

If I want to shoot a wider, environmental portrait, I'll use my 35/1.4L.

(I shoot with an EOS 5D Mark II.)

[agb]

I don't have one, but I think you would be hard pressed to do better than the 85mm f 1.8 USM
Have a look at some of these shots, not all portraits though.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=140371&page=486

[Xenedis]

I don't have one, but I think you would be hard pressed to do better than the 85mm f 1.8 USM

Having owned both the 85/1.2L II and the 85/1.8 previously, in my experience the 85/1.2L II is a huge leap ahead of the 85/1.8.

However, I do agree that the 85/1.8 is a great lens. It is very sharp and fast to focus, and won't disappoint.

For the budget-minded, it is an excellent choice.

[rbat]

Thanks everyone, I think the 85mm f/1.8 is too narrow for inside work particularly on a crop sensor? Perhaps a zoom might work better?

[agb]

Having owned both the 85/1.2L II and the 85/1.8 previously, in my experience the 85/1.2L II is a huge leap ahead of the 85/1.8.

However, I do agree that the 85/1.8 is a great lens. It is very sharp and fast to focus, and won't disappoint.

For the budget-minded, it is an excellent choice.

Especially since his budget was $1000, so the f1.2 is out of the question.

[rbat]

Especially since his budget was $1000, so the f1.2 is out of the question.

Very true :D
If only I had unlimited budget, that would be bliss.

[agb]

Having owned both the 85/1.2L II and the 85/1.8 previously, in my experience the 85/1.2L II is a huge leap ahead of the 85/1.8.

However, I do agree that the 85/1.8 is a great lens. It is very sharp and fast to focus, and won't disappoint.

For the budget-minded, it is an excellent choice.

Especially since his budget was $1000, so the f1.2 is out of the question.

[Xenedis]

Especially since his budget was $1000, so the f1.2 is out of the question.

Missed that.

In that case, the 85/1.8 would be an excellent choice, and falls well short of his budget.

[Xenedis]

Thanks everyone, I think the 85mm f/1.8 is too narrow for inside work particularly on a crop sensor? Perhaps a zoom might work better?

85mm on your camera provides the equivalent of 136mm framing in the old money.

It can be too tight for interior work, but it all depends on the distance.

In this case the question isn't whether to choose a prime or zoom; it's what focal length would be most suitable for the environments in which you wish to shoot.

Certainly a zoom which includes 85mm (eg, a 70-200) will be more flexible, but it all does depend on the distance.

[rbat]

As I mentioned in a previous post, I really am not sure that the 85mm is the best choice for inside shots. The inside I'm thinking of is a house where I take photos of my son/family. But it is definitely within my 'her' budget and something I will keep in mind.

I was thinking sub 50 in terms of zoom. I already have a 100mm (great) and 55-250 which give good results. My 18-55 not so much inside but ok with good outside light. The 50mm is ok but I'm not a fan of the length. I'm not sure if the 1.4 would be any better but I'm thinking it still might be a bit tight.

[terry.langham]

If you have no immediate plans to go full frame, the Canon 17-55 f/2.8 would be worth a look. They are just under $1k on some grey market sites. There are quite a few glowing reviews of this lens around.

[Xenedis]

As I mentioned in a previous post, I really am not sure that the 85mm is the best choice for inside shots. The inside I'm thinking of is a house where I take photos of my son/family.

Unless you have a very large room, you'll probably struggle to get anything below the chin, and that's with your back to the wall.


I was thinking sub 50 in terms of zoom. I already have a 100mm (great) and 55-250 which give good results. My 18-55 not so much inside but ok with good outside light. The 50mm is ok but I'm not a fan of the length. I'm not sure if the 1.4 would be any better but I'm thinking it still might be a bit tight.

I hear you re 50mm. It's a focal length I cannot stand and do not even have.

As far as focal lengths, it seems you've already got the focal lengths that will work for indoor portraits with a crop camera.

You'd simply be buying a sharper and faster lens if you opted for a 50mm prime or the 17-55/2.8 IS that Terry mentioned.

[peterb666]

If you are happy manually focusing, then the Voightlander 58mm f/1.4 is a great choice. There isn't a lot between 85mm and 50mm. I use a Tamron 60mm f/2 macro at the moment but will be getting a 85mm sometime. If common sense prevails, the f/1.8 will do nicely but if the ego gets in the way, it will be something faster.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[peterb666]

I hear you re 50mm. It's a focal length I cannot stand and do not even have.


Actually it is an excellent indoor portait lens on a cropped sensor camera giving an effective focal length of 80mm on a Canon cropped sensor. Cheapest way to f/1.4 or faster.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk

[jjphoto]

...I hear you re 50mm. It's a focal length I cannot stand and do not even have...

And I have more than a few. Each to his own.

JJ

[KeeFy]

And I have more than a few. Each to his own.

JJ

So do i :). I absolutely love the 50mm focal range.

[rbat]

Thank you for the continued discussion, it has actually really helped me sort out exactly what I am looking for as it goes beyond just a 'people' issue.

I’m contemplating a few different lenses for my inside photographs as this is somewhere the kit lens really falls flat. As I've mentioned, I find the 50mm too long at times, it is fine for general shots but group shots ie at a birthday party with a few people and cake, it is too tight and I can’t frame the shot I want.

I’m happy to get an external flash such as a 430 but not knowing too much about flash photography yet, I’m not sure if this will be enough to get the quality of shot I want inside with my kit lens or if I need another lens to complement the flash?

There are a few options I am considering:

17-40 Canon – It is f/4 but with flash that doesn’t really matter? No IS but does have USM. I also love landscape photography and I thought this might be a good upgrade from my 18-55 which I currently use. It is also quite wide for the family shots I was after.

15-85 Canon – Good range but variable aperture of f/3.5/5.6 which annoys me on the 18-55. Has IS & USM. As with the 17-40, has good reviews for crop sensor. Will also encompass more range. It is not compatible with full frame which I'm hoping to purchase in the next 12-18 months. However my husband is keen to take over my 450D, so will not go to waste if it is the best option.

28-75 Tamron – Has f/2.8 and reasonable reviews. Would still need fairly good light to make this work indoors I would think on it's own anyway? I've looked at photos on Flickr taken with this lens and am very impressed. Have not been keen in the past to move away from Canon but the IQ looks good. My biggest concern would be the 28 inside, not sure if that is still too tight? Biggest plus is the price.

Thanks, Rebecca.

[LJG]

Will also encompass more range. It is not compatible with full frame which I'm hoping to purchase in the next 12-18 months. However my husband is keen to take over my 450D, so will not go to waste if it is the best option. Bingo, you just said the magic words that may be a game changer. How serious are you about going FF? How soon do you want to go FF. Are you going to be tempted to bring it forward from the 12-18 months you say? I said I'd never go FF and surrounded myself with EF-S lenses I had to sell by making the wrong choice. If you are deadly serious about going FF you may be better served looking now at the EF line-up and forgetting about EF-S lenses. Yes, your hubby may get use out of them but will he take to the hobby like you, or be a casual shooter that is satisfied with the kit lenses. Remember he can also still use your EF lenses on the 450D. If you are going FF I would seriously consider trying to stretch your budget slightly and going with a 70-200 F4 IS. This is a top lens and very useful on a FF. I even use mine indoors on my 5DII, I just get over one side of the room from the subject. Outside it is a terrific lens, even for landscape on a FF. I mainly use only 2 of my line-up, the 24-105 and the 70-200.

[AndyC]

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 would be a great zoom for a Canon 450D. I love mine.

[Arg]

Canon 17-55mm f/2.8 would be a great zoom for a Canon 450D. I love mine.

+1. Mine too.

It does everything right.

Just within the budget too. :)

I can't recommend the 17-40 even though it is a very good lens, 'cos the 17-55 is simply better for your camera.

I also can't recommend going to full frame, it is just too expensive and not always better.

However I insist you *must* get a 430 II flash unit. It will transform your portrait photography. :efelant:

cheers

[Sofya]

I'm a Nikon user, and I find the 50mm 1.4 is perfect for indoor portraiture, but would tend to be wary moving to anything shorter. Unless you're very careful distortion can start to be a problem at the short lens lengths, and tends to be particularly noticable when photographing people.

[Bennymiata]

Personally, I use my Canon 24-105.
While it is a F4, the IS makes up for it by at least 2-3 stops if you don't want to use flash, but it is a superb all-around lens and gets a lot of use on my 60D and is suitable for full-frame too.
You can get one for under a grand delivered from most of the grey sites and it will be a lens you will use forever.

The extra reach from 55-105 is also very useful, and if you get one, you'll never use your kit lens again!

[Arg]

I'm a Nikon user, and I find the 50mm 1.4 is perfect for indoor portraiture, but would tend to be wary moving to anything shorter. Unless you're very careful distortion can start to be a problem at the short lens lengths, and tends to be particularly noticable when photographing people.

Agree with the need for care with WA distortion, but my experience with a 50mm prime on a 28mm sensor indoors is that it is great for single person portraits but too narrow for multi person portraits or even for full length one-person portraits in some cases.

[Tricky]

Here's a suggestion from the left-field: Canon EFS 60mm macro lens... good bokeh and pin sharp wide open at f/2.8... and you get a free macro lens! Well within the budget. And its not 50mm (60mm is equivalent to 96mm on a crop sensor camera)....

[Dwarak]

I like the 100mm f2.8 L IS very sharp good quality on my 5d mark 2

[TOM]

My favourite portrait lens is also the best lens I've owned or shot with.....Leica 1.4/75mm Summilux. I sold it to some collector in Hong Kong........it's a pity that the lens probably won't be used for making photos any more.

[rbat]

Arg, I just wanted to thank you for the flash advice. It has been wonderful not only for portraits but a multitude of other uses too. Best money I've spent in a while :) Thanks again.

[Tannin]

Here's a suggestion from the left-field: Canon EFS 60mm macro lens... good bokeh and pin sharp wide open at f/2.8... and you get a free macro lens!

That was going to be my suggestion also. I agree completely with Tricky's summary. It's a a gem of a lens.

BUT it's EF-S and you really want to be going for FX lenses.

Forget the EF 17-40. There is really no good reason why you'd want to use one of these on a crop body, and it's not all that wide on full frame. (Not much is, but surely that will change one day.).

The EF-S 15-85 is a gem of a lens .... but it's EF-S and that would be wasted money for you. Needs to be faster indoors anyway - which leads us to the EF-S 17-55/2.8 which would be perfect ... if it worked on FX bodies. Sigh.

That brings us back to primes. The Tokina 35mm macro is a sweet little lens which works on APS-C and APS-H but, alas, not on FX. Besides, the cruddy focus motor is a pain for non-macro work. So scratch that one.

The Canon EF 35mm/1.4L would be a beauty, I reckon, but quite dear. (Mine should arrive in a day or two, I can't wait, though it won't do too much portrait work - I don't much care for humans.) There are cheaper Canon 35mm primes toop, which I don't know much about. But even on APS-C I'm not entirely convinced that 35mm is really long enough.

Which brings us back to 50mm. :o I don't like 50mm all that much on APS-C either - not long enough to be long (60mm is better) and not wiode enough to be normal (35mm is better). It probably works better on FX. In any case, which 50mm lens? The Sigma is notorious for bad quality control and focus issues, the Canon 1.8 is complete junk - cheap, sharp junk, but still junk - the Canon 1.4 doesn't have a proper USM focus motor, and the 1.2 costs a fortune and is a bit weird anyway. You'd buy the Canon 1.4, I suppose, but not with any great enthausiasm.

So there you go - 104 wrong answers. I'm good at spotting wrong answers. Now all you need is someone who is good at spotting right answers.

[Arg]

Arg, I just wanted to thank you for the flash advice. It has been wonderful not only for portraits but a multitude of other uses too. Best money I've spent in a while :) Thanks again.

Oh, I'm delighted to hear you got one, rbat. People agonize over expensive lens purchases and new bodies with slightly improved sensors, but by far the poorest component in a dslr is the inbuilt flash. And the magnitude of the image quality improvement (as opposed to pixel quality improvement) from a decent flash unit is in another league, compared to a new sensor with a few more MP and half a stop better sensitivity.

The things we can do with a 430 II are just mind boggling (to users who are only familiar with the inbuilt flash). And there is quite a long learning curve to master flash lighting. I'm still on the lower reaches of that curve.

Enjoy your new toy.