Canon portrait lenses - 24-105 or 85 1.8 and 100 2.8?

[hjoseph7]

<p>The 70-200 f2.8 is a great lens for portaits/sports/macro/landscape you name it is one of my favorite Canon lenses, if not my favorite. The problem I have with it when it comes to portraits is that it's, very large, very heavy and intimidating. On a cropped camera the minimum focal length of 70mm is actually 110mm. Sitting on my living room couch, with a cropped camera, I can take a 3/4 length portrait from 8 feet away with a 50mm lens, with plenty of room for cropping, which is about perfect for me. With the 70-200mm, I would have to be 15-20 feet away, or be relegated to just taking head-shots.</p>

<p>For Environmental portraits which are very popular these days, a 35mm is perfectly acceptable and will usually show allot of background if that is your purpose, but once again you have to be careful where you place the camera and lens. If your camera position is too high or too low with this type of lens, be prepared for some unusual and unfortunate allterations. These usually dont show up in the play-back either.<br>

For example, recently I was asked to take an environmental portrait of a subject and I only had my 10-22mm lens on me that day. I cranked up the zoom to 35mm(1.6X crop factor), because I didn't want any perspective distortion problems. The subject was sitting down on a lounge chair about 8 feet away and my 35mm lens would capture the glorious tropics in the background. I took several shots, at eye level which I had to kneel down, standing up, crounching down, to the side etc.<br>

<br />When I downloaded the images to my computer, the pictures that I took kneeling down(at eye level), emphasized the legs and feet of the subject to the point where it look like she was wearing a size 12 shoe. The legs and feet were slightly disproportionate to the rest of the body. The pictures I took standing up sort of gave the images that "Tunnel look" as if I was looking down at my subject from a greater height. The images I took when I was slightly crouching down, came out the best. Everything was pretty much proportionate to every thing else.<br>

<br />I repeated this with another subject who was a little overweight. The picture that I took kneeling down made the subject legs look as if she had elephantitisand and also wound up in the round file.<br>

<br />I'm not saying that you can't use different focal lenses for portraits, but if I remember correctly the OP asked what is a good "portrait lens".</p>

[William Michael]

<p>The OP asked for <em><strong>any feedback and suggestions </strong></em>to take his <em><strong>shooting to a higher level, especially in portraiture.</strong></em><br>

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

WW</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p><em>I don't "bother to read every post" in threads with dozens of post, and somehow I don't think I'm alone in this approach.</em></p>

<p>That's disrespectful towards the participants of the discussion and reduces the future value of the thread (since you force a diversion into something that was clear already, confounding the course of the discussion). When participating in a discussion you are supposed to pay attention.</p>

[William Michael]

<p>:)</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Don, I'm with Jeff on this one, that the focal length of the lens is less important than the intended outcome. Environmental portraiture usually implies wider angles of capture, whereas fashion/make-up ad shots typically involve a frame-filling capture. More often than not, it will be achieved with a medium to long telephoto FL.</p>

<p>I really think that you are more likely to gain mileage with a refinement of technique and a realisation that FL will differ with intended outcome. No one lens will solve all your portaiture qualms... Case in point: my 50/1.8 was my go-to portrait lens for a long time. But since I acquired my Tamron 28-75/2.8, that has become my most-used portrait lens, partly due to its sheer versatility. However, for environmental portraiture, I almost invariably use my 17-40L.</p><div></div>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Don,<br /> For portraits, how important is blurring the background to you? It can be with the 24-105, but it can be done "better" with the other two lenses you mention, both of which are a bit tight for portraits on a cropped sensor camera.</p>

<p>I own a 24-105 and it is my most used lens but the last one I'd chose for portraits. F4 (wide open on the 24-105) does not give good bokeh IMO.</p>

<p>I love my <strong><a href="../photo/11948713&size=lg">85 1.2 for portraits</a> </strong>on my 5D.</p>

[steve_wagner1]

<blockquote>

<p>Would the [85] 1.8 have that kind of sharpness?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>the 85 is insanely sharp. For head and shoulders shots it is an ideal lens, at least on full frame bodies<strong><br /></strong></p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Illka wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"That's disrespectful towards the participants of the discussion and reduces the future value of the thread (since you force a diversion into something that was clear already, confounding the course of the discussion). When participating in a discussion you are supposed to pay attention."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>OK, mom... ;-)</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>G Dan - you really have been a naughty boy haven't you? Woe to anyone else who fails to read the whole discussion in minute detail - clearly we have all been warned.</p>

[orly_andico]

<p>A bit off-topic. I understand that DXO Optics Pro can fix all these elongation and big feet problems. At $300 it's not cheap as software goes, but definitely cheap as lenses go!</p>

<p>Supposedly the DXO Labs folks have profiled all the common lenses and can apply conditional sharpening to fix up those pesky un-sharp corners as well, as well as fix vignetting and CA issues. Wouldn't arguably Optics Pro with a run-of-the-mill lens give "almost" L lens capabilities? (of course the same software with an L lens would give... "more than" L lens performance)</p>

[ncarnick]

<p>Two comments:<br>

1) To those who provided sample shots (which I did not :( ) Thanks for making photo.net useful. Hopefully this helped the poster as well.<br>

2) There is some discussion on what body the poster will be using this with. While I agree this matters substantially, I do want to caution that if you someday wish to move to FF you may wish to keep that in mind with your purchase. For example, while I still like my 17-40, it does not find its way to my camera (5Dii) nearly as much as it did when I had a 1dii. The reason is I don't shoot that wide that often and the 24-40 range is covered fine in my 24-105 but with IS.<br>

And also of note, while I like FF, the 5Dii has certainly pointed out limitation of some of my old lenses at their edges. (This will probably be a far worse problem with the 5Diii if rumors of the resolution are correct). In any event, I don't want to push you to FF but do want to warn you that if you are planning to make the move there at some point I advise against buying lenses which you won't use. </p>