Canon 50mm f/1.4 vs 60mm f/2.8 for portraits.

[joseph_gledhill]

If I had a FF camera I would use the 85mm or 100mm for head and shoulder

portraits. However, on a 40D these two are too long for my liking. I am

thinking of either the 50mm 1.4 or the 60mm 2.8. Would one be recommended over

the other? I usually shoot f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6. Is the background blur on the

60 significantly better?

[jmichaelc]

Between the two you mentioned, i would elect for the 50 1.4. The 1.4 will determine your DOF areas on a less/more scale. The 2.8 of the 60mm will limit you here and the focal between the two isn't going to be a significent factor.

[ronald_moravec1]

I consider the difference between 50 and 60 significant and pick the 60.

 

Backgrounds can be selected and blurred with photoshop.

 

70 would be perfect if there was a zoom that would be nice to use which there is not.

[alan_myers]

For portraiture specifically, which is what you asked about, I'd always choose an f1.4 lens over an f2.8 lens, whenever possible.

 

For a more generally useful lens, not wanting to carry two, I might opt for the 60/2.8. It's always great when a lens serves double duty.

 

Ronald, there is a zoom... The 24-70/2.8 is a favorite among wedding photographers, who are largely concerned about it's portrait applications.

 

Still, I have and use the 50/1.4, often for portraiture, paired with 85/1.8 in particular.

 

I also have and use the 24-70/2.8, especially for faster moving situations where I can't or don't want to make frequent lens changes.

 

I don't have the 60/2.8 or any other EF-S lens, anticipating I'll have a full frame camera some day (plus EF-S won't work on my backup 10D either).

 

Joseph, I don't know why you only shoot in those particular f-stops. Seems to me you are missing out on a lot of the potential of your lenses, doing that.

 

Background blur of any given f-stop at any particular distance will be about the same, since the focal length of the lenses aren't all that different. On the other hand, f1.4, f1.8, f2, f2.2 and f2.6 on the 50mm are *much* nicer than they are on the 60mm Macro! ;-)

 

The 50/1.4 isn't at its best wide open, really sharpens up at f2. Still, it's usable wide open, especially for portraiture where it's not necessarily always desirable to have an ultra-sharp image.

 

Even though I don't have one, I'm sure the 60/2.8 - like any true macro lens - is optimized for closer distances and for small aperture work. (I do have its 100/2.8 "big brother", which I've heard described as nearly identical optically).

[ronald_moravec1]

Forgot about that one.

[alex_milton]

I have the 100/2.8 "Big brother" and I find it to be an exceptional performer, especially at its price point. I also have the 50 1.4, and can say that it's also exceptional. IMO the 50 1.4 is more functional than the 60, and should produce just as nice results. Do you REALLY want to take the time to "blue backgrounds in photoshop" as Ronald said?

[William Michael]

>>> Would one be recommended over the other? I usually shoot f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6. <<<

 

Ignoring the 10mm FL difference, if I shot at F2.8, regularly, I would prefer to use an F1.4 lens rather than an F2.8 lens, all else (such as IQ, build etc) being equal.

 

This, combined with the fact that I can use the F1.4 lens at F1.4 to F2.8, if needed, is a far more compelling argument than the extra compression 10mm will give.

 

WW

[tim_s6]

I have 60mm f/2.8 and 50mm f/1.8 and must say I like the 60mm better. It has its drawbacks, like focus hunting in low light, but it's a given with any macro lens. It's a very crisp lens and the bokeh is very nice too. It's a newly designed lens (or remake of 100mm), but it's optimised for digital crop bodies. Somehow with the focusing and all, my 40d likes 60mm better. Cheers.

[ed_okie]

If there is one basic theme that prevails in all responses it is the implication that "the lens" takes the magical picture of perfection. Truth is, it's the person behind the camera. Likewise, "fixing it later in Photoshop." Ugh. Don't even go there; get it right when shooting with the camera.

Studio or outdoor portrait situation... you didn't say. Likewise, how often? Is "the portrait" a full-time endeavor, or an occasional instance? All are questions that lead to - your - right choice, er-r-r-r, better choice that fits various situations.

Unmentioned in anyones' advice: whatever the lens purchased to suit your purpose - absolutely get an IS (image stabilizing) lens. Worth its weight in gold. With portrait photography, outdoors in particular, it can be a godsend! Actually make you look good while using equipment not perfectly suited to the job at hand. As to the specific lens, focal length or f/stop that's "best"... all are really secondary issues, none will deliver "the answer" nor the exquisite image. It's the person behind the camera.

[William Michael]

>>> If there is one basic theme that prevails in all responses it is the implication that "the lens" takes the magical picture of perfection. <<< (EO)

 

Au contraire.

 

I believe my response only addressed a comparison of a particular (and important) design feature of the two tools described in the question.

 

And if this was not clearly understood:

 

I would prefer to use a faster lens for portraiture than a slower one, that way I have many more creative options and if I were restricted to working at f2.8 and smaller, I would prefer F2.8 NOT to be the largest aperture available.

 

Taking these two factors into consideration, and addressing the question asked, the 10mm difference is insignificant for portrait work.

 

The previous does not imply a snub of additional suggestions outside the question posted: and on that issue, IS (images Stabilization), is only available in zoom lenses, as I understand.

 

Whilst fast zooms can render great portraits and IS would be useful in some low light / long FL circumstances AND provided the subject was steady enough when the Shutter Speed was slow, I expect most portrait photographers would grab a prime over a zoom if given the option: I certainly would

 

That is not arguing that a zoom is not more versatile for the variance of everyday shooting: it usually is.

 

Nor am I proposing that the lens is the be all and end all and the photographer and their skill and artistry does not matter: it does.

 

But that is not the question at hand, as stated, the question is specifically about: `head and shoulder portraits.` and in that regard, and between the two choices offered for opinion the 50mm F1.4 is the better for the reasons stated.

 

WW