Best Portrait lens for Canon EOS 7D

[Dave Luttmann]

<blockquote>

<p ><a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/user?user_id=5748918">Frederick Stevens</a> <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Jan 26, 2010; 12:16 p.m.<br>

You may find that the 'right' lens is the 17-85mm Canon zoom with IS! It is a very sharp lens and quite cheap to buy and it gives you all the focal lengths you may require for portraiture. I cannot see why you would want anything else. Bounce flash wil take care of the light. I suppose if you wish to take pix in dim conditions with no flash then an f1.4 lens might help.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>It may be sharp, but towards the upper end, your f ratio goes upwards of f/5.6. If you want a decent separation of DOF and bokeh, f/5.6 isn't going to be as pleasing as f/1.4 or f1.8.</p>

[oofoto]

<p>For high <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/#" target="_blank">school</a> senior portraits shooting wide open at 1.8, 1.4 or 1.2 or 2.0 is not a suitable technique. You should be stopping down to a min of f/4 otherwise you may find yourself with some slightly OOF shots if you don't get you focus in the right place, ie the eyes. With a crop camera such as the 7D the DOF is slightly more forgiving than a full frame but I would still recommend a min of f/4 if you are getting paid to take these shots. The 85 f/1.2 would be my choice if you can afford the dollars and the weight although the f/1.8 would be just fine.</p>

[frederick_stevens2]

<p>Dave - I take your point BUT people do seem to be over dedicated to the gear and forget that it is the photo you want. I am sure Cartier Bresson was happy with kit that today would be considered inadequate but his photos have stood the test of time. I think photographers should start examining themselves a little more. I did some of my best work with a 90mm Leica lens in the 1950's. I wonder how that lens would be considered today? Terms like 'bokeh' are relatively new and I am not sure how significant it is. Digi pix are really a new world.</p>

<p>I think impoverished photographers should also know that lenses like the 17-85mm will get them excellent results - and it has IS which does help and you can buy an excellent used lens for around £200. I have tried to add some shots to my earlier messages to prove this but failed completely! I will add them when I find out how to do it!</p>

[chris_gampat]

<p>You really have to take into consideration the crop factor. In a high school you really have limited room. You should probably get a 50mm F1.4 and stop the lens down to F4 or beyond for maximum sharpness.<br>

In your camera, it will become an 80mm lens approximately.</p>

[josh_lutton]

<p>I find 85mm on a crop body is ideal for waist-up portraits outdoors. However, 50mm is also useful and I wouldn't turn down a 70-200mm, either.<br>

For me, a more interesting discussion is whether it is worth the premium for the f1.2 relative to the f1.8 lens. Given my experience with the 1.8 (fantastic), I would be hard pressed to justify the premium for the 1.2. I wouldn't hold it against anyone who has a specific need and therefore owned the 1.2, but my two cents is that if you find yourself asking if the 1.2 is "worth it" you would be very happy (and have more in your wallet) with the 1.8 until you can identify specific problems with the performance of the 1.8 that only the 1.2 can address.<br>

By the way I find I get more "wow" pictures with the 85mm 1.8 than any other lens I have, even though I use it relatively infrequently. It focuses extremely fast, it is small and light, and its background blur and bokeh are beautiful.<br>

Josh</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Since you have a crop sensor camera, you need absolutely nothing more than a 50mm f/1.4, which will give you an effective focal length of 80mm with a crop sensor camera.</p>

<p>If you were shooting a full-frame camera, then I would recommend the 85 f/1.2, but you are not, so save yourself a lot of cash (about $1500 worth). With plenty of light and a fast shutter, you can force the 50mm f/1.4 wide open and get quite a shallow depth of field.</p>

<p>It really does work, and it works very well--for a fraction of what you would be paying for the 85 1.2, which would be the wrong lens for the work you are contemplating with a crop sensor camera. An aperture of 1.2 is so shallow as to be unusable for the purposes you have described. It was designed for portraiture with full-frame cameras. This is not to say that you could not use it for portraits on a crop sensor camera, but what would be the point?</p>

<p>Now, if you were doing more artistic shots instead of mass production high school photos, I could see trying the 85 1.2, which would give you an effective focal length of 138mm on a crop sensor camera. That is rather limiting, however. The 70-200 2.8L IS could be useful and might turn out to be your real workhorse lens, as it is for so many of us.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[William Michael]

<p ><em><strong>"I will be shooting mostly high school senior portraits outdoors. . . I really want the ability to blur the background as much as possible. I hope this helps."</strong></em></p>

<p > </p>

<p >The blurred background (or looking at it the other way around “the DoF”) is resultant of <strong ><em >the shot</em></strong>, and the <strong ><em >aperture</em></strong> and camera <strong ><em >format </em></strong>used.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >If you shoot "waist up" with a 50mm lens and then use same framing "waist up" with an 85mm lens, the DoF will be the same, if you use the same aperture and camera. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >But the 85mm lens will place the camera farther away from the subject. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >For an half shot (waist up), vertical format, using an APS-C body (7D) and with an 85mm lens you will be working at about 10ft to 12 ft . . . and you will require about F/4 to get at about 6" DoF being about the average human's head thickness.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >In this regard I agree (as does the Physics) with Paul Marbs . . . </p>

<p > </p>

<p >I doubt you will be using anything much wider than F/4, in any circumstance for High School, half shot Portraits.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >So I think your working distance is the key to your question – personally would like to work an 85mm lens for half shots BUT if you ever need a Full Length shot then a 50mm Prime would be the better choice, such that you will be still to be close enough to converse with and arrange your Subjects – this point I don’t think has been mentioned.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >On a 7D I don’t think a 70 to 200 would be the most useful zoom lens <strong ><em >for this job</em></strong> – the 24 to 105 would be much more useful. </p>

<p > </p>

<p >WW <br>

FYI: <a href="../canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00VbKl">http://www.photo.net/canon-eos-digital-camera-forum/00VbKl</a></p>

 

[sean_lee4]

<p>If you can handle the slightly long length of the 85mm, get that</p>

<p>i have the 85mm f/1.8 and its amazing and i really would love to have 85mm f/1.2, Canon's largest aperture lens in their arsenal</p>

<p>the 70-200 would probably be a little long for a crop sensor body, particularly for portraits, and since ur gonna be shooting seniors, they are usually not super models and ideally you would be close to them to help them pose and such<br>

The 50mm is a bit more versatile tho. Although you wont get the crazy dof of the 85mm, which you most likely will not need (the 85 stopped down can focus on just the nose of a person, thats how shallow the dof is), the 50mm may be better<br>

but if you plan to upgrade to a full frame body in the future, the 85mm may be a better choice. the 50mm on a full frame doesnt look as good as an 85 does</p>

[gurbally_seth]

<p>Go with 85mm 1.8. I used it on my 5d, and it is a great portrait lens. 85mm 1.2 is too costly. Though I use 85mm 1.2L on 7D, I feel 85mm 1.8 is equally good in most cases.</p>

 

[sandy_labana]

<p>Any of the lenses mentioned will do the job but I will suggest that you also look at Canon EF 24-70mm f2.8L. It has all the focal length range you will need with 7D. Excellent sharpnes, very good bokeh, fast focusing. It is sharp from wide open (f2.8) but you can use smaller aperture if you like more depth of field. It is heavy and expensive but popular with wedding photographers. Sandy</p>

[marcsharp]

<p>I love the 50mm f/1.4 on my 40D, but in my opinion, it's a bit tight with the cropped sensor.  It's focal length is equivalent to 80mm on a full frame sensor or 35mm film camera.  I think 85mm will just be way to tight.  My suggestion? Rent them both from lensrentals.com, and see what you think. You might even consider the 35mm focal length lenses.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>After reading all of the above my 2 cents, 50mm or 35mm primes, zooms; Canon 24-70L or 17-55 ef-s f/2.8, Tamron 15-70 f/2.8 either VR or no VR,</p>

[William Michael]

<p>addendum:<br /><em></em><br /><em>"I will be shooting mostly high school senior portraits <strong>outdoors</strong>. . . I really want the ability to blur the background as much as possible. I hope this helps."</em></p>

<p>I meant to also say that . . .<br />A Prime lens, rather than a zoom lens would be better in this situation, because the Lens Hood of a Prime Lens, will be more efficient. . . </p>

<p>in this regard (potential lens Flare / Veiling Flare) a 50mm lens would be more useful than a 35mm lens, an dan 80mm lens more useful than a 50mm lens, but there would likely be more difference from 50 to 35 than 85 to 50.</p>

<p>This is another reason why Large Apertures, (and filters) would be avoided.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[william_owen1]

<p>For what its worth, I would pick the 85 1.8. I have a 7D and many of the lenses mentioned(17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8 is, 50 1.4, 85 1.8). They are all great lenses and will all do the job. However, I know when I want to take a potrait I always reach for the 85 1.8 first. My favorite potraits have almost all been shot with it. Yes I do occasionally wish it was a bit wider, but it really does make make beatiful pictures. I'm sure the 851.2 is even better, but its much more$$$ and I cannot imagine you could use the extra speed because the DOF would be miniscule. Good luck!</p>

[matthijs]

I'll keep it short and unsubtle.

 

Borrow a superzoom (like an 18-200), play with it until you find the focal length you prefer, buy the prime or zoom that fits.

 

Listen to your heart and not to other people's preferences. And listen to what are deemed good lenses with regard to color,

contrast, handling and build quality.

 

Think 35/2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8, 100/2.8 macro (L if you can spare the money), 135/2.8SF (or the L), 200/2.8L for primes should

do.

EF-s 15 or 17 to 85, EF-s 17-55/2.8, Tamron 17-50/2.8 or any 70-200L for zoom should do. .

 

Enjoy!

 

P.S. My preference is the 100 L macro because I like headshots. And tight ones at that.

[jeffrey_c1]

<p>Hmmm just noticed that you'll be shooting <strong><em>outdoors</em></strong>. In that case, if you don't have a 70-200mm 2.8L IS, I would start with this lens. Canon is going to come out with a Mark II version of this lens next month so I would wait for that. Many wedding photographers use this lens for outdoor portraits. It's pretty much their bread and butter lens. <br>

I would skip the 24-70mm 2.8L. From my research, most professionals don't carry a medium zoom. It's better to carry a wide zoom and a 50mm prime. You'll get much better performance with this setup.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"From my research, most professionals don't carry a medium zoom. It's better to carry a wide zoom and a 50mm prime."</strong></em><br>

<strong><em></em></strong><br>

That's an interesting comment.</p>

<p>WW</p>

[jack_nordine]

<p>For indoors, go with a 50mm or 60mm. For outdoors, go with the 100mm 2.0.</p>

[william_owen1]

<p>For what its worth, I would pick the 85 1.8. I have a 7D and many of the lenses mentioned(17-55 2.8, 70-200 2.8 is, 50 1.4, 85 1.8). They are all great lenses and will all do the job. However, I know when I want to take a potrait I always reach for the 85 1.8 first. My favorite potraits have almost all been shot with it. Yes I do occasionally wish it was a bit wider, but it really does make make beatiful pictures. I'm sure the 851.2 is even better, but its much more$$$ and I cannot imagine you could use the extra speed because the DOF would be miniscule. Good luck!</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>Outdoors, like has been proffered often above, the <strong>85 1.8 :: BEST LENS BANG </strong>for the buck. Super high IQ!</p>

<p>Otherwise for pro zoom quality, the 24-70 2.8L or the 70-200 2.8L. All lenses I employ and love (and will use them when my 7D arrives tomorrow I can hardly wait, on page 103 of the manual already).</p>

[aphrodite_sokrates]

<p>The 85mm 1.2 is a "dream come true" of a lens. Unfortunately very expensive.<br>

Comparing the 50mm 1.2 and 1.4 I would go with the 1.4. It is a very good lens with beautiful bokeh. According to user reviews the 1.2 doesn't deliver better images and 1.4 already delivers a very shallow DOF.</p>

[Steve Parisi]

<p>Everyone, thanks for your input and insight. After reading all the posts, I realized the best thing I could do was actually go the the camera store and try out the various recommendations. In case anyone is curious, I've decided on purchasing the 50 mm 1.4 AND the 85 mm 1.8. I realized the extra expense of the faster lenses I originally thought I needed wasn't warranted for the type of photography I'm pursuing. I think the key is to take pictures with what you have and not worry about what you don't.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><em><strong>"In case anyone is curious, I've decided on purchasing the 50 mm 1.4 AND the 85 mm 1.8."<br /></strong></em><br />Yes I am always curious about outcomes to these questions, thanks for letting us know.<br /><br />Did you buy the lens hoods for both of those lenses?<br /><br />WW</p>

[Steve Parisi]

<p>I'm getting the lenses next week. It sounds like the lens hood is highly recommended. To be honest with you, I'm a little nervous to check anymore posts ... I think I've changed my mind about five times now on what to get. Every lens has a pro and con.</p>

[William Michael]

<p><strong><em>"It sounds like the lens hood is highly recommended."</em></strong><br>

Yes, as previuosly:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>addendum:<br /><em></em><br /><em>"I will be shooting mostly high school senior portraits <strong>outdoors</strong>. . . I really want the ability to blur the background as much as possible. I hope this helps."</em><br>

I meant to also say that . . .<br />A Prime lens, rather than a zoom lens would be better in this situation,<em><strong> because the Lens Hood of a Prime Lens, will be more efficient. . . </strong></em><br>

in this regard (potential lens Flare / Veiling Flare) a 50mm lens would be more useful than a 35mm lens, an dan 80mm lens more useful than a 50mm lens, but there would likely be more difference from 50 to 35 than 85 to 50.<br>

This is another reason why Large Apertures, (and filters) would be avoided.</p>

</blockquote>