What's the best canon portrait lens...? (a lens mystery)

all 85 1.2M2, 200 1.8 and 300 2.8IS are the best choices. However on a bright sunnyday, I can't shoot below f 2.8 because it's too bright even at 1/8000. End up using a gray filter to lower to light thru the lens. 200 1.8 and 300 2.8 are the best outdoor portarits lenses. I use 85 1.2 mostly indoor/studio and sometimes 50 1.4 as well.

Most of it is in the lighting and the background (how far from subject, how contrasty objects etc.) Your 85/1.8 is very capable and you really should not hope that a huge lens that costs several thousand bucks (the suggested 85/1.2, 300/2.8 and 200/1.8) is going to take THAT much better photos. If you insist on getting a longer lens, the 135/2 and 200/2.8 are good options.

 

Many pros use 70-200/2.8L zooms for most portrait work. Maybe John Clark does, too. I?m sure the bokeh experts disagree;)...

Thank you so much for all your responses, guys... this is all incredibly helpful. :)

 

And I'll definitely check out those links.

 

Cheers,

Faye

Much depends on light and post-processing, besides the choice of lens. Both the 85s and 70-200IS are excellent performers, depending on the perspective you desire.

<p>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/55101098">This is on 5D with 85L @ f/1.2</a>.<p>

<a href="http://www.pbase.com/nels_olvin/image/49801219">Here's 70-200IS on 20D</a> at 200mm @ f/2.8.

<p>

You need a top notch lens for shooting wide open and still getting the best pereormance. On your 30D, you'd have a lot of room to play with compositions with a fine zoom such as 70-200IS, and the IS will come in handy in most hand-held shots. If you shoot mostly on tripods, the non-IS version will save you a bundle.

My two cents: If you already have 50/1.8 and 85/1.8 then the next is obviously 135/2 as 100/2 is too close to 85/1.8. After the 135/2 you could get the 200/2.8 but it is already quite a long one with 1.6 cropper (=320 mm). I have the EF70-200/2.8 but I prefer to do portraits with prime. I used to have the 85/1.2 MkI and yes, it was nice but also extremely difficult to get the focus spot on and you need that with f/1.2. Now I have 50/1.8 and 100/2 with a 1.3 cropper body.

Wonderful photos in this thread! There are three 200mm/1.8 lenses on eBay from about $3,750 to almost $5,000. No idea if they're legit.

I agree with those who point out that lighting is the first key here. Big softboxes, foam core reflectors, honeycomb grids, snoots etc. are all going to help in a studio situation. Well chosen natural light settings will also produce naturally softer images. A more distant background is the first key to a smoother bokeh, and it will also allow you to shoot the subject at a slightly narrower aperture. Take a look in the Lighting forum at the threads under the Administration heading - they are an archive of advice. When you have those issues under control, you can then see whether you really need any other lenses.

I actually shoot mainly, if not always, outdoors. Just me, tripod and a small reflector (although I've got a triflector on order - damn company are taking over a month to ship it)...

<p>

<i>(Although Studio lighting is something I'm going to get into... soon - will address this with plenty of questions when the time arises)</i>

<p>

With the 135 - I'm guessing I'd have to be stood at quite a distance away from the subject in order to get the best upper body - top of head crop suitable for headshots. I already find the 85 keeps me far enough away from my subjects (I don't like to get too far because I become less observant of subjects doing odd things with their facial muscles).. Roughly, if the 85 is say - 4', what would be the difference between the two lenses in terms of necessary feet apart?

It really depends what you are interested in. If you want to knock out the background and have good bokeh, there are several choices.

<br><br>

85 f/1.2L...<br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%204-17-2005%20(ha3j5337)_std.jpg">

</center>

<br><br>

135 f/2L...<br>

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/kristen/kristen%2010-17-2004%20(ha3j2297)_std.jpg">

</center>

<br><br>

If you are looking for nicer bokeh, and more of a telephoto compression, you can move to longer lenses...<br><br>

200 f/1.8L...

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/lisa/lisa%20pulling%20hair%20back%208-21-04%20(ha3j1416)_std.jpg">

</center>

<br><br>

300 f/2.8L IS + 1.4TC...

<center>

<img src="http://www.potts-family.net/rachel/rachel%20300%2028%20with%2014%20teleconverter%20test%2010-4-2003%20(6376)_std.jpg">

</center>

<br><br>

Many times people discuss the bokeh, but there isn't as much discussion around the compression effect of longer lenses. This isn't good for all shots, but it will certainly be better for many shots as well. It depends what you are trying for. The compression mixed with nice bokeh can be a very good combination. In your case (actors headshots), the 200 f/1.8L is a nice lens. This compression (and lens) are frequently used for professional model shots. You can argue that it makes the person look more flat, but in our society, this can be a positive attribute. It does cost more than you are looking at though.<br><br>

Regarding which lens, those shots could have been made with either the 200 f/2.8L or the 200 f/1.8L. If you are stopped down that much, I wouldn't be paying for or carrying a 200 f/1.8L.

Dang. Brian, your shots are an inspiration. I admit some of your posts have prompted me to get the 85/1.8 (can't afford the 1.2!).

 

Now I want the 200/2.8! (can't afford the 1.8!)

Faye, if you shoot 4 feet (?) away with 85 it would be roughly about (135/85) times 4 feet with 135 ... about 6,5 feet.<p>

There are some good samples above. Notice that with very long lenses the ears pop out very strongly. With short lenses it's the nose that tends to pop out. Usually, talking in terms of 35 mm size, 85...110 mm is good for head shots 100-200 mm good for waist-above-shots and 100-250 mm to full-body-standing-shots. Of course these are just instructional but they are very common figures. Remember that your camera is a 1.6 cropper so your 50 mm view is actually 1.6 x 50 mm = 80 mm in terms of 35 mm camera standard.

Brian, your 85/1.2 shot is simply stunning. It is an inspiration for me to strive higher.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

Recently purchased a 30D as well, looked at all the options. Also went with the 50mm f1.8 II as it was cheap. Then had 3 other requirements:

 

- street walking

- wide shots

- telephoto

 

My approach is (doing this in stages as the cost is high :-)

 

- Actually found that the 50mm is ok for street as its not heavy and can carry the camera around easily. You miss the wider bits but its been ok.

 

 

- Got the EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM for both street/portrait it's lighter than the lower Fs. A lot of the shots I've taken are with this lens.

 

- The telephoto I will only use when travelling/hiking so I'm going to for the EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM, otherwise I would go for the EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM but its big and it scares people :-)

 

- The wide angle I'm still debating on but it will be a zoom, the 30D nearly forces you to buy the EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM but not sure I like the results all that much.

 

 

On the 30D, just set the camera to 'P' and then twirl the control near the tumb and bring the 'F' stop will change, but the camera will control the rest. Its like the fully automatic mode.

 

Ps. Having seen the lower F's above, makes me wonder if the above is correct as I will have no low F's at all...mmmm...

 

Some examples from last Sunday in the park with the 24-105 http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=689276<div></div>

One other thought - it seems to me that your B&W post processing is producing images with a high degree of contrast and possibly oversharpened (hard to tell with small web images), tending towards lith film. Changing your post processing technique may help to give images a greater degree of tonality and softer transitions between different areas of the image. However, it will still depend on good lighting in the original capture.

Thanks Brian , for the photos,

 

They're really inspiring and enlightening, I was floored when I saw your photos for the first time on the other thread about the 200mm IS USM :-)

Besides lighting, the biggest improvement to the photo would be to get a background that is not the same color as her skin; perhaps about two shades darker. No new lens needed for that!

Brian -

 

I have that lens. I don't have that kid, though.... Great shot.

You could save a lot of time by simply emailing John Clark and asking him yourself. When you get the answer, post it here. Thanks Tom.

I've tried that before with Peter Simpkin... I find that a lot of commercial photographers are very secretive about their technology. They don't want people stealing their genius or some such... ;)

Ahah... I stand corrected, Emailed John Clark:

<p>

<b>"Thanks Faye for your comments

<p>

The lens was a Canon 200mm 2.8L shot at around f4

Good Luck"</b>

<p>

I guess that solves the mystery... :)<br>

Thank you so much for all the comments on this thread - I've got loads to think about.

well...any lens that you use for portrait can be a good portrait lens. No doubt the 50mm 1.4 coupled with your APSC camera gives you a good perspective. The 85mm 1.8 is a great lens for portraits.Some even use wide angles successfully. Well...I use my tamron sp 90mm macro as a portrait lens esp. in the outdoors. It has pretty good bokeh and is very sharp. (too sharp for some..but i like my photos to be supersharp..i can later add some softness with PS).

 

you can check my images at www.ujwal.com.np

 

thanks,

Ujwal.

Like others have suggested, the 135/2 is an outstanding lens -- super sharp, even at f/2. The 200/2.8 is also excellent and a bit cheaper than the 135, but you'll probably want to have some distance between yourself and the subject for use with a 30D or the other 1.6x DSLRs. I use the 135/2 more often, but I like the 200/2.8 a lot for outdoor work when I need the extra reach. I prefer the 135/200L combination over the 70-200 zooms because I like the smaller size of the primes.

 

--tom

If I have to say based on spec sheets, 50mm f/1.2 for APS-C and 85mm f/1.2 for full frames (I havent use any one of those).

<p>Brian, while all of your shots are gorgeous, I'd have to say that the one with the 85/1.2 L is by far the best. That could be more a function of the composition (and of your beautiful model!) than the lens, but the bokeh is definitely superior in that shot, contrary to your own assessment.</p>

<p>Canon has really done a superb job with their 85/1.2's. The FD 85/1.2 L is my favourite prime lens, by far.</p>