What Canon lens is best for portraits?

[thistleandthat]

<p>I want to buy a lens to learn portrait taking with. Which one should I opt for? I have the 50D. I'm a newbie and have only had experience with 1, count it "1" lens; the one that came with the kit. EF 28-135mm. =( so i really want to explore the options. Thanks for reading.<br>

MKN<br>

ps. it doesn't have to be Canon brand, sigma will do, whatever is cheaper for the quality...</p>

[chris_cross1]

<p>Melanie,</p>

<p>I have the same kit you do, but have expanded my lens selection. I too own the 50d with a 28-135 but no longer use the 28-135. I don't know your budget so i will start lower scale. The best bang for your buck is probably going to be a good prime lens. the 50mm 1.4 (i own) and the 85mm 1.8 (i've used) are great for portraits. Also depends on the types of portraits you want? Groups? Couples? Individuals? Tight upper body/head shots? Full body shots? these will sway your decisions. These lenses offer you great control of your background (due to telephoto length and low aperture) as well as great low light capability and sharp images. Though i have a couple of "L" zooms, my favorite lens right now is my 50mm 1.4 costing much less. I am now in the market for more low light primes as i cannot get enough my 50mm. I recommend going to a local store and trying these out or put on your 28-135 and zoom it to these lengths and see what will be a good field of view for your preference. Hope this helps some. </p>

<p>Chris</p>

[chuck nelson]

<p>Melanie,<br>

I too have the 50D and have found the Canon EF-S 60mm 2.8 Macro to be of excellent quality for the price and of course it's also a macro. One drawback though, if you upgrade to a camera with a full frame sensor this lens will not fit it.</p>

[allen_r1]

<p>I agree that a fixed lenth 50mm lens is great for many purposes but I don't know that portraits is one of them. Something like a Canon 70-200/2.8 would be much better in my opinion. Canon also has an L series 135mm that is highly touted and marketed as a portrait lens though some might consider that a tad long. But personally I'd take that over a 50mm for portraits.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>What kind of portraits do you want to shoot? Understanding this is critical - I generally shoot portraits with the 17-40 lens. I would recommend that you shoot portraits for a few months with the lens you have and take a look at what focal length you are using most. You are better off not spending money until you understand this.</p>

<p>Here's a typical shot of mine with the 17-40.<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>

[gertle]

<p>Jeff's advice is well worth considering. Since you aren't sure what your preferred style will be you might spend a lot of money on lenses as you 'explore the options' since the options seem endless. You will find that some people recommend shorter focal lengths while others recommend longer. Some will recommend fast glass others will say it's not as important. There's almost always the recommendation for the 50mm/f1.8. There was a recent thread where someone put forth an excellent argument to discount the 50mm in lieu of a zoom lens in the range of Jeff's example photo. In the end only you can decide.</p>

<p>At this point it's best to take a lot of portraits with what you have now. Compare them against each other to see which ones you like best and if you find that most of your portraits fall into a range that is close to a fixed focal length then that is what you should look for. Along the same line of thought, if you find that your portraits fall in a range covered by a better quaility zoom lens then that might be your answer.</p>

<p>A major part of successful portraiture is more about using the light effectively and less about the lens.</p>

[charles_hohenstein]

<p>Maybe it would be good advice to keep on using the 28-135 zoom for portraits, and keep track of what focal length you use the most, before you invest in a new lens.</p>

[markonestudios]

I concur with the advice given here. It is more a matter of technique than you may realise. One can achieve shallow depth of field even with a "non-portrait" lens such as yours. All my early portraiture was done with my 28-105 f/3.5-4.5 lens.

<p>Examples here: http://www.photo.net/photo/3961013, http://www.photo.net/photo/4111412, http://www.photo.net/photo/4440212

<p>It was only later that I got my first prime, the Canon EF 50 f/1.8 but even so, I still use my zooms (17-40L, 24-105L) for portrait work, depending on what I want to achieve and, importantly, depending on working area...

[thistleandthat]

<p>thank you for all your answers. i will take them all into consideration. =)</p>

[nathan_tia]

<p>Being on a full frame camera you will probably not be able to make full use of the wonderful portrait lenses that Canon makes. One that comes to mind, perhaps the best (in my opinion) for head shots and half length shots is the 85mm 1.2L. But to be honest, you will get the most flexibility buying the 24-70 2.8L for the crop body. This sits in the perfect range for portraits on your crop sensor.</p>

[s_lyzak]

<p>Here is another option for you, to help decide. Get involved with a local photography group. There will certainly be others there with many of the lenses discussed here. Ask to go on a shoot with them (or arrange for them to accompany you at your own shoot). That way, you can ask and use some of their lenses and see which ones feel and work best for you. At the same time, you can get more tips from people who do portrait work. And as everyone else has said, it's all about style... no right or wrong answers. Good shooting!</p>

[sue_batiuk1]

<p>interesting thread!!<br>

I too, am curious about what is a good portrait lens, I am thinking of setting up a studio in my home, and already own the 28-135 IS lens, and the 50mm 1.4 lens,, both of which I am not 100% sold on for good portrait shots. I really miss my kit lens when I bought my rebel way back when (the 17-55 lens, which I sold with that camera) although it wasn't a good quality lens, I am thinking of purchasing on but a little higher on the quality level. As I said I am thinking of getting a studio set up, it won't be for a while yet,, just fooling around with numbers and getting some lighting equipment lined up. I plan on playing plenty once I get the rooms designed and ready for action, so perhaps I'll fool around a bit more with what I have now, then see if I need to upgrade,, I'm looking at the lens that Jeff suggested... the 17-40 L lens.</p>

<p>Sue</p>

[steve_crist]

<p>The Canon 50mm 1.4 is a good choice. Is you shoot outdoors (or indoors with a bit more room) the Canon 85mm 1.8 is also very good. Both lenses offer excellent quality for their price.</p>

[miguel_tapadas]

<p> Although you can virtually use any lens to shoot portraits, depending on your goal, objective, vision and composition skills, there are a few lenses that traditionally are epitomized as "portrait lenses" - though, reversely, you can use them on a multitude of other shooting styles.<br>

The 17-40 could hardly be described as a good starter lens for portrait photography.<br>

First, while beeing usefull to compose those nice, compelling and almost tale-like environmental portraits (à la NGS), the FOV is to wide for close-ups, and, at best, you can eliminate perspective distortion (using the long zoom setting), but not create that flattening touch of perspective compression, like in medium-to-telephoto lenses.<br>

Second, you'll praise large aperture lenses for portrait. The ability to throw the background into a creamy out-of-focus blur is invaluable to stand out your subject. Although at the extreme 17mm setting you already have a broad depth-of-field, and the f4 maximum aperture is not a deal-braker, at longer reaches the f4 is limiting. You have, for a fraction of the 17-40 price, far nicer lenses to start with, beeing it the 85 1.8, or even the 50 1.8 (the latter assuming a crop body), or even the 100 f2 or f2.8 macro. In my humble view, those, beeing fixed-focal, help you building an "inner view", and really push your creative side. The fast aperture is, more than a bonus, a requisite, and you'll love these lenses more and more as time goes by.Later you can expand your personal take on portraits, using diferent and even "unappropiate" lenses.<br>

Myself, as portraits go I've made good work with the 70-200 2.8 Sigma, the 50 2.5 CM and even with the 28mm. It all comes down to your inspiration.</p>

[william_markey]

<p>Wow...lots of words for a simple answer! 85mm 1.8. 'Nuff said.</p>

[reflectedglory]

<p>I'd add my vote for a 50mm prime. I did a <a href="http://www.better-boudoir-photography.com/digital-camera-lens-comparison.html">lens comparison</a> a while back and was really impressed by the 50mm 1.8: for about 80 bucks you can't beat it (for the 50D anyway - if you go full format, then an 85mm f1.8 would be better)<br>

That said, if you have the cash then any of the 70-200 L series are great as is the 24-70 f2.8L or 28-70 f2.8L<br>

Stay away from cheaper zoom lenses if you want decent quality.</p>

[gaz]

I would tend to go for a prime lens,preferably the canon 50mm-1.8 or better still the 50mm- 1.4or the canon 85mm- 1.8.