Portrait lens

[john_gill]

Has anyone any suggestions on a good portrait lens. At present I

have the 75-300IS Canon lens (OK but not brilliant and slow), the 28-

135IS Canon lens (a little better but a bit slow and the zoom action

is a little sloppy) and finally a Tamron 90mm f2.8 Macro lens

(probably the best of the bunch but I have a feeling I should still

be able to do better).

My initial thoughts are the Canon 70-200 F4 L (might be heavy and a

little slow), the 85mm or 100mm prime lenses or even getting shut of

the Tamrom and getting the Canon 100mm Macro but I'm open to

recomendations even independents.

Suggestions please, bearing in mind quality is important but no-one

likes spending good beer money on lenses if they don't have to :)

Thanks in advance

John

[peza]

"The portrait lens" is 135/2.0. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=155750">I prefer longer focal lengths</a> and use a lot 70-200/2.8L, but since I have 85/1.8 they share jobs :). If on budget, 200/2.8 might be what you're looking for !<br><br>

Are you sure, you want better lens ? What about better light(ing) ?

[jackflesher]

IMO, one of the things that makes a good portrait lens is shallow DOF -- this throws any distractions in the background way out of focus, and thus steers the viewer's attention to the main subject. Thus, I would suggest the 85/1.8 (or 1.2), 100/2, 135/2 (or even the 2.8 with SF) or perhaps the 180/200/300 fast teles. (FWIW, much of the SI swimsuit issue's outdoor location shots are shot on 35mm with a 300/2.8.) Next, the problem with the Tamron macro is that while it is an extraordinarily sharp lens at f4 and up, it is pretty soft at f2.8, and f2.8 just barely provides the limited DOF I prefer in the 85 - 105 focal lengths -- so it is okay if you want the soft look. If you are set on using a zoom, then I would suggest the 70-200/2.8 used at the longer end (135+) at f2.8.

 

Cheers,

[steve_dunn2]

<p>Do you ever use the 90mm for portraits? If so, is it about the right focal length, too short, or too long? That might help you decide which lens you should get. The classic portrait lenses in the Canon EF lineup are the 85/1.8 (and 85/1.2L for those with a lot of money), 100/2, and

135/2.8 SF (and 135/2L for those with a fair bit of money), plus the 70-200/2.8L if you want a range of portrait focal lengths in one package and don't mind the cost, size, and weight. All of these lenses can provide you with sharp results and lovely background blur.</p>

[jkantor]

It depends on your favorite focal length. I don't like very much telephoto effect, so I prefer 100 f2 over the 135. I like it better than the 85 because it gives me a couple of feet more working distance, so I'm not right in a model's face. (And a lot of simsuit shots are done with much shorter focal lengths than 300.)

 

A fast lens is also nice for background blur, but for a tight headshot I rarely shoot with that wide open, since in close at f2 it gives a depth-of-field of about an inch and a half!

 

For maximum flexibility, the 70-200 2.8 would be great. However, those are big lenses. (I have the f4L for portability, but you can't really blur the background nicely with that.)

[derrick_morin___fallon__ne]

May favorite lens for portraits is the 200/2.8 because of the combonation of length, great sharpness, and shallow DOF, but my 100/2 gets more use because it is easier to use in more situations - it is shorter. I prefer long focal lengths, but don't always have room to use a long lens, so I use 100mm for 95% of indoor portraits. Where do you find youself shoting most of your portraits? If you are inside a lot or like the shorter range, consider an upgrade in th 85 - 100 range (the 85/1.8 and 100/2 are great options), but considering the gear you have already if you want a better lens outside I strongly reccomend the 200/2.8 - it's a fantastic lens for portraits and event photography. For a bit more $$$ I hear the 135/2 is about the best portrait lens Canon makes.

[jim r]

John,

 

I have the 90mm Tamron 2.8 and bought the 135f2.0 a while back and love it. I went for the 135 since I wanted a lens that brought me closer for candid portraits, i.e., my kid running around the pool. I also find that the 135 with extension is a great lens for close-up flower shots with it's narrower view angle. The 135 focuses incredibly fast and accurately, and it is extremly sharp.

 

Happy Trails - Jim

[johannes_minkus]

John,

 

I have a quite similar lens assortment as you do- and find it more then sufficient. From my experience the lens is only one part in what makes a great portrait. When looking at my work I find that the lens is almost never the limiting factor. A lot more often its the light, the pose, and, mostly, my lack of ideas.

[greghallphotography]

MY BUDDY HAS A CANON 70-200 F4 LENS-SHARPEST THING I HAVE EVER SEEN (MAYBE SHARPER THAN MY CANON 80-200 F2.8L) ITS NOT HEAVY-YOU CAN GET A TRIPOD COLLAR(DONT KNOW WHY THEY DONT JUST SUPPLY ONE-NOT HEAVY ENUF I GUESS). IMHO 35MM FILM NEEDS ALL THE HELP IT CAN GET TO PRODUCE VERY SHARP 8X10 IMAGES-ITS JUST VERY SMALL. THIS LENS WILL IMPRESS YOU. YOU WONT HAVE TO SPEND DOUBLE THE $$$$$$ FOR A 70-200 F2.8. KEEP IN MIND THAT WITH A 1,4X TELECONVERTER YOU WILL HAVE AN EFFECTIVE APETURE OF ONLY 5.6