Portrait lens advice?

<p>Having never owned a true portrait lens I'd like some advice. I'm looking at the Canon EF 100/2 and 85/1.8 lenses. Budget is in the $300 - $350 range therefore I'll probably buy a used lens on eBay or KEH. Is f/1.8 significantly better than f/2 or is the difference only marginal? The focal length is also close, only 15mm's difference. I'm also considering a macro lens. The Tamron 90/2.8 is within the budget and could do double duty but it's slower at f/2.8. If you were looking for a portrait lens which one of the three would you choose and why? The lens will be used with my 12mp 5D. In the past I've done a few portraits with my 24-105/4 L. Appreciate your advice.</p>

<p>In practical terms the difference is almost non-existent, especially given the slightly longer FL of the 100mm lens. However, the 90/f2.8 will have a <em>decidedly</em> increased minimum DOF. I wouldn't make that choice unless you also need a macro lens. If you do, the f2.8 can be managed, but will result in tangibly affected portraiture. In other words, it's going to be a compromise lens, and isn't a true 'proper' portrait lens as a result.</p>

<p>I have never owned the 100/2, and only used it a couple of times, in general, my (non-scientific) impression was that it was nearly identical in performance and characteristics as the 85/1.8 (which I owned for many years). You could certainly buy either and expect them to do well in this role.</p>

<p>I have a 5D and the 85/1.8 and I used the 100/2 before choosing: both are very good. I chose the 85/1.8 for three main reasons:<br /> > firstly it is really REALLY nice at F/2 (in my comparison, more than a smidge better than the 100/2 at F/2);<br /> > secondly I do (occasionally) use F/1.8 and although only one third Stop faster, that’s useful sometimes, not for DoF but for cribbing Shutter Speed, though less so now with advances in better quality High ISO DSLRs; <br /> > thirdly the lenses are so close in FL that a small CAMERA movement backwards or forwards to reframe the shot as I want it does not result in a noticeable difference of the PERSPECTIVE of the shot, so whenever there are two Prime Focal Lengths from, which to choose AND their FL are very close, its usually always better to choose the wider, because more often than not one can always crib a little closer to the Subject but not always can one move backwards to make the shot.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>I haven’t used the Tamron 90/2.8 Macro. I do have the EF 100/2.8 USM Macro. If I could only afford one lens and I wanted a Macro Lens and also Prime Lens around 85mm to 100mm then I would probably buy my EF 100F/2.8 USM, (see the para below about Lens Speed)</p>

<p>My advice is you certainly consider the Tamron 90/2.8 Macro for the dual purpose.</p>

<p>My warning concerning F/2.8 vs. F/1.8 is the difference in the Lens Speed <strong>which can be transferred into the Shutter Speed required to subdue the Blur from Subject Motion or Camera Shake.</strong> For example if shooting Portraiture in Available Light and framing a Tight Head Shot with a 85mm/100mm lens mounted on a 5D, I would really like to have a Shutter Speed around 1/125^th to 1/250s and keep the ISO at or under ISO800: but let’s say I could only get 1/50^thsecond with an F/2.8 lens . . . an F/1.8 lens can bump me to 1/125^thwith no change in ISO.</p>

<p>I don’t agree with Marcus’ analysis apropos the severe warning about minimum DoF difference between F/2.8 ad F/1.8 (or F/2) for Portaiture.</p>

<p>Regarding the Tamron Lens, maybe I am ignorant of something peculiar about that particular lens. I would think for “portrait” purposes there is no reason for it to be inferior and "<strong>will result in tangibly affected portraiture"</strong> just because it has macro abilities. Perhaps the AF will be a bit slower than other Primes Lenses, though.</p>

<p>My 100/2.8 Macro is a fine lens for Portraiture when I've use it on my 5D (caveat about shutter speed in low already mentioned – but even then if necessary practice to nail using very slow shutter speeds can be useful).<br /> <img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18031430-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1400" height="1000" /><br /> <a href="/photo/10738709&size=lg">[5D + EF100F/2.8Macro F/2.8 @ 1/8s @ ISO1600 HH,Spot Meter, Manual, Available (room) Light, AWB.]</a></p>

<p>Here is a similarly framed shot using the 85/1.8 at F/1.8, the difference in DoF is simply not noticeable, this shot as also made on a 5D:</p>

<p><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/18031428-lg.jpg" alt="" width="1440" height="1080" /><br /> <a href="/photo/18031428&size=lg">5D + 85 F/1.8: F/1.8 @ 1/80s @ ISO400 Hand Held M Mode</a></p>

<p>BTW – I subscribe to the view that there is no such thing a “Portrait Lens” I make Portraits with a range of lenses and various Focal Lengths.</p>

<p>*</p>

<p>Hi Marcus, as mentioned I disagree on a couple of points my reasoning and question is here.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, <strong>the 90/f2.8 will have a <em>decidedly</em> increased minimum DOF</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Increased minimum DoF I agree, but I wouldn’t qualify that increase as being a deal breaker:</p>

<p>Here are three typical Subject Distances /Framing for Portraiture using Vertical Framing for a 6ft Person standing:</p>

<p>SD = 18ft, Full Length Shot: at F/2.8 DoF ≈ 20 inches<br /> SD = 18ft, Full Length Shot: at F/1.8 DoF ≈ 13 inches</p>

<p>SD = 11ft, Half Shot: at F/2.8 DoF ≈ 7 inches<br /> SD = 11ft, Half Shot: at F/1.8 DoF ≈ 5 inches</p>

<p>SD = 5ft, Bust Shot: at F/2.8 DoF ≈ 1½ inches<br /> SD = 5ft, Bust Shot: at F/1.8 DoF ≈ 1 inch</p>

<p>*</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I wouldn't make that choice unless you also need a macro lens. If you do, the f2.8 can be managed, <strong>but will result in tangibly affected portraiture. </strong>In other words, <strong>it's going to be a compromise lens, and isn't a true 'proper' portrait lens</strong> as a result.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Also I don’t understand these comments at all.<br /> In what way will it produce “<strong>tangibly affected portraiture”</strong>?<br /> Doesn’t the Tamron 90mm lens act exactly as any other 90mm F/2.8 Lens, when working at typical Portrait Shooting Distances?</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>There really isn't such a thing as a "portrait lens." Almost any lens can be used for portraiture. In the history of great portraiture, "normal" focal length was very common. I mostly use a 24-70/2.8 for my portraits and it works fine.</p>

<p>This was taken at 60mm:</p>

<p><img src="http://spirer.com/images/dehaze2.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="467" /></p>

<p>There is little to choose for portraiture between the 100 and 85 mm lenses you mention. For my money I normally choose the shorter focal length as the distance between photographer and subject is slightly closer which I find helps me with communication. But the difference is slight.</p>

<p>The best portrait lens is good light and good communication with the subject. VASTLY more important than the lens. </p>

<p>Of the two lenses you listed, I like the 85 better. Slightly more flexible focal length that can allow you to work in a bit more environment if you desire, slightly faster aperture is better for lower light/shutter speed or shallower DOF if you want. I doubt you could pick the two apart in terms of sharpness or "look". Macro lenses will work fine for portraiture too, but I'd choose the 85 for the faster focusing speed and faster aperture. </p>

<p>For me, the 100mm f/2 is the second best portrait lens of all Canon lenses under $1000 (the best being the 135mm f/2). The 85mm 1.8 had too much CA for me.</p>

<p>I am a professional portrait photographer and have been so for just around a year. For headshots type work I would recommend either the Canon 135mm f2.8 or the Canon 100 f2 as you have identified above. If choosing a 85mm, the Canon 85mm f1.8 second hand price is really good at present. The other option is the Sigma Art 85mm f1.4. Stellar lens. </p>

<p>Thanks everyone for your advice. I'll start looking for USA lens for a good price, probably the 85/1.8.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The other option is the Sigma Art 85mm f1.4. Stellar lens.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Do you know something we don't? This does not exist (yet). Do you mean the "regular" 85/1.4 or the 50mm f1.4 ART?</p>

On depth of field: I often find that even f2.8 is too shallow.

Unless there's a good bit of distance between me and the subject.

 

I have no problem using a slightly slower macro lens for portraits.

Plus that adds a whole new use: macro.

 

Unless you really need the shutter speed. Then the 1.8 is better.

<p>If you're going to be doing low light portraiture without flash, then obviously the faster the lens, the better. And that's precisely why I have an EF 85/1.2 L II. My daughter's piano recitals take place in dimly lit churches, and I often find myself at or near f/1.2 (and at 1600 or 3200 ISO).</p>

<p>I find f/2.8 to be fast enough when the light isn't abysmal. So I guess which lens you should get depends on how low your light is. Another consideration is your body. I use a 5DII, which I find to be very good up to 3200. But I don't think that the original 5D is quite as good at higher ISO's.</p>