I need a good portrait lens!

[marissa_cassidy]

<p>I bought my first Digital SLR, a Canon Rebel XTi a year ago. Since then, I have started an on-the-side photography business, and I am in need of a good lens!<br>

I've been using the telephoto lens I bought shortly after I got the camera for most of my portrait shoots (engagements, seniors, etc.) because I can easily get a shallow depth of field. I also bought the lens for a trip to Europe, and wanted something for landscape photography.<br>

Now, I've gotten a lot more clients, and I want a higher quality lens better suited for portraits. My telephoto isn't bad, but it does its job so well that I have to be pretty far away to get shots. This isn't bad for outdoor shoots, but I'll be doing more indoor, and in more confined spaces, so I want to get something that isn't quite so powerful!</p>

<p>I do a lot of my photography outside (in fact the majority), but I'm going to be doing a wedding soon, and more portraits indoors. I'd like something that allows me the same shallow depth of field the telephoto gives me. The only other lens I have is the lens that came with the camera body, and well, it's not so great!</p>

<p>What are your suggestions? I'd like to stay under $350.</p>

[michael j hoffman]

<p>Canon EF 50/1.8 Mk II. </p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

[marissa_cassidy]

<p>By the way--before I get a response asking me what the heck I am doing photographing a wedding, here is the background:<br>

I'm doing this for $50 for a woman who wasn't going to have any photography at all. She understands what experience I have, and isn't expecting pro pictures. It will be great for building my portfolio!<br /></p>

[nhut-nguyen]

<p>EF 85mm f/1.8 USM</p>

[michael j hoffman]

<p>Might also want to add to the 50 the 28/2.8 for full-length images of the bride and her dress. The kit lens and a flash should be adequate for reception candids if there are to be any. Also, read Bambi Cantrell's <em>The Art of Wedding Photography</em>. I understand why you are doing what you're doing. You will come away from this experience with a newfound respect for wedding photographers.</p>

<p>Both lenses and the book should run way less than the $350 you stated. Also, if you can, beg, borrow or steal (okay, well, maybe not steal; well, maybe...) a second camera body. Good luck, and pray hard!</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman </p>

[marissa_cassidy]

<p>Thanks so much! Any other suggestions?</p>

[michael j hoffman]

<p>A one lens alternative could - and I stress COULD - be the Canon EF 24-85/3.5-4.5 lens. It will be more difficult to achieve the shallow depth-of-field look you are after with the zoom lens, and you will give up alot of available light shooting capability because of the comparatively slower aperture of the zoom lens.</p>

<p>Michael J Hoffman</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I second the 50/1.8, it's very inexpensive and should serve well. Some people don't like it because it looks cheap and plastic, but the image quality is quite good. The 50/1.4 is also good, is (barely) within your budget, and looks much less like a toy. The 85/1.8 is also excellent and barely within budget, but is probably too long for your indoor work.</p>

[mageproductions]

<p>I have the "nifty fifty" (50mm 1.8 - II). I really love it. The less glass the more detail - lol<br>

People say the bokeh from that lens is ugly. I agree. Not meaning to be insulting, "bokeh" is the area that is out of focus in a shot where you do a shallow DOF. The workaround for that, of course, is simply not to go overboard with the shallow DOF.<br>

I have a 18-55 "kit" lens that came on a 20D. Maybe I'm lucky. That lens is dirt cheap and, IF you get a good one, will do what you need. Read my new post covering front/back focusing, to be sure you get a good one. The real BUMMER on that lens is the focus ring is right in front, making it inevitable to get your greasy fingers all over the glass... ugh!<br>

Last spring I tested my 28-135 IS against a "L" lens. (I hand-picked the 28-135 using the test in the new post). There was <strong>very</strong> little difference, using a 40D. <br>

I see you are doing well in the photography biz. Wish I could say the same. Perhaps you might enjoy my site: http://www.MageProductions.com</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>For your 15x22mm sensor camera a 50mm, as already suggested, is nearly ideal for portrait work.<br>

Which one you get depends on how much you want to spend, but the little f/1.8 is so cheap it's worth trying first to see if this is what you want.</p>

<p>An 85 is very good for portraiture on a 24x36mm sensor camera like the 5D, but will be just a little long on the so-called "crop" body Rebel.</p>

<p>Consider the f/1.8 50mm and a 430EX flash, for more flexibility on lighting.</p>

[marissa_cassidy]

<p>Hmm..so 50mm instead of 85?</p>

[danielransom]

<p>The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 EFS IS. There is simply no better professional level everyday working lens for a cropped sensor Canon. It lives on my 30D. You can find much discussion on this forum about this lens. It costs $1000. It is the one piece of equipment I have for which I have never worried that I spent to much or that I would lose greatly due to increases in technology or depreciation.</p>

[adriano_carbone]

<p>I suggest out of chorus: a Contax Zeiss 50 1.4 (80mm equivalent) or 85 1.4 if you want spent a little over money and you like this focal lenght (130mm equivalent). You can use these lenses with adapter (existing versions confirm focus enabled) to obtain very "plastics" portrait. A good lens for this work must starting work very good at maximum aperture and Canon not-L lenses not do this.... I also like Canon 50 1.8 for sharpness and wide aperture but the result is not affected only from technical parameters.... Bye</p>

[robert_johnstone]

<p>The 17-55 IS USM is an unreal lens (apart from dust & usm's sh*tting them self's) but it's clearly alot more than his $350 dollar budget , It's got me why people respond with useless information. it's not a bragging contest, I would personally go with a 50/1.8.</p>

<p>Quote:-</p>

<p ><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1618927">Daniel Ransom</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub4.gif" alt="" title="Subscriber" /> </a> , Feb 15, 2009; 01:57 a.m.</p>

 

<p>The Canon 17-55mm f2.8 EFS IS. There is simply no better professional level everyday working lens for a cropped sensor Canon. It lives on my 30D. You can find much discussion on this forum about this lens. It costs $1000. It is the one piece of equipment I have for which I have never worried that I spent to much or that I would lose greatly due to increases in technology or depreciation.</p>

 

[matthijs]

<p>Personally I like the field of view of a 50mm on an XTi. If you have a zoom covering that length try setting it for 50mm and experiment a bit with that.<br>

If you like the FoV the 50/1.8 is a great choice. (That lens on an XTi is one of the lightest high quality images combo in the world of Canon.)</p>

<p>Use your other lenses outdoor (though shooting wide you can probably make do with the kitlens indoor) and use the 50 indoor. If the room's big enough you can always crop your shots a little if the 50 was too wide.</p>

<p>One thing: the 50/1.8 will make you yearn for more fast lenses and all of those are expensive...</p>

<p>Have fun! Matthijs.</p>

[mike_earussi1]

<p>Having used both, the 50 f1.8 is best for head and shoulder shots and the 85 f1.8 for tight head shots. The 85 is also better optically and if you have the room I would suggest you use it for both. But if you're in tight quarters having the 50 really helps. And given that the 50 f1.8 is only $75 why not get both? </p>

[peter_rowe]

<p>You didn't mention what kind of zoom you already have? You might go back and look at your images to see what focal length you most use. A prime lens like the 50mm might be too constraining for you, if you are used to composing with the zoom for example. I use the 50mm and I have the 85mm F1.8. The 85mm is long (equivalent to 135mm on full frame) so you will have to back up quite a bit which may be a problem if you do not have the space or need to take more than one person at a time. Also, the minimum focusing distance of the 85mm is quite long too at about 3 ft I believe (I run into this problem at times for closeups).<br>

The 50mm is a great price though</p>

[alan_myers]

<p>There is nothing wrong with the bargain 50/1.8, but I'd not recommend it for someone who will be shooting professionally.</p>

<p>Get the 50/1.4... It gives somewhat better image quality and will hold up to pro use better, plus focuses faster. You can get it with it's lens hood for about $350.</p>

<p>I use the 28/1.8, 50/1.4 and 85/1.8. But, if you are only getting one lens right now, get the 50mm and back up for the full length portraits, move in for tighter head & shoulder shots with it. Later you can add the other lenses, if it makes sense.</p>

<p>Yes, it would have been helpful to know what other lenses you already have.</p>

[danielransom]

<p>Hey Marissa,<br>

I wasn't "bragging" in my earlier post, just missed your cost limit. I just try to let people know that 17-55 is worth the money. I would support the posts for the Canon 50mm 1.4. The 1.8 is real cheap but the focus mechanism is really pretty clunky. The 1.4 is a much better operating lens, as well as a better build. B&H has it at $325, though they are back ordered.</p>

[nyphotopro]

<p>If you can afford it, there's nothing better than the 85mm f1.2L. I know you want to stay under $350 but if you want to get the best portrait images possible, and develop a reputation as the "go to" photographer for portrait work, get this lens. Superb images. Here's a link:<br>

http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ModelInfoAct&fcategoryid=152&modelid=12926<br>

The lens is built like a tank and will outlast your XTi, which is a good thing, since you'll probably eventually want to go up to a 5DMII for studio work.</p>

[marissa_cassidy]

<p>I have the 18-55mm lens that came with the camera body, and a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, which is what I have been shooting with, for those who asked what lenses I have.</p>

[danielransom]

<p>Another good lens is the Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6. A little pricier than your budget but a good workhorse lens. It does need external flash support in many indoor situations, and has some barreling problems. I used it for years, in conjunction with a Canon 420EX flash, with no real concerns. B&H has it for $450.</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>A comment on build quality. The evidence tends to be anecdotal and you only hear from the wheel that needs oil. but I really think that the cheap-looking "plastic" 50mm f/1,8 has a pretty enviable record in terms of durability. If you Google around for problems, I've seen more f/1.4 problems, but then people are perhaps pickier about a more expensive lens.</p>

<p>The focus motor on the f/1.8 is not exactly the latest thing, but it works well and gets the focus right on the spot, of course, always supposing that you are paying attention to which sensor is active.</p>

<p>If you're worried about it not looking professional, remember that only other photographers will ever notice and understand what it is. Your Canon Rebel is a fine camera, but won't win any prizes for bragging rights like a 1D model will, so why worry about "status"?</p>

<p>I'm guessing from your name that you don't need to prove your manhood ;)</p>

[alan_myers]

<blockquote>

<p>I have the 18-55mm lens that came with the camera body, and a Canon EF 75-300mm f/4-5.6 III, which is what I have been shooting with, for those who asked what lenses I have.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So you've got longer tele and shorter wide options covered to some degree, should the need arise.</p>

<p>Then, yes, my opinion hasn't changed... I think the 50mm would be your best "all around" portrait choice for now, and with your budget the f1.4 makes good sense.</p>

<p>Eventually you'll probably want to add both wider and longer portrait lenses, so just think of this as a first step.</p>

[marissa_cassidy]

<p>Ended up buying the 50mm 1.8</p>