Portrait Glass for a Canon 5D

<p>135L</p>

<p>Save your pennies and you will be rewarded.</p>

<p>It might be best to use the equipment you have allready got, before spending more money on lenses, if the 18-50 works I wonder if its 50D you have not a 5D.</p>

<p>I would also recommend the 85mm f1.8 as a great, reasonably priced portrait lens. However, if I was in your shoes and with limited glass, I would take a long look at the 100mm f2.8 Macro lens. As well as being a wonderful macro lens, which would open up new horizons for you, it is also an exemplary portrait lens. It's a useful focal length and perspective for portraits (between the often recommended 85mm and 135mm focal lengths), has good bokeh and extremely high IQ (as good as or better than any of the zooms - L or not). </p>

<p>The 100mm f2.8 macro is only around $100 more than the 85mm f1.8 - that's a small price to pay for a lot more functionality.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>For a FF camera, my choice would be between a 100mm and a 135mm. John suggested the 100mm 2.8 macro which is a great lens, but even less expensive is the 100mm 2.0. This lens wide open is outstanding for portraits. If you don't mind a longer focal length, the 135mm 2.0 L. is a terrific portrait lens as well, however it is much heavier & more expensive than the 100mm 2.0. </p>

<p>I recently purchased the Canon EF 85/1.8, and it's a lovely portrait lens - very sharp, right from max aperture, and with beautiful bokeh and color rendition. Pix from it have the instantly recognizable look of output from a great, as opposed to decent, lens. Case in point: pix from my EF 28-105mm, at 85mm, vs from the 85/1.8. The 28-105 is a nice lens, with decent sharpness and contrast; the 85 is a great lens. </p>

<p>For the 5D I would suggest the 85 F1.8 or the 100 F2 are a marked step up from zooms. I use the 24-70 f2.8 and the 70-200 f2.8 canons and the 85 F1.8 is a significant step up. On the FD series I have the 85 F1.2 and the 135 F2.0. As Mark Pierlot points out the FD85 F1.2 is an amazing portrait lens and I suspect the EF 85mm F1.2 is even butter but it is $2000. You will probably find 135mm is too long. The FD135 F2.0 that I have is a great lens (in those days it was not considered L series) but is a bit too long for most portraits. The 18-50 is too short unless you are looking for unusual portraits.</p>

<p><em><strong>"I'm interested in buying a lens especially for portraiture (particularly bridal and photojournalism)."</strong></em><br /><br />Firstly, assuming you (can) / will replace the Sigma 18 to 50 DC, I suggest, the replacement be the EF24 70 F2.8L or, as money seems the major consideration then look at the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG HSM or the Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 EX DG MACRO. <br /><br />It seems to me priority should be to correct the 18 to 50 purchase error - what you choose as a replacement for that lens, impacts upon the question being asked and in fact if you will then have the need, or funds to purchase another lens anyway.<br /><br />***<br /><br />That said, “Favorite Portrait” lenses are quite personal – but for “<em><strong>Bridal Portraiture”</strong></em> using a 5D, I use 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 Macro and 135/2L: the most flexible of that set, if one lens only is to be purchased, is the 50/1.4, as it can accommodate Full Length with long train, to a close Half Shot with little foreshortening when used close in, and still enough feel of compression at full length, if the lighting is held soft enough, the DoF controlled and, consideration is given to the postion of the Subject's head. 1/4 profile seems to work very well at Full Legnth Portraiture, employing a shallow DoF. <br /><br />I do not know exactly what <strong><em>you </em></strong>mean by “<strong><em>Photojournalism Portraiture”</em> </strong>but if you are addressing the definitive (historic) Photojournalist approach to Portraiture – the 50 is also the answer, perhaps even a 35. <br /><br />On a budget, the Canon options are the 50/1.8MkII and the 35/2, both will work well on the 5D. <br /><br />IMO the 50/1.4 is a better Portrait lens, (than the 50/1.8MkII) because of better Bokeh, especially when used, from F2.2 or F2.4 through to F3.5 or F4 – mainly I think, because of the extra blades.<br /><br />But as I implied above, if you get a 24 – 70 F2.8, likely this purchase needs a big re-think, especially if you do not see the requirement to use any (prime) lens, at an aperture wider than F2.8.<br /><br />WW</p>

 

<p>I just picked up the 135mm 2.8 used for $150. I is a sharp lens on my cropped sensor.(like 200mm 2.8) It would work great for you on your 5D.</p>

<p>I like the working distance to subject of my 100mm 2.8 for portrait. It is very sharp I some time soften the image in PS a bit depending on subject. </p><div></div>

Dina, I second the suggestion of using the 70-300 wide open. And if you have enough room when shooting, I daresay even at 200mm wide open, you'll get some very good bokeh. Distance of subject from background also plays a big role, of course.

<p>I would, as William rightly said, address the 18-50 issue and, once done, use the resultant kit to figure out what works and what doesn't as far as focal lengths are concerned and what you hope to achieve. No need going out to buy the excellent lenses proposed here if they are not what you NEED but rather what you THINK you need.