Which Prime Portrait Lens Do you Recommend for FF?

[stevez]

Before I bought the 5D I had my heart set on the 50mm 1.4 for the 20D. But now

I'm considering one of the following:

 

85mm F/1.8

100mm F/2

135 mm F/2

 

The F/1.2 primes are really out of my price range.

All things considered which one would you recommend?

[jbq]

All 3 of the lenses you mentioned are decent portrait lenses. Depending on what kind of portrait you're looking at (and on how much space you have) the 50/1.4 and 200/2.8 can't be dismissed.

 

I have a 50/1.4, 85/1.8 and a 100/2.8 macro, and I don't feel any need for the 100/2. I'm looking at the 135/2, though.

[stevez]

Thanks, Jean, but which lens would you recommend on the 5D?

I don't think the 50mm prime is applicable

[jbq]

I forgot to mention that I have a 5D myself.

 

Which lens you choose depends on the kind of portrait you're interested in. A tight head portrait doesn't get shot with the same lens as a full-body environmental portrait. It also obviously depends on how many people will be in the portrait.

 

From 7 ft (a reasonable distance for a portrait), assuming a vertical framing on a 5D, the width of field of view is approximately as follows (multiply by 1.5 for the height):

 

28mm -> 6ft

50mm -> 3ft 4in

85mm -> 2ft

100mm -> 1ft 8in

135mm -> 1ft 3in

200mm -> 10in

 

But then again it depends a lot on the kind of portrait you're after. I have some nice ones that were shot with a 400mm.

[beauh44]

I've had good luck with the 85 f/1.8 on a 1Ds II. Even the 100mm Macro is sharp as a tack and you'll also have a macro lens if you need it. Just a thought - good luck!

[beauh44]

<I>I have some nice ones that were shot with a 400mm.</i><P>

 

I thought I was the only one crazy enough to use lenses that long, Jean Baptiste! I shot this with a 500mm f/4L IS... I was probably about a mile away. ;-)<P>

 

<center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3606096-md.jpg"> </center>

[steve_crist]

I've enjoyed the 100/2 for portrait work on my 5D. It's a good lens.

[mirek_elsner1]

Are you looking for indoors or outdoors portrait lens? For indoors you should consider how much distance from the subject you can have, the longer the lens, the longer distance you need.

 

All three lenses are fine. If the shooting distance is not a problem, the 135/2 is great, especially on 5D.

[rtrace]

85mm f/1.8 - my favorite focal length besides 35mm.

 

Bogdan

[jbq]

Beau - very nice pic. I like how shooting with long lenses takes care of blurring whatever is in the background, allows a very flattering perspective, and is far enough from the subject to make them feel comfortable.

 

I don't really want to spend the money on a 500/4, though. I have a 400/5.6, and I think that I'll stop there (3" diameter), which means that I won't have the beauty of using a 5" lens.

[steveprice]

I use the 100 f2.8 macro for portraits as well as macro. The canon ring flash is designed for use with this lens and is not only great for macro but gives a highly stylised ligting effect with portraits also, especially if combined with other slave lighting units.

 

Steve

[w.smith]

If I intended to get that lens for portraiture I wouldn't want to 'waste' more money than

neccessary on the lens' light sensitivity: f/2.8 is good enough for portraiture. Money and

effort saved there can be invested in improving other optical qualities, that are more

useful to portraiture. Like contrast capture, color neutrality, flare reduction and others.

 

For focal length (FF) you're in classic portrait country of course: anything between 85mm

and 135mm.

[stevez]

In an earlier response to my this post, Jean-Baptiste Queru stated the following re: portrait lenses:

 

"From 7 ft (a reasonable distance for a portrait), assuming a vertical framing on a 5D, the width of field of view is approximately as follows (multiply by 1.5 for the height):

 

28mm -> 6ft 50mm -> 3ft 4in 85mm -> 2ft 100mm -> 1ft 8in 135mm -> 1ft 3in 200mm -> 10in "

 

I was wondering if anybody could explain this to me or refer me to info where I can learn more about this.

[jbq]

The size of the field of view is (aproximately) as follows:

 

field_width = subject distance * sensor_width / focal_length.

 

For a 5D with a vertical shot, the sensor width is 24mm. For a 85mm lens and a 7ft subject distance, the field width is 7ft * 24mm / 85mm, i.e. approximately 2ft.

 

7ft is often quoted as the "minimum" distance from a portrait. Most photographers feel that when shooting from a closer distance the perspective unnaturally distorts the face by e.g. making the nose unnaturally big.

[stevez]

Thanks,Jean, not sure I understand the math but I think what you're saying is anything closer than the 7 ft is not advised when using the 5D with a 85mm prime. What happens with head shots?

[beauh44]

Thanks Jean-Baptiste! Oddly enough I didn't buy my 500mm for portraits - in fact, I don't think that crossed my mind! I was thinking about birds and wildlife. But recently I've taken the time to use it for people too and it does do nicely. I had a knowledgeable friend ask me what lighting I used in the studio for that shot when it was taken in the shade, outdoors, if I recall with a bit of on-camera fill-flash. I've been coveting the 400 f/4 DO and I just sold all my Hassie stuff on Ebay which would about cover it. Must... Stop... Is there a Betty Ford clinic for lens junkies?

[michael_milne]

How about a less technical discussion..

 

I use the 85mmm f1.8 and the 135mm f2.0 with a 5D. I can recommend either of these lenses. IMO the 85mm is a great value and the 135mm is the best portrait lense I have ever used; you cannot go wrong with either. I just spent 3 nights in San Jose del Cabo shooting available light portraits of street vendors, guitar players, shopowners kids. I shot most of these at ISO 800, 1600, and 3200, from f4 to f1.8-2.0.

 

I found focus to be a slightly more consistent and faster with the 135mm, but the 85mm is still very good. IMO, the focus system of the body will make a much greater difference in determining the ultimate AF speed of these lenses. The 135mm also creates better (smooth) background blur in my real life experience compared to the 85mm when both are used wide open.

 

I also prefer the greater working distance of the 135mm. I really like the reach of this baby. Since I find portraits where the subject is looking at the camera much more engaging, I almost never snipe photos but politely ask unless it's family/friends who are fair game. If a stranger agrees, I find that when I back peddle more to use the 135mm, the subjects generally felt more comfortable than when I was using the 85mm at a closer distance. In general, I have found that it is much easier to get a semi-candid portrait by taking 1-4 steps backwards rather than forward. With friends/family, I feel that they appreciate me not being in their face with my camera, so they are generally more compilant when I have the 135mm on the camera.

 

In fact, I had to be much more aware of my body language and attitude when working closer with the 85mm. This took me a little while to figure out.

 

I do think the 85mm works better in smaller, darker more confined locations. It also can be used in darker conditions b/c it is a shorter focal length and goes to 1.8. I found that i gained about a full stop in these conditions. But this may not matter to more sane people not trying to get decent sharpness at the eyes under streetlights at night.

 

I think shooting style and price should be the determining factors here. The two I have are both excellent lenses. WHERE and of WHOM do you envision taking portraits of?

[stevez]

Great discussion, Michael, really helps put things in perspective for me. Thanks for contributing.

[m_barbu1]

On a 5D, my preference would lean towards the 135mm, but I've also shot portraits at 200mm (320mm equivalent).

[yakim_peled1]

85/1.8 for indoor portraits. 135/2 for outdoor portraits.

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/index.htm

 

 

 

Happy shooting,

Yakim.

[j.kivekas]

For ff-portrait the following are all very good:<br>

- EF 85/1.8<br>

- EF 100/2<br>

- EF 135/2<br>

My first choice would be the 85, then the 100 and then the 135 - for portraits.

[charliexia]

if you like the FOV of the 50mm on your 20D, then get the 85mm. this is my favourite focal length for portraits

[ramana_murthy]

Just my 2 cents, I had been using 100mm Macro for portraits, it is a great glass, but the auto focus - even with distance set to non macro - takes quite a long time. I find it quite hard to shoot my one year old with that. I am trying to use this as an excuse to get myself the red 135mm. - Ramana

[jwhite3.0]

135mm f/2 is my choice for portraits and newest favorite lens in my bag. If you really want f1/.2 but without the price you may want to consider the next cheaper alternative....Contax 85mm F/1.4 PLANAR T* (used on keh go for $325-570). Contax-to-EOS adapter = $20-40. You lose autofocus which may break the deal for you but great optics if you're willing to do a little squinting and metering work.

[allen_walker]

The best "portrait" lens depends on the kind of shot you want to take.

 

Tight face shot: 135mm

 

Head and shoulders: 100mm

 

Head and upper body: 85mm

 

Full body: 50mm

 

Person with surroundings ("environmental" portrait): 35mm

 

Other considerations include to not get too close to your subject (stay at least six feet away) so as to avoid unpleasant perspective effects such as an enlarged nose. Also, when using the longer lenses you will probably want to use a large aperture in order to throw the background out of focus. However, with a 35mm lens (and perhaps with a 50mm) you probably will want to use a smaller aperture to keep everything in focus.

 

Using a much longer lens (200mm and up) will give you a more flattened perspective, but it sure is much more effort. Using a much wider lens (28mm or less) takes in more, and you can have a lot of fun with exaggerated perspective effects, but it's more effort to make a picture that anyone would want to look at.

 

This has been a long version of the answer that goes: "It depends."

 

Cheers,

Allen