which portrait lens to purchase?

[diane_wenner]

<p>I have a Canon 50D. I would like to purchase a prime lens for portraits. Do you recommend 85mm 1.2 or the 85mm 1.8?</p>

 

[John Crowe]

<p>If budget is not an issue, the 85/1.2 L. Since you currently own a crop body, you can also add two more lenses to your list, the 50/1.4 and the 50/1.2 L. I prefer the choice of choosing the largest possible aperture for portraits when appropriate. </p>

[Stock-Photos]

<p>Diane, I bought a Canon 85MM 1.2 for use w/ my FF 5D. No regrets. I love the lens for portraits. Wide open, DOF can be paper thin, but the bokeh, <em>out of this world</em>! I believe the bokeh is what sells this lens. A few shots I made with that lens are in my <strong><a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=909607">portraits folder</a></strong> here on Photo.net.</p>

<p>On your small sensor 50D, 85MM will be a bit long for portraits, especially indoors. Consider a 50mm lens for a more appropriate focal length...unless,... you expect to go FF someday.</p>

<p> </p>

[jgalyon]

<p>Diane, I posted just before you...and should you read my comments you'll see that I've just switched over from Nikon to Canon, so I'm certainly no expert on "all things Canon", or for that matter...anything Canon. But...I had the same question you've posed and I spoke with several well qualified portrait photographers before making the decision. The last person I spoke with is a well established professional portrait photographer who only uses prime lenses. She began her business using the 85/1.8 and is so satisified with it that she's never spent the extra bucks for the far more expensive 1.2...although she said she'll eventually add it to her bag. She wasn't at all dismissive of the fact that there is indeed a difference in the two...but was adamant about the fact that unless "money is no issue"...the f/1.8 will be more than adequate for all but the most discriminating photographers. In my case, I was starting completely over...so with the expense of a new body, and three new lenses (not to mention batteries, CF cards, a new bag, etc., etc.)..the extra thousand dollars just didn't fit my budget. So my information/advise is second hand...but I assure you it came from several proven sources who make their living every day with their equipment. Good luck on your decision!</p>

<p>p.s. - just realized that you said you're using a crop body. It sounds like J. Harrington offered some good advice, all things considered.</p>

[Brad_]

Diane, you didn't say what *kind* of portraits you want to take. So therefore it's impossible to recommend

a lens.<P>

 

For me, one who shoots a lot of <a href=

"http://www.citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/TL%20Faces%202011/">portraits of strangers</a> I meet on the street,

an 85mm lens on a crop-body camera like yours would be out of the question, being much too long. A

huge component of great portraiture is subject engagement. An 85mm lens on your camera would mean

you'd be shooting from a long distance, with little subject engagement.

[JDMvW]

<p>Traditionally, 85mm is not a "portrait' lens length on an APS-C sensor (as J. H has said).<br>

People did take portraits with 135mm lenses on "full-frame" cameras, and indeed Canon makes a 135mm lens with "soft focus" for just that sort of use.</p>

<p>All the same, you ought to at least look at the "traditional" portrait focal lengths first, which on a smaller sensor would be a 40-60mm lens.<br>

Cheap: 50mm f/1.8,<br>

Regular: 50mm f/1.4,<br>

Extra Crispy: 50mm f/1.2</p>

<p>The 60mm macro is another possibility.</p>

[jeff_kershaw1]

<p>Diane, <br>

I have a full frame camera (1DsMKIII) and simply adore my 85 1.2. If you are choosing between the two lenses you mentioned AND don't mind the cost, the 1.2 is miles ahead of the 1.8, it is my favorite lens. You said prime lens, but I will throw this into the mix as well. I have a 70-200 2.8 IS that I sometimes use for portraits as well. If you have one or can borrow one, you might give that a shot, I think that you will be pleasantly surprised and may end up with a dual purpose lens. </p>

<p>Jeff</p><div></div>

[kazwiltshire]

<p>HI I have a 50D, 85mm for Portraits is too long. I have a 50mm 1.4 and love it! It produces super sharp images and you wont be dissapointed. I also have a 60mm which is also great but where i needed to use it it was a little too long, having said that its great at portraits and macro so might be an option for you.</p>

[matthijs]

<p>Whether 85 is too long is entirely up to you.</p>

<p>I'd vote for borrowing or renting the mentioned primes and/or playing with a zoom to find out which focal length you prefer before choosing a prime.</p>

<p>I love tight headshots and think 200mm on a 50D (which I own and use) is just dandy.</p>

<p>But on occasion I want to shoot a full body shot with my 5D and use a 28mm (that would be 17mm on a 50D).</p>

<p>In short, your intended use should decide focal length, not what other people say you should use.</p>

<p>Of the two lenses you mentioned both are great. It depends on whether you like the contrast/color of one over the other and whether you need F1.2. The 1.8 is great (and small and faster focussing) and the 1.2 is legendary but the best choice for every use.</p>

<p>Hope this helps, Matthijs.</p>

[matthijs]

<p><a href="http://pixel-peeper.com/adv/?lens=26&camera=1052&perpage=30&focal_min=none&focal_max=none&aperture_min=none&aperture_max=none&iso_min=none&iso_max=none&exp_min=none&exp_max=none&res=3">85 on a 50D</a>.</p>

<p>Just to show what it can do.</p>

[bueh]

<p>Hard to go wrong with the <a href="../photodb/folder?folder_id=783085"><strong>50mm</strong></a> prime. Also check out Sigma's latest offerings (the 50mm and 85mm f/1.4 lenses).</p>

[Brad_]

Still don't understand why people are making recommendations without knowing what kind of portraits

(environmental, headshot, etc.) Diane is wanting to make, or how close she wants to engage...

[bueh]

<p>Brad, if she already narrowed down her desired focal length to short/medium tele, it stands to reason to recommend similar stuff. I myself shoot portraits from 20mm to 200mm, but a decent "classic" portrait lens like a ~85mm can't hurt to have.</p>

[Marcus Ian]

<p>I find myself wanting to recommend a 50/1.4 (sigma) or 50/1.2. But on the 50d, either is going to be limited to an eff. ~85mm. <br>

IMO, the OP would be served well by going FF w/ a 5D, and a 50/1.4 + an 85/1.8. Both will give marvelous portraiture capability, and all 3 can be had for the cost of a 50/1.2 or 85/1.2. (plus, MUCH more capable AF speed!) </p>

<p>As brad pointed out, we don't know the nature of the portraiture the OP is doing. an 85/1.2 or 50/1.2 is next to useless for candid portraiture, or lifestyle type portraiture, as their AF is positively glacial. The chances of getting keepers from either if the subject is moving virtually at all is next to zero. especially when shooting WO.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Brad, if she already narrowed down her desired focal length to short/medium tele, it stands to reason to recommend

similar stuff. I myself shoot portraits from 20mm to 200mm, but a decent "classic" portrait lens like a ~85mm can't hurt to

have.

 

She said she wanted to buy a prime lens for portraits, which sounds vague. I strongly disagree that an 85mm lens on a crop

body camera (equiv 136mm) is a "classic" portrait lens. I wouldn't know what to do with such a lens. Perhaps I have a

problem?

 

Also, I don't think a purchase decision should be based on a "can't hurt to have." Rather, it should be based on need and

expectation. Especially when the discussion gets to very expensive wide aperture lenses, such as the 85mm/1.2 at $2K+.

[scgalloways]

<p>I bought the Canon 85mm f1.8 for my 30d, 40d and t2i and i will say this it gives amazing bokeh on a crop body, however unless all you plan on doing is some very tight head shots from far away from your subject you'll quickly find the focal length too long. I sold mine. I even feel a 50mm f1.8 "nifty fifty" can be too long. I think a good range on a Canon crop which is 1.6x is 28-35mm. I ended up buying the Sigma 28mm f1.8 macro for a few reasons: 1) due to the macro feature I can get close to my subject and auto focus works perfect! 2) it's a good range to use for portraits or step back a tad and you can get in a family all in the one lens! 3) it's f1.8 so pretty good in less than ideal lighting and 4) the price is good at around $450.00 4) build quality is nice, it's not light, but it's also not a tank, but it feels solid when you're using it. </p>

[bueh]

<blockquote>

<p>Also, I don't think a purchase decision should be based on a "can't hurt to have.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hey, it's not our money! And I do believe that a talented photographer like you will find use for a 85mm lens on APS-C.</p>

<p>However, I do agree that for me it would be not my first choice for the kind of portraits I shoot -- although a "longish" lens with the capability to strongly blur the background suits many subjects (or client's expectations). As long as we don't get better feedback from the OP we can just say, "Yes, we both recommend the f/1.2 and f/1.8 as portrait lenses [for a certain kind of portraiture or working distance], if that's what you want. You can't go wrong with either 85mm."</p>

[stamos]

<p>There is a very big difference in price and the 85 f1.8 is what I would recomend. You can use it in street photography (street portraits) as it does not attract a lot of attention.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> You can use it in street photography (street portraits) as it does not attract a lot of attention.

 

Oh man..., where do I start? I'll bite my tongue and save that for another thread...

[pete_ferling]

<p>Think in terms of working distance, how you want to compress the subject and separate the background. Even on a crop sensor, if I had an extra ten feet, I would swap out my 50 f1.4 for a 135 f2L, (or even my favorite, a 60 year old 135mm f4 Zeiss Triotar). The widest aperture is not the sole solution.</p>

[philip_wilson]

This is a tough decision and it really depends on what you are trying to do. I find that the considerations are

sharpness, Bokah, DOF and price. It also depends on the body as full frame gives a shallower DOF. I mainly shoot

portraits on full frame (or medium format) and for many years the old FD 85mm F1.2 was my favorite 35mm format

lens. When I switched to EOS I went to but the EF85 F1.2 mark I but decided not too as the samples I tested had real

AF problems and did not produce the image quality of the FD lenses (I sill own and use two of the FD lenses). Thus I

bought the F1.8 and was very impressed by it's performance given it's low price. When the EF85mm F1.2 MkII was

released I looked again and also tested the Zeiss. I came very close to buying the new lens but in the end I still felt it

lacked the magic of the older FD lens. Rather a long story but my message is that if you want the best then get the

F1.2. However, the F1.8 is a great lens for the money and you may want to consider spending the remaining money

going full frame. I have a 7D but find that I almost always shoot full frame for portraits. I am hoping Canon does an

85 F1.2 MkIII

[ncarnick]

<p>Hi Diane,<br>

I have the 85 f1.2 (version i). Best lens I have in my kit by far. However, it is full of negatives as well. (Heavy, slow focus (sort of...certainly horrible for sports or things where your focusing distance may vary...eg wedding candids), very expensive, doesn't focus with the camera off, and the rear element being flush with the mount makes it a little scary to change). <br>

The plus side of the equation is if taking head shots this is probably Canon's best lens. The bokeh at 1.2 is amazing on this thing. <br>

IMO you are comparing Canon's best non-sports specialty lens with Canon's best value for the $ lens (in the case of the 85 1.8). The 1.8 is very sharp, light, well priced, small, and really makes for a perfect travel prime. It also might work well for a sideline sports lens in sports where reach isn't a huge issue.<br>

In short, I don't think you can go wrong with either as long as you know what you will be shooting. The 1.8 will work extremely well for portraits but if that is your bread and butter you probably need to buy the 1.2. The 1.2 will not work if you need quick focusing of a target that moves and it won't get put in the pack as often for work outside of the studio.<br>

So for 19 out of 20 photographers I would recommend against them getting my favorite Canon lens and push them towards the 85 f 1.8. (Don't know the Sigma 1.4 or Zeiss 1.4 offerings to comment other than <a href="http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx">http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Zeiss-85mm-f-1.4-ZE-Planar-Lens-Review.aspx</a> makes me think the Zeiss is not the way to go with respect to their 85mm.)</p>