Help with a lens for a canon 50d

[kazwiltshire]

<p>Hi I'm new to this forum and really quite new to my 50 D, I'm fine at the composition etc but technically my knowledge is rubbish. i'm looking to do some portraits indoors and wonder what the best lens would be. I dont have any studio equipment just a 17-85EFS...is this good for the job?<br>

Cheers <br>

Karen</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>Karen,<br /> Your lens is fine in terms of the focal lengths it covers, where you might want to change is when you want to get a soft background and also where you have lower light, both are better using wider apertures (f1.8, f2 etc). There are a couple of lenses that you might want to look at. The Canon 50mm f1.8 which is very good on a crop camera like yours and the 85mm f1.8 which will get you a tighter shot. The 50mm is very cheap but one of the best lenses out there for what you want. The 85mm is more expensive but if you ever go to full frame will stay with you for portrait work, it is also a very good "street" lens among other uses. Both give good "bokeh" which is basically the way the background is softened, these give a good pleasing effect, (there is plenty on the net to explain this in more depth). Try to find a dealer who will let you try these lenses and see how you get on with them.</p>

[ed_v.]

I agree with Tony above, but just wanted to add if you'd like to consider a zoom instead you could look at the Tamron 28-75 (if you're on a budget) or the Canon 24-70 (if not). Both are constant f/2.8. I just picked up the Tamron used and it's an excellent lens for the money and works very well as a portrait lens on an APS-C camera (I have a 40D).

[chrisjb]

<p>To me the 17 85 is roo slow at 50~70mm for portraits, it requires good lighting indoors and leaves no room for blurring a busy background. I`d suggest a 50mm 1.8 if budget is tight, at f2~3.5 the lens is quite reasonable and just one light and brolly would do well...</p>

[paddler4]

<p>I agree with Tony about the nifty 50 but not the 85. The 85 is long on a 50D for candid indoor use assuming you are in people's houses, not some concert hall, and since you are new to your 50D (a very nice camera), I'm guessing that you are going to ditch it for a full-frame camera that costs far more any time soon. I agree with Ed about the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. It's definitely worth considering. That's what I use for indoor shots. It cost about 1/3 as much as the corresponding Canon lens and is optically very good. Some people lenses that are faster yet to get narrower depth of field, but I find that with candid shots of people who are not posing, I often go narrower--say, f/4.5--to get enough in focus. also, I shoot most indoor stuff with flash, so I don't need the extra light. The nifty 50 costs only about 1/4 as much as the Tamron, weights almost nothing, and on a 50D is very nearly the traditional portrait length, so that might be an attractive place to start.</p>

[buffdr_rasouliyan]

<p>I too think the 85 length is too long on your camera for indoor shots. I have zero experience with 3rd party lens ans since you didn't mention your budget, I would recommend the 17-55 2.5 IS as the go to lens for all indoor shots on the crop bodies. Final answer is 17-55 2.8 IS. v/r Buffdr </p>

[gertle]

<p>What Tony said... The lens you have covers the ranges traditionally used in protraiture, and the IS feature of the 17-85 will compensate to some degree for not having an external light source. I recommend that you examine the EXIF data of portraits taken with the lens you have now to find the focal length you most often work in.<br />Then find a prime lens, with a wider aperture, that is close to what you are looking for. By wider aperture I mean something like f2, f1.8 or f1.4, as Tony suggested. The good news is that most of these lenses are not any where near as expensive as the 17-85.<br>

(edit)...A lot of answers between the time I started writing my response so let me calrify by saying that my response is biased toward the OP's question regarding protraits rather than casual photos. In that respect the 50 and 85 are valid suggestions.</p>

[naturetrek]

<p>I have both the Canon 17-85mm and Tamron 28-75mm. The Tamron lens is superior in every way (except noisy AF), but it's lacking IS and 28mm is a bit long. I agree with Buffdr about the Canon 17-55mm 2.8is, but another one to consider is the Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 if money is an issue.</p>

<p>Strictly for portraiture, the 50mm F1.8 is the best bang for the buck.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>As others have pointed out, the focal lengths covered by your lens are fine for portraits. The immediate solution to whatever is keeping your photographs from turning out the way you hope is probably not more equipment. First focus on learning the camera/lens and the techniques of creating the sorts of images you are after. Once you get quite good at those aspects this you'll figure out if you need different equipment and what it might be.</p>

<p>By the way, as a real beginner at this, you do not need to go out and get any specialized lenses - no primes, no large aperture zooms, no high end multi-light system, etc. All of that may come later.</p>

[prasad_apte]

<p>I was there only 18-55 on my 400D because i was toatally out of budget, that's why I discover that this lens is quite enough to learn the camera. So if you have money just spend it in roaming around for shooting. (this is already covered by G Dan Mitchell sir but would like to say what i experienced)<br>

best of luch with your 50D, it's a very good camera, i am also proud owner of 50D :)</p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>I agree with the Canon 50MM 1.8 recommendation. It will blur the background nicely if used at wide apertures.</p>

<p>Here's a shot from my <a href="../photo/10598118&size=lg">Canon 85MM 1.2 on a 5D.</a></p>

[arie_vandervelden1]

<p>Yes the 17-85 is just fine to get started. Are you planning to do posed photography or candid family shooting? Do you have a hotshoe flash?</p>