The Three Kings of Canon (Portrait Prime Lenses)

[Robin Smith]

<p>As far as I am concerned the 85mm/1.2 is a prestige optic which is ridiculouly overpriced. But it has plenty of "fetish-value" so people pay for it. It's a great lens, of course, but you really do get the same thing from f1.8 onwards at a quarter the price with the 85/1.8. The 135/2L, in contrast, is much better value and the Canon rivals (100/2, 100 macros) are either about the same price or about half the price (if I remember correctly) so the relative value of the L is much superior. This is why I do not consider the 85/1.2 a good return. This is just my opinion of course!</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Many times I have thought of an 85L but I too cannot justify the cost but I think if you shoot serious portraits the 85L is a dream lens. I have seen some pretty amazing stuff done with it but for me I just put my 50L on my 60D and walla, I have the poorer mans version. Ok maybe not, :-} but I enjoy shooting at 50 much more.</p>

<p>On a serious note I think the 35/85/135 combo is the most common prime setup for portraits but I know many who use 70-200 2.8, 24-70, 100 macro or a 50 so it really just depends on the person behind the camera. </p>

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>Many times I have thought of an 85L but I too cannot justify the cost but I think if you shoot serious portraits the 85L is a dream lens. I have seen some pretty amazing stuff done with it but for me I just put my 50L on my 60D and walla, I have the poorer mans version. Ok maybe not, :-} but I enjoy shooting at 50 much more.<br>

On a serious note I think the 35/85/135 combo is the most common prime setup for portraits but I know many who use 70-200 2.8, 24-70, 100 macro or a 50 so it really just depends on the person behind the camera.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tommy this is my point exactly about the Canon EF 50L/1.2. Your 50L/1.2 can be a fine portrait lens. Here is a example of a beautiful fashion photo shot with the Canon EF 50L/1.2 by photographer Aron Mifsud Bonnici who was kind enough to contribute his photo for this discussion. His photo below was shot @ f1.6! Like you said it just depends on the photographer who the "<strong>Third King of Canon lenses</strong>" is... IMO its the Canon EF 50L/1.2!</p>

<p>Photo courtesy and permission © Aron Mifsud Bonnici. Canon 5DMKII 50L/1.2 lens <br>

</p>

<p> <a title="Nostalgia paints a smile on the stony face of the past by blurredfoto, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/blurredfoto/3980140817/"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2550/3980140817_3a7ed74914_b.jpg" alt="Nostalgia paints a smile on the stony face of the past" width="683" height="1024" /></a></p>

[tdigi]

<p>Rob thats a great shot. I use my 50 all the time for portraits/people more often on my 5D2 but it does get a little use on my 60D and really that is what makes it hard to justify an 85L.</p>

<p>As to the 3 kings, I find these terms like holy trinity, 3 kings etc to be like a silly marketing ploy. I never tried an 85L but I did have the 50 1.4 and now 50L and there is a difference but its not drastic but when someone with a high skill level uses these lenses the results can be pretty spectacular.</p>

<p>I love to shoot with 50 and I upgraded the 50L from the 1.4 for the USM, solid build and the 1.2. I realized most every photo I have printed this year has been taken with the 50L. Coincidence? I doubt it, its just an amazing lens IMO.</p>

<p>I wanted a wider prime and really there is nothing out there besides Canon L's so I went with a 24L II and I love to shoot macro and I wanted IS so I got the 100. Thats how I got my holy 3 kings bla bla of lenses. My main focus is not always portraits but they are 3 lenses I really love to shoot with.</p>

<p>The 1 lens that would be hard to justify is 85L since the 1.8 has USM and is better in some ways but again if you love to shoot at 85 the L is clearly capable of better results but like the 50 its not that drastic. The 135 is also excellent but for me hard to justify since I have the 100.</p>

<p>This is just a quick snap with the 50L.</p><div></div>

[jeffrey_c1]

<p>Rob,<br>

The 35L is a f/1.4 and not an f/2.0. It's an excellant quality lens that could be used for many purposed. You should check out this forum to see what the different lenses can do... <a href="http://photography-on-the.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=107">POTN</a> You will be able to see some excellant examples of what others have shot with different Canon lenses.</p>

<p>Different lenses have a sweet spot. The 50mm works great in the picture you posted above. Who knows, maybe there wasn't enough room for a longer lens. Or maybe the intent of the shooter was to frame only a certain amount of the background. I personally think that a lens selection has a lot to do with the photographer's intent on how he wants to convey the scene. </p>

<p>I personally like using a 50mm lens on a FF. It's a general focal length that works well in many situations. Maybe that is why it is a normal lens on a FF body. <br>

<br>

Another thing to note is that when using a longer lens, you create a bit more space between you and the subject. This can help your subjects feel a bit more relaxed since you're not shooting right in their face. This is probably the reason why I prefer an 85mm or a 135mm for portraits. However, for a full body environmental portrait, I usually reach for my 35mm.</p>

<p>And lastly, whether you shoot with a wide angle lens or a telephoto lens from the same distance, the subject will theorectically look identical. The perspective of the shot depends strickly on the distance you're shooting from. So let's say that you're using a 35mm and an 85mm to shoot your subject from 10 feet away, your subject should look exactly same. one will not look slimmer than the other. With the 35mm lens, your subject will look smaller compared to the shot using an 85mm lens. However, if you move in closer with the 35mm lens to get the same framing of the subject as an 85mm lens, the perspective of the scene would change and your subject will not look as slim. That is why a 35mm is an excellent full body portrait lens.</p>

<p> </p>

[rob_h5]

<p>Jeffrey thanks for correction its 35L/1.4. I am aware of the different perspective from different lenses. But I do like to shoot up close so I do see the difference which is why I don't dont use 35mm lens or wider for up close headshots. 50mm and up is just the perfect focal length for me.</p>

<p>Tommy great portrait. I really want to shoot with th 50L/1.2 now!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>OK, this has all been entertaining, but here's the thing about fast, expensive glass: It's very good at large apertures, but not as much so elsewhere. If I were doing one of those big-blur-background portraits, the 85/1.2L would be an excellent choice. It would also be a good choice in poorly lit environments where I might be shooting no slower than f/4. However, if there's plenty of light, and if what I really prefer is a smaller aperture (e.g. for a landscape scene where I want plenty of depth of field), the exotic f/1.2L glass doesn't do me much good. Moreover, the slower/cheaper optics actually do better. </p>

<p>By way of illustration, consider the 50/1.2L, the 50/1.4, and the "plastic fantastic" 50/1.8II, which costs about $100. At f/1.2, there's only one player. At f/1.4, the 1.2L's quality is superior to the much cheaper 1.4 lens. At f/2, we have a new competitor, and although it's not nearly as good as the 1.2L, it's comparable to the 1.4. Same story for f/2.8, where the cheaper 1.4 is getting a bit closer to the 1.2L. Now at f/4 and f/5.6, they're all starting to look very similar. But stop down to f/8 or f/11, and the plastic little f/1.8 is the superior lens, with the f/1.4 a close second and the f/1.2L a close third. I've just been talking about sharpness. If you look at other factors like CA, the 1.8 "owns" the other two lenses. Of course it's still a poorly constructed thing, but I'm talking optics. It also has horrible bokeh, but at f/8, does that really matter?</p>

<p>Why the advantage at small apertures? It's because of the heavy optical corrections needed to make a fast lens fast without the image falling apart. The design of the cheapie 1.8 doesn't even TRY to compete wide open. It can't. It's not in the budget. However, when the lenses are stopped down, the heavy optical corrections actually work to the detriment of the performance of the fastest lenses, while the simplicity of the cheap lens results in the sharpest image, with the least CA.</p>

<p>So for large aperture portraiture, sure, the ultra-fast L glass rules. For other things... not so much so. I've always regarded a lens like the 85/1.2L somewhat of an exotic, one-trick pony. Most of MY photography lives in the f/5.6 - f/16 range, and for that work I prefer slower optics which, very happily, are also lighter, smaller, and cheaper. I also often enjoy doing candid portraiture, for which my 70-200/4LIS is a very nice lens. (Let's face it, a prime isn't good at all for candid portraiture, as one's dancing around tends to draw too much attention.) For the seldomly done posed portrait with enormous background blur, I bought my 100/2, which is an outstanding lens with very nice bokeh. It might not be the 85/1.2L, but I don't shoot enough of those photos to justify the cost. </p>

<p>You guys can keep your three kings. Sexy optics don't really matter to me, not that I can afford them anyway. I just want to get the job done, and often the best tool for a job isn't the biggest, most expensive one.</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>Let's face it, a prime isn't good at all for candid portraiture, as one's dancing around tends to draw too much attention.</i><P>

Maybe primes don't work for you, but I have dozens of candid portraits shot with primes that are published in magazines. I've found fast primes to be excellent for candid portraiture.

[Brad_]

>>> Let's face it, a prime isn't good at all for candid portraiture, as one's dancing around tends to draw too

much attention.

 

Like Mike, I couldn't disagree more. And that's shooting only with a 35mm...

[rob_h5]

<blockquote>

<p>Let's face it, a prime isn't good at all for candid portraiture, as one's dancing around tends to draw too much attention<br>

You guys can keep your three kings. Sexy optics don't really matter to me,</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sorry Sarah I disagree with you on this as well. Canon L-primes are the best for portraits, fashion , glamour. IMO.</p>

<p>Its actually Four Kings (35L/1.4, 50L/1.2, 85L/1.2, 135L/1.2) it beats a Full House, Flush and Straight! lol :P</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Well, maybe it's different strokes for different folks. My candid technique relies on habituation. I move into my shooting location and stay there until I'm forgotten/ignored. I wouldn't dare move around after that. It hasn't gotten me broadly published, and I perhaps don't have the same gloating rights about my exotic lens collection, but it's what works for me. I spent most of my life shooting with primes (including expensive fast ones) and relatively little shooting with zooms, but the zooms already work far better for me, especially for candid photography. But again, that's just me. Obviously I'm wrong.</p>

<p>I pity the photographer who can't afford these exotic optics and therefore can't take good photographs. (Sarcasm.)</p>

[jeffrey_c1]

<blockquote>

<p>Let's face it, a prime isn't good at all for candid portraiture, as one's dancing around tends to draw too much attention.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I gotta disagree with this statement. Henri Cartier-Bresson, the father of modern photojournalism, did most of his work using a 50mm lens. Yes, zooms allow for greater flexibility but I wouldn't necessarily say that primes are not good for candids.</p>

[tdigi]

<p>Actually for candids I feel primes are ideal because you do not stick out like you would with a big white zoom and possibly flash. The only thing I find wrong with non L primes is the lack of USM. Yes the 50 1.4 can do 90% of what the L can do but when I had the 1.4 it would hunt like crazy in dim light, I would suspect the 1.8 is even worse. If the 50L was the same price as the 85 I would have just lived with it or got the sigma.</p>

<p>I think with the 85's its diferent because the 1.8 has USM, good optics/build etc. while the L is crazy expensive and has some limitations ( slow focus, heavy etc. ). I use my 100L as a replacement to an 85 which is a gem of a lens that is also fairly affordable but I may pick up an 85 1.8 one of these days.</p>

<p>I do agree that if you don't need fast apertures you are better off with the lighter cheaper F4 zooms which are very good. I actually got sick of my giant heavy 70-200 2.8 and sold it for the 70-300L.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Tommy, I was very concerned about the conspicuousness of my 70-200 before I bought it. I even started a thread about the conspicuousness of "big whites." Others assured me it wasn't really a problem, and I trusted them. Somewhat to my surprise, they were absolutely right. Go figure.</p>

<p>But a FLASH?! No way.</p>

<p>OK, who else disagrees with me? Let's all chime in now!</p>

[tdigi]

<p>I guess it all depends on how and what you shoot but to me, even outdoors, I love to go with just a prime or 2.</p>

<p>Whats wrong with flash?</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Tommy, it grabs people's attention! ;-) That said, a flash off-shoe (waaaaay off shoe and away from the photographer) is hardly ever associated with the photographer. I do sometimes use a flash on a radio slave to throw some light in a room when doing candids, but it's usually just sitting on a table somewhere, pointed towards the wall.</p>

<p>Maybe I mean something different by "candid" photography. I try very hard to extract my influence from a scene. The odds are stacked against me in that endeavor, hence the Heisenberg undertainty principle. I realize others interact with their subjects more and consider candid photography just an informal and environmental brand of portraiture.</p>

[mike dixon]

<i>I move into my shooting location and stay there until I'm forgotten/ignored. I wouldn't dare move around after that. </i><P>

 

I move around a lot! I take photos (often from only a meter away) when people are paying attention to each other or to something else that's happening. Unless I'm jumping up and down in front of them and shouting, "Hey! Hey! Hey!" they don't seem to notice me. At least not until after I've taken the photos.<P>

 

<i>It hasn't gotten me broadly published, and I perhaps don't have the same gloating rights about my exotic lens collection, but it's what works for me.</i><P>

My most-used lens is an old, manual-focus Contax Zeiss 50/1.4 that cost about $150 (plus another $10 for an EOS adapter). The only lens I have that's worth gloating over is a 24/1.4L (that I also use for portraits), but it never occurred to me to gloat about a lens.

[sarah_fox]

<p>Matt, apparently you're more invisible than I am. I often shoot people who are solitary and are into their own quiet activities. Trust me, they would notice if I walked up and took their picture from 1m away, and thus I would have interrupted whatever it was I wanted to photograph in the first place.</p>

<p>I think this thread is mostly about gloating, hence my response. I'm not saying ALL the participants are gloating, but the entire premise of the thread seems to be, "Hey, are these L prime optics I own GREAT, or what?!" -- just for fun, of course.</p>

<p>My response was much less about the concept that one can use a zoom instead of a prime (which seems to have caused the more offense, due to my having made that point clumsily) and more about the fact that one can actually shoot a good picture -- at least MANY good pictures -- with a cheap lens. I think it's unfortunate that newbies read these sorts of threads and think the only acceptable lens is an L prime lens -- similar to threads that the only acceptable lens is a Zeiss or that the only acceptable camera is a Leica.</p>

<p>This is a tough economy, and I know people struggle to buy their gear. (I do, anyway.) It's sad when the entry hurdle is placed so high. All this banter reminds me of teenagers who can't go to school -- or will just "die" -- if they don't have the hottest, most recent style of athletic shoe. I've seen very poor parents spend themselves broke to keep their children in the latest designer fashions that are deemed socially acceptable.</p>

<p>So my post is one of encouragement to other people who struggle like me: You CAN take excellent pictures with a non-L lens, and in fact sometimes non-L lenses are in SOME ways, and under SOME conditions even better than their L counterparts. Some photographic uses are greatly aided by the high dollar optics -- e.g. any large aperture photography or extreme telephoto photography (e.g. birds). However, MOST uses are only somewhat aided by the the high dollar stuff, and sometimes the very cheapest stuff, judiciously used, even outperforms some of the very best stuff. (My Zenitar fisheye is one example.)</p>

<p>You don't need three or four prime L "kings" to do your work. You can do some great stuff with consumer lenses, as long as you don't expect the consumer stuff to do "everything." You can shoot digital or film, zoom or prime, Leica, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, or whatever sings to you. Heck, you can even shoot some great images using an oatmeal box with a hole in it (pinhole) if you know what you're doing and have a good concept. It's all good.</p>

<p>So go ahead and use some of Canon's budget "gifts" to those struggling to make ends meet. You won't win popularity contests with a $100 18-55IS (for instance) hanging off the front of your camera, but you'll actually take some pretty nice photos with it. Use your hundreds of dollars of savings for food, electricity, or a part for that '92 Saturn you're still nursing along. (Yes, I actually drive a '92 Saturn that I bought new, and I just ordered a new EGR valve for it.)</p>

<p><img src="http://www.graphic-fusion.com/phcolemanbridge01sm.jpg" alt="" /><br /> Coleman bridge, taken with a refurbished 40D ($600), a refurbished 18-55mm IS lens ($94), and a quick drive to Yorktown in my '92 Saturn (vs. an expensive trip to some exotic far-off destination). Handheld, no expensive tripod, 1 sec exposure, rock solid grip and good technique. TACK sharp, even at high magnification -- even in the corners. My very well respected Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 on my 5D (I can't afford the 5DII or the 1DsIII) could not have done better, nor could my Leica IIIf rangefinder.</p>

<p> </p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Correction -- I see the OP doesn't actually own all of his "three kings," so this would have been started as a lust thread, not a gloating thread. I'm also reminded, now, that this is about portrait lenses... hence the portrait of the bridge. Sorry for the drift!</p>

[rob_h5]

<p>Sarah , yes I just own one King as I said in the very beginning. Whats wrong with that? Whats wrong with a photographer owning one King or two or three or four Kings? If I could I would like to own more Kings. Nobody is gloating here (maybe a little lust lol) , most all the photographers including myself on this thread here are working professional photographers with <strong>high artistic standards and/or with demanding clients</strong>. No one on the thread who owns a King lens does it to win a popularity contest. None of my clients care or even know what I shoot with it.... what they do care about is the end result which the Kings deliver nicely. Professional photographers own <strong>King lenses or L -primes/zooms only to-get-the job-done</strong>. Clients are paying top dollar and they expect the best. IF what they wanted could be achieved with low end consumer lens we would all shoot with consumer stuff but the reality is often consumers lenses just are not going to get the quality the L primes/zooms deliver. Camera/lenses are just tools why not use the best tools to get the job done?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>, most all the photographers including myself on this thread here are working professional photographers with <strong>high artistic standards and/or with demanding clients</strong>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I find no indication of that, other than for Ian.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Rob, you can even be a working professional and use gear that isn't top-drawer. For instance, how many pros really use the 1DsIII? That's a model that's hardly talked about. Why? It's because it's insanely expensive. From what I can tell, the latest/greatest gear is mostly the domain of the affluent hobbyist.</p>

<p>I'm a pro (meaning that I'm for hire, not that I'm traveling the globe shooting for Vogue or National Geographic). My gear is modest, but good. Yes, I own a few L lenses, but I also own consumer lenses. As I said, my consumer 100/2 is my posed-portrait, big-blurry background lens. Is it as good as the 85/1.2L? No. However, it's as good at the apertures I would shoot. That's all I need. It's a $300 lens and yields beautiful results. It gets the job done, as you say. What's wrong with that?</p>

<p>I also have to disagree with one of your assertions. Clients are generally NOT paying top dollar and generally are accepting lesser results (exception -- photogs who are at the top of the food chain). What clients expect from a pro photographer, if they are smart, is expertise and a good eye. Any doctor or lawyer can buy a 1DsIII and all four of your kings, but to take a good picture requires expertise and a good eye. Furthermore, it can be done with a lesser camera than a 1DsIII and a lens that's not a king -- and maybe even a few flashes with the Vivitar label on them. Nobody has ever complained about the quality of my work, even when I've used consumer equipment. And nobody has ever requested that I remove the consumer lens from my camera and mount up one of my red-ringed lenses that I did not feel was as well suited for what I was doing at the time.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>PS Jeff, that's rather insulting.</p>

[Spearhead]

<p>He said "most." Where's the indication of that? "Most" of the posters here don't appear to be anything of the sort.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>... except for Ian</p>