Which lens for Family Portraits?

[alejandro_vizcaino]

<p>Hi, I own a Canon 7D (1.6 crop sensor) and I would like to buy a lens to be used mainly for Family portraits (mainly outside). I currently have a 17-50 Sigma and a 50 mm 1.8 (plastic fantastic). I'm looking for sharpness and great image quality, for which I prefer a prime lens instead of a Zoom. <br>

I've heard wonderful comments about Canon EF 85 1.8 USM, but I'm not sure if for my APS-C sensor camera will be too long. I've also checked the Canon 50 1.4 but since I already have the 50 1.8, not sure if it justify buying it. <br>

I know that the 70-200 2.8 II Canon is one of the best, but I don't think it would work week for the APS-C since it will be too long and very impractical. <br>

Any other recommendations?<br>

Regards,<br>

Alejandro.</p>

[alan_bryant1]

<p>I assume you're talking about headshots, and not group photos. For groups the Sigma 17-50 you already have would be good.</p>

<p>My favorite lens for casual/candid family photos is the 85/1.8 on a 5D. That would be more or less equivalent to the 50/1.8 on your 7D. The 85/1.8 on a 7D would probably be great for outdoors; it might be a bit long indoors. It's a fairly small lens and the ring USM focus is basically silent, which is nice for candids.</p>

<p>The 70-200/2.8 is also a great portrait lens, but it is big, heavy, and conspicuous. I have the mk I version and I use it a lot, mostly for portraits and shooting theater. I don't think it's too long for portraits on a 7D; at 70mm it's only a little longer than your 50mm.</p>

<p>For group portraits/environmental portraits the new EF-S 24mm f/2.8 STM is cheap and has pretty good reviews.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I'd stick with the 50/1.8. The 85/1.8 is also very good if you can deal with the narrower angle of view. It's fine for headshots and if you can back up far enough you can use it for full length shots. It's just a bit long for full length indoor use. You could go with the 35/2 for group shots if you want a prime with wider coverage.</p>

<p>If you have infinite money, then consider the 50/1.2L, 85/1.4L and 35/1.4L</p>

<p>There's probably nothing wrong with the Sigma 17-50/2.8 either, unless you want a faster prime to better blur the background.</p>

[rick_m.]

<p>It seems to me that you have just about what you need. If you must buy a lens, consider the 70-200. It would be useful anyway.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p>You already have what you need.</p>

[markonestudios]

<p>I wholly agree with the rest. The Sigma and the 50/1.8 on a 7D should serve you very well for family portraits. The 85/1.8 is superb and is my favourite lens but might not be the right tool for your intended use.</p>

[Ian Taylor]

<p>Sigma 35/1.4 ART is an amazing lens for the price. Would be a useful focal length with your camera. I do kids photography for a living and it's my new favourite lens.</p>

[ed_avis2]

<p>You might like the 40mm or 24mm pancake lenses, which are cheap and good. The 40mm would be a kind of replacement for your 50mm - so perhaps the 24mm pancake is the one to consider.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>I agree with Ian. The new Sigma 35/1.4 is fantastic, and you can determine in advance if the 35mm focal length is suitable for your subject matter and shooting style (just use your 17-50 at 35 and see how it treats you). Can't say enough about that lens, and it will serve you well, in a slightly different capacity, should you go to a full frame body. But if you're after head shots only, it's too short. The 85 might be better, or consider perhaps a macro prime in the 60mm range, because that also solves some other problems (like working very close to newborns, or shooting things like food or wedding rings, etc). </p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>I can't see you need a new lens, as others have said, although I suppose if you are after lots of bokeh then the 24L, 35L, or Sigma 35 Art might be worth considering. I am a big fan of 35 f2 IS myself - lots of low light capability and excellent sharpness at all apertures.</p>

[alejandro_vizcaino]

<p>Thanks for your opinions. You're right. Maybe I don't really need a new lens. I was just looking for additional sharpness and bokeh in some of my portraits. The Sigma 17-50 is very versatile and is my walk around lens, but it doesn't deliver the results I was looking for. After all my reading and also your comments, I'm still leaning towards the 85 1.8. I've seen great results with the 7D + 85 1.8 combination. Anyways, I plan to use this lens only for outdoors. I know that indoors will be very difficult. I kind of like getting a longer lens too for maybe family weddings, concerts, etc. The other attractive option is the Sigma 35 1.4 but that is $900 while the 85 1.8 is $369. So for the money, I probably go with 85. Maybe I can rent it too and see if it fits my needs. <br>

Thanks again to all! I really value your recommendations.</p>

[Robin Smith]

<p>85/1.8 is a good lens, particularly on an APS-C.</p>