What is the best prime portrait lens?

[shootsonfilm]

Hello again. I love my Eos lenses. I have an 80-200L and a

28-70 L and they are great but I've never had a prime lens for my

eos set up and wanted to get some opinions about a portrait

lens and what you would recommend. Any help would be

appreciated. Thanks

[charles barcellona www.bl]

Depends on what focal length you call a "portrait lens".

 

Mainstream 35mm photographers tend to use from about 85mm to 135mm for portraits, with the majority of those using close to 100mm.

 

Some fashion portrait work is done at 200mm or even 300mm to achieve a very "flat" perspective, but those focal lengths are not normally suited to general portrait work. And some artsy types get away with using a wide angle of almost any perspective for portriats, using 28mm, 24mm or even wider for an exagerated and distorted look.

 

Having said all that, the Canon 85/1.8-USM and 100/2.0-SM are not "L" lenses but optically are better than either of the L zooms you have. The 135/2.0L-USM is an even better performer. Canon makes a 135/2.8 (non-USM) soft focus lens for portrait work, but persoanally, I'd rather have the speed in the lens (the 135/2.0) and use a soft filter of my own choosing. There is also the 100/2.8 Macro USM. This lens has been reported to hold its sharpness from infinity all the way into the macro range, and its sharpness and contrast are at least as good as your "L" zooms.

 

My thoughts: I prefer a bit more working space, so I'd choose the 100/2.0 or 135/2.0.

[carl smith]

Depends. I suggest you use your 80-200L for a little while until you find out waht focal length you use most often for shooting portraits. Then if you still need that prime lens, get one in that focal length (85, 100 135 or even 200). That will cover the range really for many "portrait" lens users. The working distance you are most comfortable with and end up choosing will then dictate the focal length (basically) and you can then narrow in one what prime lens you might like to have.

[jonathan_ratzlaff]

Is the 80-200 a 2.8 lens? if so it should be about as good as it gets for a portrait lens. My lens of choice for portraits is an 80-200 2.8 Nikkor Zoom. It has enough contrast and resolution that a prime lens for portraiture is uncecessary.

 

However if you want a prime lens for the sake of a prime lens, look at a 100mm macro lens. This is a good prime for portraits and will give you a close focusing ability that will compliment the lenses you already have.

[laurent_ducros]

Depends on the effect you are looking for. A good and cheap lens a 50 mm makes good portrait. If you feel like send me and émail and I will give you 3 pictures with 3 differents lenses and you 'll see. Really we don't use a lot the 50 but then you don't want to pass throught...

[jonas_vilslev]

You could use both of your lenses, they are both very sharp. In my opinion they are both way to big, thats one of the reeasons why I prefer the EF 85 mm f/1.8 it´s incredibly sharp, small, fast and also quit cheap. I like the perspective I get in portraits and the extra speed (and shallow DOF) comes in handy quite often.

[eosdoc]

Philip Greenspun showed an example where a 600mm lens was

used for portraiture. See:

<p>

<center>

<a href=

"http://www.photo.net/portraits/intro.html"

><img src=

"http://www.photo.net/photo/pcd0161/photo-sneer-8-sm.jpg"

border=0 width=200 height=200

></a>

</center>

[rsriram]

For me, the 100/2.8 USM macro is the best portrait lens. Its close focusing ability is a great bonus, and the focal length is perfect. Here's one :<br> <IMG SRC="http://www.rsriram.ws/index-images/paramita.jpg">

[peter_phan]

Any of the Canon prime lenses are great. But which one you should use really comes down to your prefered working distance. I prefer the EF 50/1.4 and EF 85/1.8. I use the 85mm for tight headshots, and the 50mm for everything else. Both are beautifully sharp. I don't like to use anything longer because it puts too much working distance between myself and the model.

[paulo bizarro]

I can only recommend the EF 85 f/1.2 L lens. It is simply superb. If you want an 85mm lens that can be more suitable for indoor sports, for instance, then the 1.8 lens is a good choice, because it AF faster.

[patricks]

i've only used the 100/2.8 usm macro and it is pretty darn good and gives you lots of flexibility with tigh crops/close ups. the alternative would be the 85mm lens which I personally prefer (haven't tried Canon's 85's though) sometimes i find the 100mm + lenses to be too long for shooting in smaller places (like indoors)

[philgeusebroek]

Here is a fantastic review of three out of the four lenses most mentioned. This review addresses issues like sharpness, bokeh, perspective differences and working distance, all in-depth with examples:

 

http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/

 

I got the 100mm USM macro. There isn't much difference in background blur in portraiture over 100mm f/2.0, the lens focuses to 1:1, and it is likely nearly or just as sharp as the 135mm f2L at much less cost.

[corey_gardner1]

I have the 100 2.8 USM macro and it is excellent. Beautiful optically in all respects, even wide open which I use quite often (one of the reasons I bought it). I've taken many pictures of babies with it and the ability to go close and get tight shots of hands and feet was very useful. Comparing the macro to the 85 1.8 and the 100 2.0 (two other common choices) the macro is longer and heavier. I was a little surprised at the bulk when I got it. Not bad, but its twice the size and weight of the 85 1.8. Given the other lenses you have this probably means nothing. Just something to think about.