Best Canon portrait lens?

<p>Great advice Richard.<br>

Someone with an XTi and thinking about a 50 f1.8 or 60 f2.8 macro and you steer them to lenses ranging from $1300 to $5000.</p>

 

100 2.8 macro can be too long to use for portrait for kids but will be better for insects compared to 60 2.8 macro.

 

i chose the 100 macro because i have sigma 50 1.4. but for one lens solution, 60 macro might be better for you specially the XTi is a small body (compared to my 40D). balance will be better me thinks.

<p>My vote is for 70-200 f2.8, which is what I goto whenever I am shooting portraits. I recently purchased the 100 mm f.28 macro, it is an excellent lens but I haven't tried portraits yet - so can't comment on it. From everything I have read it is a great choice.</p>

Elizabeth, what's your budget? I'd advise you set one; it will really help narrow the choices. I have the 50 f/1.8 on my XTi for low light and portraiture. I love it, and don't plan to upgrade any time soon (ok, maybe the 50 f/1.4 for FTM). It's a bit long indoors, so maybe the 35 f/2 might be a better bet with a crop sensor. I've also shot great portraits with my humble 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 USM. There's a lot more to great portraiture than just fast glass. But as I said, you need to decide how much you want to spend so that you can get accurate advice...

<p>Go for 50mm 1,8 as it is about 100-Euro only and results in great images - this is what you should take.<br>

With the 1,6 factor this lens will result to a very good portrait lens on your machine.<br>

As you seem not have a prime lens up to now this also will give you a good introduction to it and you will love it.<br>

Regards Axel</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Like Mark says determine how much You want to spend, The 60mm is designed for the crop camera and from what I`ve seen and read an excellent dual purpose lens, personally to me macros are usually too sharp for portrait but may get away with kids. If its within the budget fair enough, but I would suggest a small flash for indoors as well, 430 or new 270. diffused light or bounced would help. I`d also consider to upgrade the kit lens to somethin like Tamron 17 50 f2.8 or canon 17 55 f2.8 but it is pricey. this will give a constant aperture and make lower light and flash photos much easier. The cheapest option is 50mm 1.8 + extension tubes, reverse ring (lil muckin around) or closeup filters. Until canon improve the 50 1.4 I`d prefer the sigma, also don`t ignore other brands, but I understand the reluctance ro 1/3rd party lenses by some folks. Have fun choosing :)</p>

<p>I would recommend the 50 1.4 as my first choice. example <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8045919">http://www.photo.net/photo/8045919</a> and also the 85 1.8 example <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/8045834">http://www.photo.net/photo/8045834</a> I have both and love them on the 30D. If you can aford it the 17-55 2.8 efs lens would be great for everything from portraits to landscapes to everyday everything. It will not be usable on FF later but with XTI upto 50D you I think this is not an issue. The DOF on 1.6 crop sensors as on FF so you with 2.8 you can feel the frame and the DOF should be good. The primes are for the winners if you want a reserves for a faster lens and the best quality possible but the 17-55 efs is tops and gives you a lot its worth testing at your camera shop first.</p>

<p>What I ment with crop factor is the DOF is greater as the same lens on FF. The 85 1.8 is very nice on crop and gives dream defuse backgrounds at 2.2 and the extra lenght from the subject makes the use of DOF very effective this is a lovely lens on Crop as well as FF. I would not go with a macro lens for portraits. The 85mm is great for head and shoulder but to long for full body indoors as your probably going to not have enough room. But is super for head and shoulder as the working distance does not make you subject feel like they have a camera stuck to them. When you are looking at shooting children candid this is for sure and advantage. Try the 50mm with your kit lens and see how close you need to get.</p>

<p>Thanks everyone for the advice! I think my budget is around $400, which is why I am considering either the 60 2.8 macro or one of the 50s or an 85 1.8. I'm thinking that with the crop factor a 100 2.8 macro might be a bit long? I will probably take Carl's advice and see how close I need to get using my kit lens at 50mm. I agree with you, Jeff, that the traditional head shot can be a bit boring. Since my kids are so busy, I guess I shoot more environmental portraits by default. Should I also consider a good zoom lens in this price range, then?</p>

<p>Of course, if the 50 1.8 is as good as the others, I could get it for $100 and save the rest toward another lens.</p>

<p>I love the example photos submitted by Ian and Carl done with the 50 1.4. Does anyone have examples done with the 50 1.8 or the 60 2.8 macro to compare? I usually do outside candids or environmental portraits, kind of like Ian's examples (only not as fabulous!) If I had something that brought in more light, though, I might try more available light portraits inside. Also I'd like to use the lens for birthday parties, etc.</p>

<p>Wow! Lots of responses for you to consider. I'm not sure I have an answer for you, but here's what I have to offer.<br>

I have the EF-S 55-250 on my XSi. I like it becuase it lets me explore the focal length range to find what lens(es) I may want to get in the future. Last week I used it to shoot my daughter playing on bedrock beside a stream. Even with pretty bright light, I got a lot of blurred shots with her moving. She likes for me to try to "hit the moving target" so to speak. I was shooting the full range of the zoom during the day - yes, all the way out to 250. I do not think the 100 macro would be too long for outdoor, enviornmental shots, though it would be too long for many indoor situations. The 100 would allow you to be further away and not have to be running to keep up with them to get the shots framed. My only other lens right now is the EF 24 2.8. I use it for indoor use. It is pretty good for full body and full room shots, but I don't think I would want to use it for head and shoulders indoors.<br>

For myself, I am thinking about getting the Tamron 17-50 2.8 as my next lens. I think it will fill my wide angle zoom gap very well. A little later I want to get a dedicated macro, but I don't want to get less than I want so as to have a dual purpose indoor lens. I will probably get the 100 macro over the 60 macro that way since I like bugs as well as flowers.<br>

Also, something to consider for the future might be a 50-135 2.8 from Tokina or a 50-150 2.8 from Sigma. They are supposed to be pretty good, if you get a "good copy." Both are more expensive than your current budget, but might be considerations for the future if what you buy now does not meet your needs for outdoor with the kids running around.<br>

Just some ideas based on my experience with what I have and the research I have been doing. It may not be as good as those who have offered first hand experience based advice.<br>

DS Meador</p>

<p>My experiance is 50mm macro is the best. I am using sigma 50mm macro and get stisfactory results.</p>

<p>I like focal lengths in the range 85-135mm for portrait work. The faster prime lenses make manual focusing easier for those who still do that.</p>

<p>I agree with Jeff. I had a studio and did portraits with whatever fit the distance, the face, the portrait objective(a lot of mine were PR portraits of Doctors where you did not want to see pimples, count hairs, and sharp was not important) and how good you wanted to make the subject. I used a 70-200 2.8, 50mm, MF 150mm and whatever else was laying around the studio, but nothing real short to make big noses. There is no such thing as a portait lens IMO. </p>

<p>You already have a 50mm and the 60mm isn't that much different (unless you do a ton of macro).<br /> For professional portrait try a good prime like an 85mm or even a 100mm.<br /> But for taking kid shots you need a lot more versatility. Either stay with the 50mm or get a zoom 24-70mm.</p>

<p>I think the definition of a good portrait lens is one that puts you about 10-12 feet from subject. And that all depends on how much of the subject you are photographing. For head/shoulders you need a longer lens. For full length you will need a shorter lens.</p>

 

<p>85/1.2, 135/2.0, 70-200/2.8.</p>

<p>Elizabeth,<br>

I use the 50mm 1.4 on full frame and crop, and the results are equally good. On the Rebel Series it becomes approximately an 80mm lens. The enclosed pic is on a full frame. The 50 1.4 wide open will blur out background slightly more than the 50 1.8, and obviously has a little more light gathering ability at 1.4.</p><div></div>

For your comparison request, here is a photo outdoors with the 50 f/1.8 set at f/1.8 (cropped to reduce file size). Working at max aperture is tricky, at least for me since any slight movement by the photographer or subject could render the focus point out of focus. I got lucky with this shot that neither of us moved. Most of the shots I take with this lens are between f/2.2 - 2.8 for that reason. Camera is a 40D. Sorry I don't have any photos of the 50 f/1.8 with +4 closeup filter on this computer.<div></div>

<p>I have the 50mm f/1.8 and use it to do what you describe- take photos of my very active kids. Although I know the 1.4 has some advantages, the 1.8 is unbeatable for the price. It's small and lightweight- even lighter than the kit lens. That's a huge plus to me, as trying to wrangle kids and a heavy camera is a pain when we go places like museums or parties. And the focal length is nice for semi-candid photos of kids- wide enough to be usable in smallish spaces, but long enough that you don't have to stick the camera right in their face.</p>

<p>You asked for some examples with the 1.8, so I put three up on Picasa Web:</p>

<p>http://picasaweb.google.com/mhamburg/50f18Demo?feat=directlink</p>

<p>(I'll probably take these down in a few weeks, so apologies to anyone who reads this after that.)</p>

<p>The two color ones are at f/1.8 inside using available light (one at ISO 800, the other at 1600). The B&W is outside stopped down slightly to f/2.2.</p>

<p>I occasionally wish I had the 1.4, but the extra $200 paid for the better part of a Speedlite 430EX, and I'd rather have that than the slightly faster lens.</p>

<p>I also have the 100mm f/2.8 macro; I love it as well, and have used it for some portraits and candid shots of my kids. Although this is a fun lens, I'd buy the 50 (either the 1.8 or 1.4) first. The focal length is really too long for chasing active kids inside, and you lose 1 1/3 stops from the 1.8 and two stops on the 1.4, which is a huge disadvantage for available light indoor shots. I haven't used the 60mm Macro, but I'd anticipate the same issue- I would have missed a lot of photos at f/2.8 vs. f/1.8.</p>

<p>So, to answer your question- I would buy the 1.8 and the 60mm macro rather than trying to do it all with one lens (though you might also want to consider the 100mm macro, it is more expensive than the 60, but the 60 is very close in focal length to the 50, the 100 would give you a more distinctive prime for non-macro shots).</p>

<p>Liz,<br>

I recommend the 50MM 1.8 or 1.4. Your cropped sensor body would convert those to a good effective focal length for portraits.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that some day you may upgrade to a FF body and that will change the effective focal length.</p>

<p>BTW, when you do portraits, try using Aperture priority mode (AV) so as to control background blur.</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00JjbT</p>

<p>A few months ago I sprang for Canons 85MM 1.2 and I love it. (2 samples)</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8846215&size=lg</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/8953976</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If I might put in my $.02 worth...do NOT buy an EF-S lens. Stick with EF lenses. I started out with an XTi and when I moved up (good chance you'll want to move up someday also) to the 5d II, my 60mm EF-S, 17-85 EF-S, and 55-250 EF-S had to be replaced.</p>

<p>Jacob is correct. I didn't buy any EF-s lenses for that reason. So, I got rid of the XT and stayed with the 5D. You can get a used 5D now for about 60% less than what it first sold for new.</p>

I use 50mm f/1.8 with my 450D. It works as a 81mm lens for my camera. It gives great results for portraits compared to 18-55mm kit due to it's large aperture. But if I have the choice, I would buy a prime lens that would work as 105mm lens on my camera (a 65 mm lens will do this job). Too bad that Canon and Nikon do not take cropped sensor body users seriously.

Sample<div></div>