Best Portrait Lens

[matthew_green]

I have looked at both lenses, the 85 1.2 II and the 50 1.2. I am confused as to

which is better suited for my needs. I am a nature photographer that wants a

portrait lens for African tribe stuff along with other indigenous peoples and

some other stuff. I am not sure of the focusing distance on the 85 I think it

is pretty far and I like to be close when doing portraits, but would like y?all

input.

 

Thanks.

[vatovec]

135 f2L

Check also the 50 f1.4 if U want to get Up close

[rainer_t]

Matthew, what camera body do you use (fullframe or crop-1.3 or crop-1.6 )?

 

Rainer

[markonestudios]

"...a portrait lens for African tribe stuff along with other indigenous peoples and some other stuff..."

<p>Is this on safari, or will you walk up to a person and say "I would like to take a photo of you"? If on safari, I reckon a prime (even the 135L) would be highly limiting. You might want to consider the 70-200L series. or 70-300 IS USM. Some of the best 'indigenous people' portraits I've seen were taken with a telephoto at distance and wide open. Also, less obtrusive. Not everyone likes to pose for a photo let alone have a photographer up close with their 50mm lens.

<p>That's my two cents... for now

[amorteguy]

<p>I can't speak to the new 85, mine is about 2 years old. But I'll add my thoughts. I love the lens. It has marvelous smoothness opened up, but it can also be a bitch to nail the focus as needed. Mine is a slow poke for auto-focusing, the II has fixed this I hear.</p>

<p>I have carried it all over the world, but it gets about a quarter of the use of my other lenses primarily because I too need to get close when taking documentary style portraits (did I mention this lens is a heavy chunk of glass?)</p>

<p>My daily lens for documentary work is the 35 f/1.4. I use the 85 often for formal portraiture. As for its use in your type of portraiture, I couldn't say. Do you take head shot type framing? Do you want to be "up-close" but from a respectful distance? This you will have to answer for yourself and your style of portraiture.</p>

<p>There is a distinct color quality the glass of the 85 gives to the image. I love it. I don't use it often, but I wouldn't give it up either. Oh, and what kind of 50 is that? I know Canon used to offer a 50 f/1.0, but I'm not familiar with an f/1.2.</p><div></div>

[santiago_montenegro]

When I had my chance with the Yanomami, the most useful lens was the 70-200, and I wish I had brought along something longer. Dealing up close with camera-shy indigenous people is VERY difficult. Of course, it all depends on how tranculturized your tribe is.

[yakim_peled1]

What will be your distance from your subjects? What lenses do you currently own? Which body do you use?

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[steve santikarn]

I used both the 17-55 f2.8 IS (willing subject) and the 70-300 IS (candid) for the portraits in Africa. Although I had the 100-400 mm with me I didn't think I could have photographed unwilling subject un-noticed, so I didn't use it for the portraits.<div></div>

[wgpinc]

It is worth looking at a book by Eric Meola called Last Places on Earth. He has a lot of close up portraits of African and other indigenous people around the world. On a film body he uses the 200mm 2.8 lens a lot probably to give the shy people he photographs some space and still get tight portraits. http://www.ericmeola.com/ He is currently a Canon user. Any lens is a 'portrait' lens depending on your style and working conditions. Good luck.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>I can't speak to the new 85, mine is about 2 years old. But I'll add my thoughts. I love the lens. It has marvelous smoothness opened up, but it can also be a bitch to nail the focus as needed. Mine is a slow poke for auto-focusing, the II has fixed this I hear.</cite>

 

<p>The 85/1.2 II supposedly has the same optics as the original; if it ain't broke (and pretty much everyone who has used the 85/1.2 agrees that optically it is a very fine lens indeed), don't fix it. There is one change which may affect the pictures you get, and it's an improvement: they've replaced the diaphragm with one which remains roughly circular when stopped down up to two stops, as they've done with a lot of lenses recently.</p>

 

<p>To say the slow focusing has been fixed is perhaps overly optimistic. If the only AF lens you've ever used is the original 85/1.2, then you'll be happy with the new one. If you're accustomed to some of Canon's quicker-focusing lenses, such as almost any ring USM lens other than the big 50s or 85s, you'll have no trouble noticing that the 85/1.2 II is nowhere near the focus-speed champion. There's a lot of glass to be moved around in there and even the nice ring USM used in both versions of this lens doesn't have infinite power.</p>

 

<cite>Oh, and what kind of 50 is that? I know Canon used to offer a 50 f/1.0, but I'm not familiar with an f/1.2.</cite>

 

<p>The 50/1.2L USM is basically the replacement for the 50/1.0L USM (though there was a gap between when the 50/1.0 was discontinued and the announcement of the 50/1.2 a few months ago so you could claim that technically one did not replace the other). AFAIK it hasn't hit the streets yet so most of the people who have used it did so at trade shows (as I did). I can tell you it's big and heavy, as you'd expect from such a lens, and like the 85/1.2 II, its AF system struggles to deal with the big chunks of glass that are to be moved around. Casual shooting at a trade show in relatively dim lighting isn't a great way to do an optical evaluation so I can't tell you anything about the optical quality of this lens.</p>

[matthew_green]

Hey Guys,

 

Thanks for all the feedback. To answer some questions. I am a Canon shooter. I shoot slide, call me old, but I have not switched to digital yet. So I shot with a 1V and and EOS3. I have a 17-35 2.8, 70-200 2.8, 300 F4, 100-400 and some other small cheap lens I don't use any more. I am wanting a lens I can get close but not to close with people that are use to others and are not needing a telephoto, or at least I think.

 

So I woudl love to hear any more feedback from y'all about this as now I have explained myself better with my equipment I currently have.

 

Thanks.

[fourfa]

Close focus distance on the 85L and 135L is about the same (3.2' and 3.0' respectively). If you want to physically get close, the 50mm 1.2 goes to 1.5'. If you mean you want a tight crop, 135L. Can't really go wrong with any of the three.

[patricks]

best value would be 135/2. the f/1.2 is really for the extreme available light situations like e.g. wedding photog may encounter or the the artsy super-shallow DoF portraits, i really like the latter but that's not how i would shoot indigenous people.

 

first and foremost, make sure you have a 70-200/2.8 L IS. then get a 135/2 or 50/1.4.

[William Michael]

Mr Green:

 

My personal bias is for a fast 85mm lens on FF135 format for portraits generally.

 

For the portraits you outline in your question, the criteria you should look at is: focussing distance of lens; angle of view of lens; physical size of lens; focussing speed of lens; weight of the lens; and the intrusion factor of the lens compared to how close you need to be to the subject.

 

All the technical critera you can get from Canon website or others.

 

I would consider the last criterion as a major factor. Many people do not like to be intimidated by a large lens [both length and diameter, and chunck of glass], even if it is a distance away from them.

 

In summary, assuming the subjects to be shy in personality and considering the lens cache you have, on a FF body I would get in order of priority:

 

1st: 85mm F1.8. Rationale: from most accounts I have investigated the MkII F1.4 might be too slow focussing and too physically intrusive for your needs - note I am not camparing the quality of image. Also this lens will allow you a reasonable distance to shoot from and a good compression for portraits, even 3/4 shots

 

2nd 50mm F1.4 [because I percieve it will focus more quickly than the F1.2 and it is not an intrusive lens physically.]

 

OR

 

if you think you need more disatnce from the subject 135mm F2.0L

 

For the application you outline your 17mm to 35mm F2.8 might be very handy, I doubt the 70 to 200 will get a run if the subjects are shy.

 

Hope this helps

 

Regards WW

[pbizarro]

In his book "Living Tribes", Colin Prior mentions that he ysed everything from a 16-35 to a 300 f/2.8, including a 70-200 f/2.8, and one 100 f/2.8.

 

If you already have the 70-200 f/2.8, it seems you are looking for a lens that will give you the capability to shoot in low light. This is my feeling, since you mention the two f/1.2 lenses.

 

Will you use a tripod to compose shots inside huts or stuff like that? And ask your subjects to remain still? I ask this because it will be nearly impossible to hand hold available light shots inside huts or houses, even at f/1.2 and 400 ISO slide film.

 

If you are hesitant, and not sure what you need, I think it is better not to spend a load of cash in the f/1.2 lenses; I wouls suggest complementing your zooms with something like the 35 f/1.4 (or even the f/2), a great lens for environmental portraits inside; and the 85 f/1.8 (or 100 f.2), for when your 70-200 is just too intimidating.

 

Also consider the 24-70 L (shooting with a tripod inside a hut, for example), or the old 28-70 L.

 

That said, unless you stumble upon some lost african tribe someplace, all the tribal folks living in parks are more than accustomed to tourists and cameras. And most likely they will pose for you with arrow and spear and all, and then charge you some money.

 

The days of "virgin" Africa are gone.

[Spearhead]

I shoot portraits with the 17-40. What lens you use is really determined by how far you are from the people you are shooting (as someone suggested above) and how you want your photos to look. I don't want portraits from a distance, you can't experience the people. That's the reason for shooting with a wide to "normal" lens.

[yakim_peled1]

I second the suggestions to try the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8 first.

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[steve santikarn]

today I saw a Sigma 50-150 f2.8 at the Bangkok Photo show. Looks like a good candidate for an all purpose travel portrait lens. It is not big, not heavy, not expensive, fast, and the right focal lengths for correct portrait perspective. No IS though.

[steve santikarn]

the Sigma 50-150 mm lens doesn't work with FF cameras though!

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Matthew,

 

I take many portraits outdoors, like at a park, of mostly children (including my grandchildren) and have found that my favorite lens is the Canon 135mm f2.0L.

 

It allows me the 'reach' of a longer telephoto on my 20D so I can capture impromptu / unrehearsed photos of the children. Anytime a person, especially children, know that you're taking their picture, the reality, impromptu-ness, of the moment is usually always lost. And this lens provides excellent clarity at the larger apertures (f/2.0, f/2.8), and the wonderful color, contrast, and bokeh, that no other lens, that I know, provides. The overall quality is unmatched, in my opinion.

 

Posed portrait photos do very little for me.

 

I like to capture the 'real' person.

 

So, it just depends where you're taking these portraits. Like Jeff said, it also depends how far you're away from the subject... and in his work he's usually close-up at the boxing ring.

 

I hope this helps.

 

//Chuck

[matthew_green]

Hey Guys,

 

Thanks for the comments. I am not in a indoor setting for these. I will be in different lighting settings and am looking to take portraits of the Maasi and Berbers for example or Hagahai of Papua New Guinea. Itis not for stuff at a park or wedding stuff. This is for remote different lighting situations.

 

Thanks.

[matthew_green]

Any other thoughts or advice would be welcome. I am still thinking about which lens.

[chuck_c_charlottenc_]

Matthew,

 

<< This is for remote different lighting situations. >>

 

If you can't explain what in the world this means, you won't get any more meaningful help.

 

//Chuck

[matthew_green]

Chuck,

 

I am not taking about sitting at a park in your neighborhood and shooting kids playing in a park. I will be documenting indigenous people in all types of weather and not always in bright light, hopefully not that at all. I want to create a mood with my portraits. I am them to be very Nat. Geo in style with the way they are composed. So this is not a controlled environment is what I mean to you.

 

A lot of you mention to me about the 200 not sure if that is to far for me. I like to have a little more interaction with my subject then what a 200 can give for a portrait composition. I like the 135 idea and am still set on the 85 idea. I went to a local camera store today and played with the 50 1.2 the new one and it is sweet glass, but I think to close for what I am looking for.

 

Thanks.