Portrait Lens

[erin_k1]

<p>My photography skills are pretty amateur, so I'm looking for opinions on the best general portrait lens. I understand that this could vary based on photographer, vision, location, etc... <br>

If you were asked to take some portraits and could only bring one lens, what would it be?</p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Canon EF 85/1.8 on a full-frame body. If you have a crop body, then Sigma 50/1.4.</p>

[tolik_p.]

I've used the canon 85 1.2L and thought it was amazing (and it still is). Then my friend bought the sigma 85 1.4 and I

could not tell the canon and sigma apart! They are like over $1000 apart in price and quality is the same.

 

So now I would go with the sigma 85 1.4 (on a full frame body)

[scott_ferris]

<p>As always, ask a million people and you will get a million answers. I am very lucky and can pretty much buy what I want with regards bodies and lenses, I use the Canon 50mm f1.4 for portraits and the 100mm f2.8 L Macro for headshots on a full frame camera.</p>

<p>If you are on a budget get the $100 ish Canon 50mm f1.8, for the money you can't go wrong and you will learn lots. I shot with one for three years when I first started.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>I recommend looking at portraits you like and asking people how they took them. A bunch of random responses from people who don't even have posted portraits is unlikely to give you any useful information.</p>

<p> </p>

[hocus_focus]

<p>135/2 for FF</p>

<p>85/1.8 for CC</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>Scott +1. Canon's 50mm f/1.8 is a nifty little lens whose performance is not to be scoffed at. At around 100 USD, it's a good way to get your feet wet in portraiture before you figure out what you want in a portrait and in your lens(es). Remember, ANY lens can be used to make a portrait, so as Jeff alluded to, it depends on what your intended end goal is. Oh, for the record, I bought a 50 1.8 four years ago and it still sees action on my 5D2.</p>

[matthijs]

When using flash: 70-200/4L IS

 

Natural light: 100/2.8L IS macro

 

Both on full frame.

 

Of my kids in a playground the 70-200 on a good crop.

[JDMvW]

<p>The <em>traditional</em> "fool-frame" (aka 35mm-sensor, FX) 'portrait lens' range (for head and shoulder shots, especially) is in the 75mm to 105mm range. One of the relative bargains in that range - one of high optical quality - is the EF 85mm f/1.8. The EF 85mm f/1.2 is a dream if you can afford it and care to spend the money, .</p>

<p>For an APS-C (DX, "crop") camera the equivalent -- and one of the bargains of all EF lenses -- is the plastic fantastic, the EF 50mm f/1.8. Buy two if you wish and you'll still be ahead of the cost of most other lenses ;). The EF 50mm f/1.4 is great and has nicer out-of-focus (bokeh) highlights than the f/1.8, and the EF 50mm f/1.2 is another dream.</p>

<p>I personally use one of the best short telephotos ever made on my 35mm-sensor camera -- the Nikkor-P 105mm f/2.5. It's totally manual on a Canon with an adapter, but it's a legendary lens and the non-AI versions sell for amazingly low prices. There are some other older 105mm lenses that copied the Nikkor like the Spiratone 105mm f/2.5 (with an adapter). An all-time classic, but very pricey, is the Carl Zeiss Jena Biotar 75mm f/1.5- available in many mounts that can be adapted to a Canon EOS body.<br>

Full manual is not a disadvantage really for posed portraits. A fully automatic lens is obviously easier to use in a more active setting.</p>

<p>Of course, many people like longer or shorter lenses for their particular style of portraiture, so there's no wrong lens so much as there are just some very weird people shooting portraits with a fisheye or whatever. ;)</p>

[philip_wilson]

Long and subjective topic. For an APS-C body the typical focal range is 50-85mm. In this range you essentially get

what you pay for. The best bargain is probably the Canon 50mm F1.8 for about $100. For about $400 you can get the

Canon 50 F1.4, Sigma 50F1.4 or Canon 85 F1.8 they are all great lenses and while II have not used the Siigma I own

the other two. I believe the Canon 85 F1.8 has the best image quality. If you want to be adventurous an old manual

focus lens on an adaptor can produce greeatt results but will be a lot less convenient. I would suggest the Contax

50mm F1.7 which will cost about $300 with an adaptor. I am assuming that you do not use a full frame or APS-H

body

[peter_j2]

<p>Canon EOS 5D or Canon EOS 1Ds Mark II with a Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM. Sharp centre and creamy bokeh.</p>

<p>Note: Some brides think there is something wrong with the lens/camera when I shoot their headshot focused on their closest eyeball at f/1.2. I cannot please them all.</p>

[mark_pierlot]

<blockquote>

<p>If you were asked to take some portraits and could only bring one lens, what would it be?<br /><br /></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hands down, my EF 85/1.2 L II. I've never used an autofocus lens that touches it for portraiture, but I've used only full frame bodies for that application. On a crop body, I'd likely use either my 50/1.4 or 35/1.4 L, both outstanding lenses in their own right.</p>

<p>For outdoor portraiture, though, it's a different story. Then, it would be either the EF 135/2 or the 70-200/4 L IS.</p>

[richard_duncombe]

<p>135 f/2 L</p>

<p>Its a wand of a lens on a 5D</p><div></div>

[erin_k1]

<p>What are your thoughts on the 85mm 1.2? I got this lens last December, and haven't used it yet for portraits. I'm not used to the distance difference between that and my kit lens.<br>

Perhaps I'm just used to standing too close to people for portraits? I have to backup quite a bit to do family shots with this one. </p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>If you need to ask it is not the lens for you just yet. It is very specialised, very expensive and very difficult to truly use in a way that the 85 f1.8 couldn't do better.</p>

[erin_k1]

<p>So I should probably stick with using my 18-55mm f/3.5 for my shoot tomorrow?</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p>I have to backup quite a bit to do family shots with this one.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The 85/1.2L provides a <strong>28° 30'</strong> angle of view. You should see improvements with a 50/1.2L or 35/1.4L (providing<strong> 46°</strong> and <strong>63°</strong> angle of views respectively on a 35mm format). Can you <em>picture</em> the differences?</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>If those are the two lenses you have then use them both, play, have fun, look at your screen after shooting ten images. Work the situation and enjoy yourself, one of the best things about digital is the instant feedback and cheap per frame costs of it. The 1.2 is very difficult to use wide open (which is really what it was built for) but to get some beautiful images and make it easier for yourself stop down to f2-2.8 your hit rate for accurate focus will be much better. Also don't frame the image too tight, take an extra step back and allow for cropping. But most of all, have some fun.</p>

[esfishdoc]

<p>A couple of things to consider. A very good portrait photographer given a CC camera and a kit lens... with proper lights and background is going to make better portraits than the inexperienced with the best camera and lens.<br>

That said... it is nice to have good tools to grow into and make us realize how much we have to learn. For me my 24-70 2.8 at 70mm is great on my 7D. The 100mm end of my 100-400 does a very nice job. I've used an 85 1.2 and at 1.2 it is a challenge. I really like the 70-200 2.8 IS and it is one of those lenses that can cover a lot of ground and a big range of light from natural to strobes.</p>

<p>The best portrait lens is the one you have and use and learn about light. For me I have no problems getting sharp usable images. I have no problems with distances and zooms and subjects. The light makes or breaks me every time. <br>

Here is one I did with the 7D and 24-70 and one light.<img src="../photo/13557332" alt="" /></p><div></div>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>I've used an 85 1.2 and at 1.2 it is a challenge.</blockquote>

<p> F/1.2 provides a few inches of depth of field making handheld shooting without a tripod (as you say) a challenge. But, it can be done. Here is one taken with the Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM set at f/1.6. An animal being an animal, would not stay still long enough for a sharp image. Therefore, f/1.6 provided a few extra inches of depth of field to maintain a degree of sharpness.</p><div></div>