Choice of Canon Prime Lens for Portraits

[ismail_altintutar1]

Having realized that my current zoom lenses (28-105/3.5-4.5 & 75-

300/4-5.6) are consumer grade and not on par with my 1N body, thanks

to many of you, I have been trying to decide between the 80/1.8,

100/2 and the 100/2.8 macro prime lenses. I'm having sleepless

nights thinking about these lenses. My goal is to produce sharp

quality portrait imanges, head and head & shoulder shots with one or

more subjects mainly under natural lighting indoors and outdoors.

Can anyone sway me over to one of these lenses.....Thanks

[preston_merchant]

You'll find plenty of archived testimonials about these lenses--but no consensus, other than the fact that they are all excellent (do you mean the 85/1.8?). Check the previous posts.

 

The 100/2.8 macro USM is the newest of the lot and is a superb portrait lens, with stunning optical quality--sharpness, contrast, background blur. I use it for headshots and portraits. My only complaint is that it is a little heavy, but I wouldn't part with it.

[bill_goldman]

Any one of your candidates are suitable for portrait photography. All three feature USM with FTM and have internal focusing and accept moderate sized filters. All three are very sharp and are fine performers.

 

However, unless you intend to do extensive macro photography in addition to portraits, I would exclude the 100/2.8 USM Macro lens. It is more expensive and larger than the 85/1.8 or 100/2.8 so I would say it's a tossup between the latter two.

 

Personally, I would choose the 100/2.8 as it provides a little longer working distance and out-of-focus areas will be a little more so and provide a better bokeh.

 

Finally, one additional lens is a possible candidate and that's the 135/2 L, which traditionally is not the "ideal" focal length for portraits because it "compresses" images slightly more. It would provide all the advantages I stated for the 100/2 and it is one of the sharpest lenses Canon makes, being an "L" lens with all the advantages that entails. As a moderate telephoto, some consider it a little too short for most sports photography but it can still be useful for general telephoto applications in addition to portraits. The greater cost may be prohibitive compared to your other choices but I just thought I'd throw it out there for consideration.

 

Good luck on your ultimate choice.

[bill_goldman]

Whoops! Ignore my typo where I typed 100/2.8 instead of 100/2 except where I was talking about the macro lens.

[scott_currie1]

I just got the 100mm f2.8 macro lense last week(thanks to my wife). I have shot 3 rolls so far with it and I have to tell you it is great. Not only is it great for macro work but for portraits as well. Very nice lense over all. I think this lense should have been in the "L" series :)

 

 

Scott ...

[isaac sibson]

L series status has nothing to do with optical quality of a lens.... Most of the canon non-L primes are better optically than the 35-350L...

 

L series status is awarded for one of three things; if the lens contains a fluorite element, a UD/ Super UD element or a ground and polished Aspherical element (as opposed to moulded glass or hybrid aspherical elements), it will be an L series lens. The only exception to these rules is the 400 F4 DO IS, which contains one small fluorite element, but it appears that canon are creating a new DO series, characterised with a green lens ring. Since the 100 F2.8 macro does not contain any special elements as listed (and does not need them to attain good optical quality), it is not an L series lens. A good example of the application of these conditions for L series status is in the TS-E lenses. Only the 24mm F3.5 is an L series, and yet all three are built to the same standard, both physically and optically, but the 45mm and 90mm did not need any special optics to achieve good quality, and thus are not L series.

[bill_goldman]

It's true that L lenses include Canon's most advanced optical technologies but that is only one of the criteria for a lens being labled as an "L". I am sure that the design process starts with deciding to produce a lens of certain specifications such as focal length or zoom range, maximum aperture and maximum optical performance which is why they include those technologies.

 

These lenses are designed to meet the specific requirements of professional photographers. That is why they generally feature more robust construction and better weather sealing, etc. In addition they have features such as large aperture, fixed aperture zoom lenses (in most cases), internal or rear focusing, non-rotating front elements, acceptance of teleconverters, etc. They include custom designed lens hoods, tripod rings (mostly) and cases or pouches.

 

The L lenses tend to have high prices and most amateurs cannot afford them. If you have watched any NFL football games on TV, you will see that most photographers using Canon equipment are sporting the 600/4L or 600/4L IS lens. This lens is also favored by professional nature photogs. If affluent amateurs can afford them then the increased production can bring down the cost somewhat and everyone benefits.

 

Making the TS-E 24mm f/3.5 an L lens is an exception and probably was not the intention when they started the design process.

 

Developing the L lens line was also one of the smartest marketing tactics Canon developed, as the superiority of the super telephoto L lenses allowed Canon to beat out Nikon for the professional market.

[allen_walker]

Canon's 85mm f/1.8 and 100mm f/2 lenses are excellent, and there are some other fine lenses to consider. Here is my table of favored focal lengths for various kinds of people photographs:

 

35mm f/2: Good for photos of people that include a lot of their surroundings or environment. Sometimes groups. Good for full body indoors. Good for people interacting.

 

50mm f/1.8 or f/1.4: Good for most of body or all of body. Excellent general purpose lens.

 

85mm f/1.8: Good indoor lens. Photos of people from waist up. Now, one is getting more specific, and able to blur background more.

 

100mm f/2: Good for head & shoulder photos. More specific than 85mm, but difference is not large.

 

135mm f/2: Good for face alone. Flatter perspective, excellent background blur at larger apertures.

 

Your working distance with all of these lenses will be in the 4 to 8 feet range. Do not get closer, as there will be unflattering perspective (big nose, etc.). Of course, I use all of these focal lengths outside of the recommendations above. However, this may help you start to think about this. And, no, I don't recommend you get all of these lenses!

[gary voth]

Well... you can achieve your goal with any of the three lenses you mentioned. All are excellent portrait lenses, though I prefer the 100mm focal length for most natural looking head shots. For upper body, however, an 85 often is more comfortable in tight places.

 

You didn't specifically mention macro shooting as a criterion. If this is not important to you, I'd suggest one of the othe lenses. Both are at least a stop faster (easier to focus, better for low light). Also, both of Canon's 100mm macro lenses are compromises for non-macro shooting (the original 100mm macro does not offer FTM focusing, and the new USM macro is hard to focus manually due to the very short focus throw in the "normal" working range).

 

'L' or not, optically these are among the 3 best lenses Canon offers.

[carl_weller]

hi,

 

i find it somewhat curious that you need us to tell you that your lenses are not good enough and that they're only "consumer grade" - which of course means they can't be good enough :)

 

the final judge(s) should be the people who sit there and look at the shots you've taken. don't you think? the equipment is the means - not the end.

 

especially seeing that the 3 primes you've mentioned are also only "consumer grade" i.e. not "L" glass.

 

the major benefit you'll see for your indoor/outdoor portrait shooting is that the lenses are a lot FASTER. although i must say - the 28-105 is a good piece o' glass, but the 75-300 is, from all i've heard and seen, not particularly good.

 

i've got a bag full o' primes and a couple of zooms. i like the primes mainly because they're a bit faster and because they force me to think about my shots. you learn a lot more as a photographer when you work with primes.

 

but for travel and fast-breaking stuff or sports then you gotta want a zoom, baby.

 

there are good "consumer grade" optics out there (and not-so-good L optics too). the biggest difference btw the two is not the optical quality - its the build quality. most amateur shooters are just as picky about picture quality as the pros. but, when it comes to reliabilty, then theres a huge difference. a working pro can change lenses (or bang lenses against things) so often that (s)he'll wear a consumer grade optic out in a year or two.

 

i mean, seriously. do you think you can tell the difference btw an MTF score of 3.5 and one of 3.9? thats really only interesting for technicians. and then there's the fact that film is the limiting factor anyway (most films handle a lpm of about 135 - L lenses will give you at least 200 lpm).

 

bottom line: if you're happy with the shots you're getting then why change just because of the label on the lense?

 

carl

[gib]

there is also a 135 2.8 SF (soft focus) lens you might want to check out.

 

Apparently, and I have not handled it, this lens has two soft focus settings of more or less "soft"and "softer" which are set with a switch. You can also use it without the soft focus set.

 

I am considering buying one.

 

I have the 85 1.8 and it is a fine lens.

 

regards

Bill

[jay_horton]

No, no, no.

 

" L," stands for, " Lotsa."

 

It is a reference to the amount of cash you are going to have to part with;-)

[christopher_butler1]

Well, at the risk of stepping ot of bounds, I'm going say that I think you are looking at the wrong lenses. My suggestion is to sell the 75-300, cash in your savings bond that you have tucked in a drawer and buy the 70-200/2.8L. Yes, it is more expensive, and yes, it is bigger, but it's a tremendously versatile lens, and it makes killer portraits.

 

FWIW, I have the 100/2 and the 70-200/2.8. I reach for the 70-200/2.8 more because of the flexibility it offers in framing, especially when I can't move. I use the 100/2 in more controlled situations and in low light.

[alex_p._schorsch]

I would either go with the 70-200 f/2.8 zoom OR buy the 100mm f/2.8 macro which will open up a whole new world of photographic opportunities through its macro capabilities. This is only my opinion. Cheers and good shooting, Alex

[wildpicture]

Opinions differ. I have the 70-200/2.8L lens and recently bought the 85/1.8 specially for portraits. I found the zoom just to big and bulky to carry all the time. Certainly if you would like to make some nice snapshot portraits. I am very pleased with the 85/1.8, it's a joy to use.

[paulo bizarro]

1. Try to shoot some portraits with the lenses that you have, and make notes on the focal lenses you end up using more.

2. I have used all of the lenses you are thinking about. I liked the 85mm perspective more.

3. Conclusion? I ended up getting the 85 1.2 lens. Expensive? For sure. Unique in its results? You bet!