| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Best Portrait CANON lens
Jesse Beals, Photographer
 |
Tracyton | WA | USA | Posted: 9:33 PM on 04.10.09 |
->> Ok give me your thoughts on the best Portrait lens. I own a 16-35, 28-105 and a 50MM canon lens.
What do you guys find to be the best lens for a studio controlled lighting area? |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
 |
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 10:12 PM on 04.10.09 |
->> Jesse,
It all depends on the shot you're going for. If I were to go through my corporate and environmental portraits (which all have controlled lighting) I see a lot of images shot with the Canon 24f3.5 TS-E, 24f1.4, 50f1.4, 85f1.8, 85f1.2, some shot with the trio of f2.8 zoom, but not as many.
The 'best' portrait lens is all of them , given the environment and set up. Many love the 85f1.2, but for 'utility' purposes I often favour the 85f1.8 (I own both) due to the smaller size, weight and the lenses excellent optical quality. The 85f1.2 has amazing optical quality and is ideal for certain shots, but for most situations the 85f1.8 is just fine, and a bargain for $300.
I find the 50f1.4 to be a nice 'standard' portrait lens, and actually prefer it to the 501.2. I found the 50f1.2 to not be as sharp as I had expected and the cost to quality benefit did not warrant the huge price gap between it and the 50f1.4 (while the 85f1.2 is worth every penny it cost).
For wider shots if I had to choose between my 24f1.4 and 24f3.5 TS-E, the 24f3.5TS-E wins hands down for optical quality.
Just my opinions based on how I shoot. I am sure many others will have their own varied opinions. |
|
Tim Snow, Photographer
 |
Montreal | Qc | Canada | Posted: 10:25 PM on 04.10.09 |
->> Jesse,
I second Steven when he says that it really depends on what you are going for. Lately I find myself using the 135 f/2 a lot on a 5dmkII, though at times the focal length is a bit long. That said, some of my favorite portraits have been made with the 16-35 at 16mm...it depends on what you are going for. Depending on the body you are using, I would suggest picking up a 70-200 zoom, preferably the f/2.8 version, but the f/4 is a great lens too. Play around in that range and look at your exif info, and figure out which focal length you find yourself hovering at. Then if you really want to improve the image quality, pick up a prime in that range.
Remember, you aren't burning film anymore...shoot away and see what works for you. |
|
Steve Ueckert, Photographer
|
Houston | TX | | Posted: 11:09 PM on 04.10.09 |
->> Portraiture is as much the look, your personal style, as it is the nuts & bolts of focal length and F-stop. For me I'm more concerned about the setting and the lighting; and then I let the lens selection be dictated by what I desire as a look.
I am partial to very narrow depth of field as a means to isolate the subject and keep the environment clean. Thus the 50/1.8 may be as useful as anything else in the bag. I am partial to primes because they often are faster than a zoom that might cover the focal length of the prime. Thus the 28/1.8, 85/1.8 or 135/2.0 are more useful to me than a zoom. |
|
Michael Chansley, Photographer, Assistant
|
Tucson | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:18 PM on 04.10.09 |
| ->> I find fixed focal length lenses to be the best for portraits. They are sharp and are great for getting the narrow DOF like Steve said. Also great for low light situations. If I had to choose between the lenses you have, I would use the 50mm. |
|
Jesse Beals, Photographer
|
Tracyton | WA | USA | Posted: 3:24 AM on 04.11.09 |
| ->> Cool deal, yeah I also own a 70-200 2.8, 300 F4 and a 400 2.8. Was tossing the thought of adding a 85 mm to the camera bag. |
|
Ian L. Sitren, Photographer
|
Palm Springs | CA | USA | Posted: 9:37 AM on 04.11.09 |
| ->> Photographers always seem to think that the best lens for the job is the one they don't own. |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 10:18 AM on 04.11.09 |
->> Jesse,
The 400f2.8 is a good portrait lens, although overlooked and expensive (and large). I have shot at least six magazine covers and two double page spreads in the past with the 400f2.8. It is great lens for completely isolating your subject and compressing the image...if you have the physical distance to work with. |
|
Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
|
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 11:23 AM on 04.11.09 |
->> 85mm F/1.8
Best bang for the buck amoungst the obvious choices. |
|
Ben Campbell, Photographer
|
Auckland | NZ | New Zealand | Posted: 1:40 AM on 04.12.09 |
| ->> Canon 85mm 1.2 is a beauty! |
|
Clay Begrin, Photographer
 |
Petaluma | Ca | USA | Posted: 3:32 AM on 04.12.09 |
| ->> I love the Canon 85mm, F1.8 and the Canon 135mm, F2. Both provide excellent images and a very nice background blur. For headshots I especially love the 135mm lens. The 135 is about 3 times the $$ as the 85, so for the money, the 85mm is definately a lens that should be in your bag. |
|
Wally Nell, Photographer
 |
CAIRO | EG | EGYPT | Posted: 10:52 AM on 04.13.09 |
| ->> Here is a question: I have used the 100 f2.8 for portraits and really like it. Has anybody used the 100 f2.0 and how would you compare it to the f2.8 version? |
|
Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
|
Live HVN : Work SFO-NYC | | | Posted: 12:32 PM on 04.13.09 |
->> Wally,
The 100f2.8 Macro vs the 100f2 USM? Between the two, they are very different lenses. I briefly had both the 100f2 and 85f1.8, after a dozen portrait shoots I realized I had used the 100f2 twice, and from both of those shoots, the selected images ended up coming from the 85f1.8...so I ditched the 100f2.
the 100f2 is light, bright, crisp, fast to focus, but offers no advantage I could come up with over the 85f1.8, except an additional 15mm, which is barely noticable.
However the 100f2.8 Macro is a great lens for Macro usage. I have only used it once for a potrait, while my 85f1.8 was out for servicing. It did a good job, but I much preferred the 85f1.8. |
|
Jeff Mills, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Columbus | OH | USA | Posted: 7:37 PM on 04.13.09 |
->> Jesse, are you using a full frame body like the 5D, a 1.6x crop body like the 50D et al, or a 1.3x crop body like the 1D mkX series ?
Makes a huge difference in how useful a lens is. I bought a 135 f2 when I only had 1.6x crop bodies and while very sharp, didn't find it very useful in the slightest.
When I then got a full frame 5D suddenly it became a very useful lens and my lens of choice for headshots, seeing more use than my 85 1.2 which in itself is an amazing lens.
Body your using makes a huge difference in how useful you will probably find a given focal length |
|
JB Faulconer, Photographer
|
Lexington | KY | USA | Posted: 9:27 PM on 04.15.09 |
| ->> I have used the 50 1.4 and the 85 1.8 a bunch. But the best I have used is one I borrowed and it was the 85L 1.2 which is totally fantastic. I wish I could afford one because I would have it tomorrow. I have also heard good things about the 50L 1.2, however I also heard it was slooooow to focus. |
|
Joseph Molieri, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Ardmore | PA | US | Posted: 11:31 PM on 04.16.09 |
| ->> JB Faulconer, any feedback you can give as an owner of the 85 1.8 and having used the 1.2? I'm trying to decide which to go for... What I've read so far tend to say there isn't a huge quality difference relative to the huge price difference. |
|
Jay Adeff, Photographer
|
Salinas | CA | USA | Posted: 5:20 PM on 04.17.09 |
| ->> If you're on a budget, the 100mm f/2.0EF is a sweet lens. I used it for a magazine cover/spread and the client loved the images. |
|
William Purnell, Photographer
|
Wichita | Ks | | Posted: 1:40 AM on 04.20.09 |
| ->> Personally I LOVE my 85 1.2, and my 135 for that matter. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|