Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS for portraits?

[jan_m]

<p>I just wanted to know people's opinion for anyone who owns this lens in terms of how it does for portraits, and especially in comparison to the cheap 50mm 1.8 lens.<br>

I own the prime lens and really love it, so of course upgrading to this very expensive zoom should mean that at the very least my images should be just as good. I am thinking about the zoom to be an all around lens and of course replace the kit lens, and from what I have heard/read the IS is pretty nice on it too. But my main focus is potraits - especially portraits of toddlers/children. I want a lens that can produce outstanding quality for portraits - sharp, crisp images with good bokeh.<br>

I would be very glad to hear opinions from those who have used this lens for that purpose - and especially if they can compare it to the prime 50mm 1.8.</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>One of the things that make a lens good for portraits is the focal length and this one does not have it IMO.</p>

<p>Also, consider the fact that someday you might not have a crop sensor camera and that lens will not mount on a FF.</p>

<p>Stick with primes for portraits. That's my opinion.</p>

<p>The Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS a fine lens but I cannot see why it would be the first choice for someone serious about portraiture.</p>

[scottj1]

<p>I think it's a terrific choice. In my experience the 17-55mm EF-S lens is like an "L" lens as far as image quality. Some of my favorite sharp and crisp images have been produced with this one. I have had wonderful results specifically shooting baby/children portraits, my family and for clients. I like the intimacy (you're up close to your subject with this one) and you can go fairly wide with the 17-55mm. You'll be able to take more fun shots indoors in tight spaces. It's my walk-around lens as well. Now with that said it shouldn't be your only choice. I use the a 70-200mm 2.8 as well: actually a slightly better focal length for portraits, fantastic bokeh wide open, and offers the opportunity to be less obtrusive (greater distance) if you are shooting older kids outside. I also enjoy the 50mm 1.4 (still great quality, faster AF than the 1.8) using the razor thin DOF for some artsy shots.</p>

[notso bad]

<p>I think it is a great choice for this type of subject. Small kids don't have patience and don't usually take instruction to pose well, so the ability to zoom in and out to compose the way you want helps. That being said, most of my portaits with this lens end up at 50-55mm. F 2.8 is usually enough for a shallow DOF. And I agree with what Scott wrote.<br>

Of course, sometimes I would like to have a longer lens ( which I do) and then I change lenses. I love the portaits from my 70-200/f4 (non-IS). And I think about buying the 50 1.4 one day...</p>

[john_bolton2]

<p>The 17-55 2.8 IS is a great lens, and, unfortunately, it's priced accordingly. For portraits, I mostly use it at the long end for groups where I can't retreat far enough with my 70-200 2.8 IS. I think it may be the best walk-around lens for a crop-body Canon. My only gripe with it is that, for the price of admission, it should come with a hood.</p>

[tom_donaghy]

<p>I use mine as my main lens. For portraiture I still use my 50/1.8 but am sure it is on a tripod, the IS on the big lens is a really sweet add for portraiture when you are hand held. The reason I use the 50/1.8 which cost 100 bucks instead of 1500, is the shallow DOF, the less intimidation with the subject, the nice focal length that I can't fool with--it makes me concentrate on the subject instead of on the equipment.</p>

[stamos]

<p>"I want a lens that can produce outstanding quality for portraits"<br>

I would wait until I could buy a prime L lens. The zoom is very nice for "all around lens" but for "outstanding quality for portraits" it depends what you consider as outstanding. This is just my opinion.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I use the 17-40 for a lot of portraits. I sometimes use the 35/2.0 also. The idea that there is a "right" focal length for portraits is absurd. I'm shooting professionally and haven't found the need for a "right" focal length. The only exception is a classic headshot. If you want to do that, there are focal lengths that work better. But headshots are just one kind of portrait.</p>

<p>Here's something shot with the 17-40 for a client:<br><center>

<img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/keri2.jpg" alt="" width="640" height="480" /><br>

<em>Keri Taylor, Copyright 2007 Jeff Spirer</em></center></p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>I suppose you need to ask yourself a few questions first. Do you shoot your portraits more on the wide angle side? Do you like closely cropped head shots? What distance do you want to be away from your subject to take these photos (closer you'll need wide angle/Further you'll need telephoto). Is your subject moving or stationary (posed or playing)? Are you needing practicality or quality (Zoom lens or fixed)? As mentioned when choosing a lens keep in mind possible future upgrading to a full frame camera body if that is a consideration (not EF-S lenses). Over my last 13 or so years of shooting Canon auto focus I've owned at some point in time around 10 lenses in total. I've found you don't really need "L" lenses to get good photos although for zooms they do give you the best bang for the $ in quality of picture (ie. 17-40 F4). A lens is an investment in a tool (albeit hobby tool for most) so take the time to consider some of the questions mentioned above.</p>

<p>I've been recently moving away from zooms and have been concentrating using prime lenses for my portraits. It has been somewhat a day and night difference in image quality and background bokey. Good choices are 50mm 1.8/1.4, 85mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 (macro useful for closeups of face, hands and feet).</p>

[june_daley]

Jeff - interesting to see you use your 17-40mm for portraits, I have just purchased this lens as a secondary to my 50mm for portrait work and have been heavily criticised for my choice! Glad someone else uses the 17-40 too, as I think it's a wonderful lens (apart from the f/4... such a downside)

[Brad_]

>>> One of the things that make a lens good for portraits is the focal length and this one does not have it IMO. ... The

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS a fine lens but I cannot see why it would be the first choice for someone serious about

portraiture.<P>

 

Well, I'm serious and do a ton of street portraits with a Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 exclusively. What am I doing wrong?<P>

 

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images46/DaveEva.jpg">

</center>

 

<P> <P>

 

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images43/EdwardYeye.jpg">

</center>

[jan_m]

<p>Very interesting responses so far. To answer some of the questions asked - I only have the 50 1.8 lens that I use for portraits and the kit lens as a walk around - which is of course easier to use when I want to capture more of the scenery.<br>

I shoot mostly young kids, who won't stay put. Which means I have to follow them around (in a park etc) and using a tripod in this manner is not easy. I have to be fast and capture shots quickly, changing my position all the time. For this reason the IS in this lens sounds very exciting. I would love to have a lens that can allow me to capture beautiful environmental portraits that capture the details of the environment, as well as a lens that can also produce nice close-ups with a beautifully blurred background when needed. Currently that would mean, needing to keep changing lenses constantly - once again, not always convenient when I am on the move capturing photos of a busy child.<br>

I do love the 50 1.8 and the beautiful portraits it can produce, but it works at its best when the subject is stationary and will pose or at least freeze for a second, so I can compose the shot (preferrably have the camera on a tripod) and get my photo. The fact that this lens is fixed makes me run around a whole lot more - not necessarily a bad thing, but sometimes I miss a good moment because I realize I am too close to capture it, and by the time I get back far enough, the moment is gone. Or sometimes, there's no space to back up enough. With a zoom, I can just immediately get the camera set up the way I need it for a particular shot.<br>

I imagine that the perfect lens is a pipe dream, but I am just looking for a lens that will make the type of shooting I do a whole lot easier and produce consistently good results. For a lens that costs as much as the 17-55 f2.8 IS, of course it better be a WHOLE lot better to be worth it. But like I said, the IS it has definitely sounds tempting since I shoot hand held 99% of the time, the promise of producing better shots indoors as well in low light conditions sound great to me too. But it would certainly be somewhat of a dissappointment if the cheap 50 1.8 lens produces by far superior portraits (with better bokeh and sharpness of the subject)</p>

[kayumangi]

<p>They didn't call the Canon 50 F/1.8 the nifty fifty without good reason, yes it is cheap but it doesn't mean the images you take using that lens is less superior than the Canon 17-55 F/2.8 IS</p>

<p>In fact, I've taken very very sharp pictures using primes like the nifty fifty. If you compare a picture taken from a Zoom and from a prime you'll definitely see the difference, with the one taken from a prime in full crisp color.</p>

<p>Also, I don't get the logic that having an IS is better than having a faster aperture (F/1.8) when shooting in low light, isn't it suppose to be the opposite?</p>

<p>Have you considered the Sigma 30mm F/1.4 ? Its the closest you can get to the 50mm focal range on a 1.6x crop body. And its bokeh is mouth watering =) Much better than the Canon 50mm I say =)</p>

<p>But then I guess it depends on the photographer, if you want to be stationary all the time then zooms should work for you, but for me, I tend to move around, like an eagle circling a prey. I want to take shots from different angles.</p>

<p>And lastly, if a tripod does not work for you, why not use a monopod, its still far superior than hand holding a body.</p>

[john_bolton2]

<p>If you want to buy one lens to be both a walk-around and portait lens, the 17-55 2.8 IS is a good choice. It's WAY sharper than the 50 1.8 at max aperture, but the 50 is a little sharper at higher apertures. And, of course, you can move around all you want with a zoom, too. But, dollar for dollar, I think the 85 1.8 and 100 2.0 are Canon's best portrait lenses. Each are less than 1/2 the price of the 17-55 2.8 IS. The 50 1.8 is way cheaper still, but it doesn't have USM and the build quality matches the price.</p>

<p>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=398&Camera=474&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=105&CameraComp=9&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0</p>

<p>Mouse over the image to see the lens selected on the right-hand side (50 1.8).</p>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>I second the 85mm 1.8 but would suggest the 100 2.8. Not only does the 100 2.8 allow for closer head shots but you can take closeups of feet and hands, etc. I find that I get my best pictures when I'm not in my 17month olds face with my 17-40 4L. I get better pictures backed way up with my 85mm or 100mm. That way she doesn't really notice me as much when she's playing. A lot of these pictures are close ups with not much in the picture of things around her. The quality and bokeh created by either of these lenses is just unreal compared to my 17-40L. I'd rent some of these lenses first if I were you. You might want to opt for a less expensive zoom and start collecting some primes for the real good pictures that you might want to enlarge.</p>

[jan_m]

<p>I have definitely heard a lot of great things about the 85 1.8 lens, but am just worried that it may be a little too long on my crop body camera (Rebel), especially indoors. There are times even with my 50 1.8 lens that I fight for space indoors and cant capture the shot I need due to not having the room to back up enough.<br>

That was a very interesting link with the comparison of lenses, but also I noticed that I can't select my body for the lenses. I know lenses behave differently on different cameras.<br>

In any case it seems to be my understanding that the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is at the very least a totally great replacement for the kit lens (although a very expensive one), but there are better choices for portraits specifically. I think I just might have to rent some of the lenses out there to see what might work best. If I had an unlimitted budget, I'd probably drop 5 grand and just get all the lenses recommended, but I have to have a limit SOMEwhere, so therefore I have to pick and choose carefully...</p>

[Brad_]

I own the 85 f/1.8 and on my rebel XSi it is just way too long for portraiture - OK for shooting across the street. And for me

the 50 f/1.4 is all right, it is just not very flexible.<P>

 

 

The 17-55 f/2.8 IS will give you a ton of flexibility. Though when considering that lens, I opted for the much less

expensive, much lighter, and smaller 17-50 f/2.8 Tamron - with no compromise in quality. For the dynamic subjects I like to

shoot, IS doesn't buy me anything. Weight and size are much more important.<P>

 

<center>

<img src= "http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/Images46/H1N1.jpg">

</center>

[chad_hoelzel1]

<p>I would like to suggest another thing to keep in mind. By wanting a f2.8 lens are you wanting to use just ambient indoor light? If not and you were using your pop up flash you might want to reconsider your options. Large opening lenses like the 17-55 2.8 and even the 17-40 f4 (which I own) cast shadows with the pop up flash at the wider focal lengths of the lens. You might want to consider a less expensive lens like the 17-40 f4 and also invest in an external flash. You'll find white ballance for indoor pictures a little easier to adjust with fill flash because it's a whiter light. Sort of depends on your shooting style.<br>

Just to give you some ideas of what can be done with the 85mm 1.8 and 100mm f2.8 posted some pictures</p><div></div>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>even the 17-40 f4 (which I own) cast shadows with the pop up flash at the wider focal lengths of the lens.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't get a shadow if I take off the hood. I do get a shadow with the hood on.</p>