Best Canon portrait lens?

<p>I have a Rebel XTI with a kit lens and am looking for a new lens (or two?)<br>

Mainly I am looking for a great portrait lens, although for somewhat candid portraits. (I have two small children who are always on the move, so I usually take pictures of them when they are playing rather than having them sit for formal portraits.) I also am an avid gardener, and would love a macro lens to photograph my flowers and their winged visitors.<br>

I have looked at the 50 1.8, 50 1.4, and 50 2.5 macro reviews. I have also read the reviews for the 60 2.8 macro. My question is this: should I get a 50 2.5 macro to cover both portraits and macro (and if so, will it be quick enough inside for portraits and good enough for macros of insects?) Or should I get a 50 1.8 for portraits and a 60 2.8 for macros (which will be around $100 - $150 more than just the 50 2.5)? Or is the 50 1.4 so much better than the other 50s that I should get it despite the fact that I would then have to wait awhile for a macro lens?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>If you are into macro, using the macro lens is not a bad idea at all. I'm not a big portrait photographer, but my brother does a lot of portrait work - and on his full frame camera he often uses the 100mm macro. On your camera - as I think you've figured out - the field of view from the 50mm lens is the same as that of the 92mm lens on his camera.</p>

<p>Some will tell you that you <em>must</em> use the lens with the largest possible aperture, mainly in order to blur out the backgrounds. What they don't tell you (or forget, or don't realize...) is that if you do try to shoot portraits at the very largest aperture your DOF will be so narrow as to make things a bit tricky. And DOF will not exactly be yards deep at f/2.8 on your camera at this FL.</p>

<p>Alternatives abound at 50mm though - you wouldn't really go wrong with any of the 50mm lenses you have mentioned.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>You've mentioned some fine lenses. If you're looking for a macro, the 60mm 2.8 macro is a great all around lens. I've taken quite a few shots of kids (portraits and candids) and feel its perfect for this use. You can get some great super closeups of them with a macro. If you want to save some cash, I've read the 50mm 2.5 is a great lens as well, but the 60mm offers a more modern design and may be preferable.<br>

Another option is the 100mm 2.8 macro. Its heavier and bigger than the 60mm, but allows you more distance when shooting insects (and kids for that matter). If you want a small & light versatile lens, I'd probably go with the 60mm.</p>

<p>The 50/1.4 is a nice all round portrait lens.<br>

http://www.photo.net/photo/5028055</p>

<p>I have the Canon 50/1.8, the Canon 50/1.4, and the Canon EFS 60/2.8. For macro, the 60mm is the obvious choice. But the 60mm/2.8 is just terrific for portraits as well. Very bright. Very sharp. And wonderful background "bokeh" at large apertures. I prefer it to the 50/1.4 because, in general, I find that the 60/2.8 focuses more reliably on my Canon XTi. The 50/1.4 autofocusing seems to be a bit hit or miss for me.</p>

<p>I personally recommend the 50mm for the APS-C sensors. I have the 50mm f/1.8 and it is usually plenty fast. I also have a Nikkor 55mm f/1.2 which works better than swell (of course, manual focus, etc.) on my APS-C.</p>

<p>One of the finest portrait lenses ever made is the Nikkor f/2.5 105mm, but it's a little long on the APS-C bodies. Again, MF, stop-down. If you find an older non-AI version they sell for very low prices on eBay, etc. The adapter will cost around $15, cheap enough to buy one for each Nikkor you use on your Canon bodies.</p>

<p>In any case, manual focus is not a real disadvantage on portrait work, since you will want to make sure the focus is on the eyes, for example, rather than some arbitrary point chosen by the camera. Indeed, the real drawback of the 50mm f/1.8 is that its manual focus ring is not easy to use. You also have to turn off AF to use manual focus, unlike more modern AF systems.</p>

<p>I would say the EF-S 60/2.8 macro is a good choice. Should be a fine portrait lens except in very dim light. It's very sharp and a true 1:1 macro (the 50/2.5 macro is only 1:2). Also the 50/2.5 doesn't support full-time-manual focus - for a portrait lens that's worth the extra $100 right there.</p>

<p>Another one to consider would be the Sigma 50/1.4. Probably a better lens than the Canon 50/1.4, though larger, heavier and more expensive.</p>

<p>What is your budget?</p>

<p>I'd suggest the 100mm 2.8 macro, it will give you a very good lens for macro, and it does well as a regular lens. You said you like to take pics of them when they play, you can do so with the 100mm and not be obvious about it to where they will stop what they are doing and stare at you. You'd have to be reasonably close with the 50mm or 60mm. Canon also has an 85mm 1.8 that is considered one of the better choices for traditional head/shoulders portraits.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>There is no "best" Canon portrait lens. There are several Canon lenses that can be used succesfully for portraiture.</p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p> should I get a 50 2.5 macro to cover both portraits and macro (and if so, will it be quick enough inside for portraits and good enough for macros of insects?) Or should I get a 50 1.8 for portraits and a 60 2.8 for macros (which will be around $100 - $150 more than just the 50 2.5)? Or is the 50 1.4 so much better than the other 50s that I should get it despite the fact that I would then have to wait awhile for a macro lens?</p>

<p> The 50/2.5 macro will not be fast enough for indoor portraits unless you routinely photograph in very bright interiors, have and know how use flash (es) or by large windows.</p>

<p>Assuming a limited budget, I would start with the 50/1.8 and the 60mm.</p>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

I take more portraits of my kids than I do macrophotography (right now at least) so I got a +4 close up filter for my 50 f/1.8. The quality and magnification factor are less than a true macro lens, but for only US$25.00 for the B+W brand it was a very inexpensive way for me to experiment. My plan was that if I liked it enough I'd get the 100 f/2.8 macro eventually. BTW, I have a 40D.

<p>Another vote for 50 f/1.4, great on a crop sensor for portraits, great bokeh. </p>

<p>All the lenses you mention are very good. It all depends on your budget and whether or not you want a one-lens solution. If you seriously consider Canon's superb 60/2.8 macro, you might then also want to keep an eye on Tamron's new (and not yet released) 60/2 macro lens.</p>

<p>I have the 50/1.4 USM, 100/2.8 Macro USM and 70-200/4L IS USM. All capable of capturing great portraitures.</p>

<p>But, the all round favourite would be the sharp 100/2.8 Macro. I set the aperture between f/2.8 to f/3.5 to get the bokeh from a 1:1 magnification ratio to full body portraits. I know. You have to multiply the lens by 1.6 which means taking more steps backwards to get what you need from your Rebel XTi.</p>

<p>Oh, the lens hood for the 100/2.8 is extra cost. So, try eBay for the hood.</p>

<p>the 50mm f2.5 is a very sharp compact well constructed lens, but its af is very very slow, I would recommend either the 50mm f1.8 (but used at f2.8 or f4 on your xti) or the sigma 70mm f2.8 dg, which has a limiter switch to reduce af hunting.<br>

The 100mm f2.8 macro is a great lens, but a bit long for your application on your camera body (with 1.6 crop) and whilst the 60mm f2.8 lens would be almost perfect, it is an ef-s lens. Not useable on a full-frame body, which I think is always something to consider.</p>

<p>My money is on the 50mm f1.8 or the sigma 70mm dg macro.</p>

<p>Echoing what Paul says about the 50/2.5. Very sharp lens, non-USM motor so slow AF compared to the newer ones. Indoors with kids probably wants faster AF and wider aperture. Full time manual focus won't hurt either when you get down to the macro business, something that neither the 50/1.8 and the 50/2.5cm have.</p>

<p>Both lenses are very good (I like mine) but neither may be adequate for everything you want. With these thoughts in mind the efs60/2.8 looks pretty good. Or as an alternative think about the 50/1.4 and get some closeup lenses for it to decide if you really want to go the macro route.</p>

<p>By far the best "portrait lens" I've ever used is the legendary FD 85/1.2 L. But apparently its EF equivalent is very slow focusing, so it wouldn't be optimal for your application (moving children). And it also would be a bit long for portraiture on a crop frame body.</p>

<p>I've found the EF 50/1.4 to be an outstanding lens for available light portraiture of my children on a full frame body (which is all I've ever used), and I think it might be even better on a crop frame body. The EF 85/1.8, 100/2, and 135/2 L are also highly recommended "portrait lenses," but again they may be a little long on your Rebel.</p>

<p>As far as macro work goes, getting a dedicated macro lens is really your best option. But I have successfully used non-macro prime lenses with extension tubes for close-up photography.</p>

<p>Buy the EFs 60mm f/2.8 Macro first Elizabeth as it may fit<br>

ALL your needs. Believe what you hear and have read about it<br>

and don't be put off by the small s - the lens is SUPER!</p>

 

<p>if you want macro and portraits, the 60mm 2.8 is the way to go however, i would also recommend the tamron 17-50mm for the kids on the move.... yes primes tend to be sharper but zooms allow for framing when the subjects are constantly changing position and in their natural environment.... i have the tamron and can attest to it's sharpness.... i also shoot portraits with the 85 1.8 501.4 sigma 30 1.4 and 24-70mm2.8.... all are good and useful in various situations.... good luck and happy shopping....</p>

<p>No one has mentioned the 85 f1.8 lens. It is extememly sharp, focuses fast and is small and light weight. It is my favorite lens for indoor portraits because of the ease of focusing due to its fast aperture. Be sure to buy the lenshood for maximum contrast and quality. Best feature it's price. CHEAP! Appox $350. I own a lot of Canon glass, the 70-200IS, 50 and 100 macro, 135SF, but this is the one I choose for indoor portraits.<br>

Mike Dziak</p>

<p>Ok, Now I'm completely confused. I might try the 60 2.8 macro for both, and if it doesn't collect enough light, get a 50 1.8. Or I could get a 50 1.8 & use a +4 filter for macros as Ed said. Or maybe I should look into the 85 1.8 . . . but I'm unsure about an 85 with a 1.6 crop factor. Mike, do you use yours on full-frame? I will be photographing my kids everywhere -- inside & out, moving sometimes & still if I can ever get them to sit still!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No one has mentioned the 85 f1.8 lens. It is extememly sharp, focuses fast and is small and light weight.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, great lens - I have one and like it a lot. But <em>many</em> would regard it as being a bit on the long side for a portrait lens on a cropped sensor camera.</p>

<p>The only downside with the 85mm is that it won't do much for macro. That is the reason I recommend the 100mm 2.8 macro instead. Especially if you want to get the kids at play. The 50mm 1.8 or 60mm macro would be great as well, but you'd have to be pretty close to them to get your shot, but fine if you want to include surroundings. If you mainly want to take pics of them sitting still/posed, then the 50 or 60 would be fine. </p>

<p>I use a 200mm lens when my kids are at the playgound (on a 40d), and it does just what I need without me having to stay 5-10 feet from them. </p>

<p>There is no such thing as a "best portrait lens" for any camera. Portraits can be taken in a variety of situations and have very different characteristics. There is a huge difference between what you need for a classic headshot (like for a z-card) and an environmental portrait. </p>

<p>Through the history of photography, most portraits have been made with a "normal" lens, which would translate to something like a 35mm on your camera. Over the years, camera manufacturers decided they could sell more lenses if they convinced people to buy something other than what they already owned. This resulted in the "portrait lens," which assumed everyone wanted to take headshots with a short depth of field.</p>

<p>Instead, be creative and take portraits with a variety of lenses. The idea that a portrait has to be taken with a short telephoto results in a lot of uncreative and frequently boring shots. FWIW, I mostly use the 17-40, sometimes the 24-70 because I use it for other things at the same time. I get hired to shoot portraits, although not your textbook headshots which I avoid, and my lens choice has never had anything to do with it.</p>

<p>For candids of kids at play I would probably go with a zoom for quick framing, but maybe that is just me. While I have a few primes I find they are slower to work with.<br>

The 50/2.5 CM is a good lens and ok for set portraits but probably would not be my first choice for candids due to slow focussing speed and sometimes slightly inaccurate focus.<br>

The 60/2.8 would be my choice if buying only one dual purpose lens for a 1.6 camera. The 100/2.8 macro is a very nice lens but a bit too long for indoor protraits, and certainly not indoor candids.</p>

<p>Canon 85mm f/1.2L - headshots<br>

Caon 50mm f/1.2L - fullbody shots<br>

Canon 200mm f/2 L - beautiful bokeh<br>

Carl Zeiss 50mm f/1.4 - beautiful lens</p>