mark_k4 Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I have 24-70mm/f2.8, 70-200mm/f2.8, and 85mm/f1.8 lenses. My interest is mainly people/portrait photography. Would prime lenses (i.e. 85mm/f1.2L, 135mm/f2L, 200mm/f2.8L) offer a better quality portrait picture? I have saved up some money, and was wondering about purchasing a new lens or upgrading the current lenses. Thank you for your comments and recommendations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johannes_minkus Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 Mark, I wouldn't spend more money on lenses. You seem to have decent lenses - 85/1.8 is fine. In my experience the limiting factor for great portraits is rarely the quality of the lens - but rather the art and skill of the photographer. Johannes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awindsor Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I think you already have an excellent collection of lenses. If you are interested in portraiture then the next thing to invest in is some studio equipment. A basic set of two strobes, background, and softbox will be less than a new L lens. Taking control of the light will give you whole new creative possibilities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I agree with the comments above. 85mm 1.8 is all you need to make an excellent portrait photograph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_ferebee Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 <p>It's a matter of taste, but I recently got the 85/1.2L for my 300D, and I think it's absolutely fabulous. Look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=001aeD">this thread</a> for some points of view, and be sure to check out the photo by Ed Baumeister, which pretty much sums up the capabilities of the lens.</p> <p>If you won't be shooting at f/1.2, however, don't bother. The darned thing weighs two pounds, and focus is, as everybody will be quick to tell you, quite slow. While Photodo rates it much higher in sharpness than the 85/1.8, I gather you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody who is unhappy with the 85/1.8 on that front. And sharpness isn't always a virtue for portraits, is it?</p> <p>That being said, I happen to like the results I get at f/1.2, and if I had to sell all my other lenses so I could keep the 85/1.2L, I'd do it. Why don't you borrow/rent one sometime and give it a try?</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I also gave up the 1.8 to a 1.2 but to suggest it over the 1.8 is like saying get the Lamborghini over Subaru Wrx. The price to performance ratio is a little wacky. Tgat being said I would not trade my 1.2 for anything because I am an available light freak and I love the results for portraits. Check out my falily photos folder for pictures with the 85mm 1.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted April 2, 2004 Share Posted April 2, 2004 I use the 35/2 for portraits. Works for me... <p> <img src="http://www.spirer.com/images/barry1col.jpg"><br><center><i>Barry, Copyright 2004 Jeff Spirer</i></center></center> Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patricks Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 mark, you got a nice lens set-up and that one should be able to take you a long way. Couple of questions: - What type of portaits are we talking about? Half-body? Face? Tight selective head-shots? - What is your preferred working distance? - Are these formal stuiod style portraits or more envirionmental ones? - Are you using film/full frame or a DSLR with a cropping factor? Having said all that, I like/strive for really tight head-shots and the ability to be able to fill a frame with e.g. a child's face. According to my research, that means 135/2 or the 85/1.2, if you really want superlative performance. Personally I think the ability to do very selective focusing and the ability to shoot low light leads me to the 85/1.2 - at least 2-3 stops faster than the 135/2 L because you have to shoot that one at a higher shutterspeed as well due to the longer focal length. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 <em>the 85/1.2 - at least 2-3 stops faster than the 135/2 L because you have to shoot that one at a higher shutter speed </em><p> <p> ...not if you own (and use) a tripod... <p> I know not everyone does, but a LOT of portrait shooters do. Depends on your style (candid/formal). <p> We're also all assuming that Mark is shoting film or full frame digital. The answers become somewhat different with a 10D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oh_navi Posted April 3, 2004 Share Posted April 3, 2004 I believe the 85 f1.8 is already a fine lens for portait works. If you want to need an additional ultimate lens, I would suggest you consider the 135 f2. I have heard its optical quality is the best among the canon's short tele-lens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yakim_peled1 Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 I'm with Johannes. Happy shooting , Yakim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whitey Posted April 4, 2004 Share Posted April 4, 2004 I have the 50mm/f1.4 and find it a great portrait lense attached to my 10D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
digitmstr Posted April 7, 2004 Share Posted April 7, 2004 one thing about the 70-200 is that it makes some people "too aware" of the lens - in fact, even nervous...in some cases :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now