portrait: 50 1.4 or 85 1.8?

[ott_luuk]

Full frame/film, APS-H (1.3x) or APS-C (1.6x)?

 

Studio or location? Headshots or environmental? What kind of lighting? What`s wrong with your current lenses?

 

(It`s really quite impossible to give meaningful advice without some more information about your situation.)

[ibcrewin]

Hi Andrea.. The 70-200 2.8 should be fine for a head shot and for a waist up type shot. The 24-70 should be good for the full body shot.

[httpwww.andreamorviducc]

Please help me to find the best between these 2 lens!

 

Today I've to buy my new lens 4 a very important portrait work!

(I'd like to get the 50 1.0 or the 85 1.2 but now I can't)

 

 

I've the 24-70L 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8L and I usually work with these lovely

pair of lens.

 

Any suggestion?

 

Thanks in advice 4 your help

 

Best regards

 

Andrea

[crelight]

Assuming that you use full frame sensor / 35mm film, 85mm f/1.8 will give you good result. You can pretty much forget about 50mm f/1.0 for any camera as the quality of this lens is horrible. 50mm f/1.2 will give a very good rendition, but will introduce distortions in head-n-shoulders portraits even on a cropped sensor (nose will look bigger than it is, not much but noticable). 85mm f/1.2 would be much better. For a full frame 135mm f/2 is also very good but sometimes a little too long for a small spaces/little offices. A 100mm f/2.8 macro is a good portrait lens if shot on ISO 200 (gives pleasant "noise").

 

On the other hand, one of the best portrait lens is 200mm f/1.8 (or your 70-200 f/2.8 also).

[gdanmitchell]

A general answer is that 50mm would often be appropriate for 1.6x crop and 85mm for full

frame, though some prefer somewhat different lengths on occasion.

[prudhomme]

A 70mm lens is a better choice for portraits than a 50mm. Why don't you use your 70-200 lens or your 24-70?

[digitmstr]

>I've the 24-70L 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8L <<

 

That's ALL you need, really.

[derek_stanton2]

Can't you use your two zooms to figure out what focal length setting is appropriate for your

project? Set your 24-70 zoom at "50mm" - does that work? If the 24-70 is too short, then

consider the 85 or a 100mm.

[httpwww.andreamorviducc]

Thank Wayne M. Grant you focus on the question!

[marrio]

Andrea: "...very important portait work!" <p>Apparently that means prime lenses are a must,

to Andrea. So maybe apertures larger that F2.8 are required for specific lighting or bokeh

needs.

[jim_larson1]

I like choices. On a 1.6x body. . I would go for BOTH the 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. My skills are not good enough to make use of the 50/1.2 or 85/1.2 :)

 

On a full frame body. . .I would go with the 85/1.8 and 100/F2. 50 is definately too wide (but I would not turn down the 135/F2 over the 100/F2 if you have room for that lens. . )

[nolefan32]

The classic portrait lens is that 85mm, but that's on a FF body; the 1.6x crop means the 50mm is what the 85mm used to be. So I'd suggest the 50.

 

Though either of those L-series zooms you already have are more than enough for the job.

[httpwww.andreamorviducc]

The 50 1.8 it's a good lens (price/quality) but it's not fast as the USM 50 1.4!

I need a lens that I can use for portrait (studio or outside) and in a low light condition too (sometimes I work in theater or "concert" place)!

THANK U EVERYBOBY 4 HELPS!

[httpwww.andreamorviducc]

I use the Canon 30D with the 1.6 crop factor.

I know that my lens are great to make a portrait (I use these 2 lovely lens to make my work and I'll love it), but I'd like to use also a 50 (or a 85) to get some pictures with a 1.4 or a 1.8.

Thanks everybody 4 the advices!

CIAO

Andrea

[marrio]

True, but you could say the same about the 85/1.8 being slower than the 85/1.2 (relatively

expensive). Unfortunately, on the Canon side there isn't an inbetween lens like the Nikon

85/1.4. <p>So with the extra information you've given about your lighting needs (low light

theater/concert halls) I'd recommend that you consider all of the following primes as you go

shopping today - 35/1.4 | 35/2.0 | 50/1.2 | 50/1.4 | 85/1.2 | 85/1.8 | 135/2.0. Don't buy

them all, just keep all of the options in mind. I've seen great portraits with all of these on a

30D-size sensor camera.

[derek_stanton2]

Andrea,

If this is a "critical" project, please test your chosen lens(es) before the assignment. If you

need to shoot wide open with any of these lenses (primes included), do not expect ultimate

sharpness. The Canon 50mm 1.4 is a better lens than the 1.8, but it still is not 'critically

sharp' until you close it down to f2 or smaller.

[marrio]

My pleasure Andrea. <p>For a modest investment of money could have both a 50mm F1.8

<i>and</i> an 85mm F1.8 right now. Try this combination first and later if you really need

the

extra speed of the 50/1.4 then just trade up for it.

[DickArnold]

I have done hundreds of portaits with the 70-200 2.8 on film. I also owned the 28-70 2.8. It is very sharp. Click on my name. Look at the cat below on my bio page. It was taken with the 28-70. It is very sharp. In 13x19 blowup it is stunningly sharp. It would be an outstanding portait lens at about 50 or 60mm on a 1.6 crop camera. IMO there is no such thing as a portrait lens only a lens you make portraits with. I have used diffusion lenses and big soft boxes to make more flattering images. With feminine images you try to level the little peaks and valleys. Harder light is better for taking pictures of old men like me. Do really want to count the hairs in my eyebrows?

[William Michael]

I am very happy with the output of my 50mmF1.4 and 85mm F1.8 both on a 20D for portrait work.

 

IMO these two lenses represent very good value for money. Admittedly I did buy the 50mm before the F1.2L was released and I have not used this lens; but I used a 50mm F1.0 (now discontinued) and an 85mmF1.2L before my purchase.

 

Both lenses I have used wide open, and whilst my 85mm seems to perform better apropos edge to edge sharpness in this regard, I am still happy with the 50mm`s performance.

 

Both lenses are quite exceptional, considering their cost, at F2 and F2.4 respectively.

 

I note the suggestion to get the 50mmF1.8 and 85mmF1.8 and then look at the 50mmF1.4 later: I understand this logic and would more easily agree with it if one was looking at a 50mm lens just because 50mm was the focal length required: but as the poster specifically is looking portraiture use, then take into consideration that the F1.8 II version has only 5 blades and the OoF (bokeh), to some is not as `good` as the F1.4 which has 8 diaphragm blades.

 

I also have a 70 to 200mmF2.8L and on a 20D this is lovely for portrait work, quite exquisite actually.

 

My next purchase in my `portrait pursuit` is the 135mmF2L.

 

Hope these observations assist your choice.

 

WW

[fred_c1]

>The 50 1.8 it's a good lens (price/quality) but it's not fast as the USM 50 1.4!

 

The difference in numerical aperture is a mere 2/3 stop. Need I remind you that you can easily make up for it by using a slightly higher ISO?

 

If you MUST have the fastest lens possible, get the old EF 50 f/1. It's faster than the f/1.4 by ONE whole stop. Just don't complain about the price, size, weight or focus errors due to its paper-thin depth-of-field wide-open.

[Landrum Kelly]

"The difference in numerical aperture is a mere 2/3 stop."

 

Fred, the difference between f/1.4 and f/1.8 is even less, a half stop. You are assuming linearity, but there is a square factor at work, since it is not the diameter of the aperture but the surface area that gives us a real measure of how fast a lens is.

 

The full stop sequence is as follows from 1.0 up: f/1.0, f/1.4. f/2.0, f/2.8, f/4.0, f/5.6, f/8, f/11. f/16, f/22, etc., but the half stop sequence is harder to remember (f/1.2, f/1.8, f/2.4, f/3.5, f/5.6, etc.).. These numbers are approximations to the actual values, of course.

 

--Lannie