What is the best portrait lens for Canon 10D

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/28/2005 01:48:14 PM · #1

I have a Tamron 28-300 XiDr lens, but all my pictures seems "soft" compared to photos I have seen here. What do you all recommend as the best lenght lens (I heard 105mm is best of portraits), and is the L series worth the money?

gwphoto

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

06/28/2005 01:53:40 PM · #2

The Canon 85mm f1.2 I think is the best.
Don't forget your lens factor, a 105 may be too long.
//consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=152&modelid=7446

Message edited by author 2005-06-28 13:54:43.

kosmikkreeper

Nikon D300s

06/28/2005 01:54:05 PM · #3

get a 50mm lens. It's cheap and super sharp! Prime lenses rock!

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

06/28/2005 01:59:22 PM · #4

I have both the Canon 50mm/1.8 and Canon 85mm/1.8. I find the 85 is too telephoto for anything but head shots. As kosmikkreeper says, get the 50/1.8, it's cheap and excellent quality.

EddyG

06/28/2005 02:07:31 PM · #5

Originally posted by gwphoto:

Don't forget your lens factor, a 105 may be too long

Bah. =] No such thing as "too long" when shooting portraits. As a matter of fact, I'd say 100mm is the bare minimum. 50mm is definitely way too short for portraits. If you check out this article on portaits you can see a picture of a photog shooting a portrait with a 600mm lens. Quoting from the article, "most professionals end up using their 70-200/2.8 or 80-200/2.8 zooms as portrait lenses." (FWIW, I also use my 70-200/2.8 more than any other lens.) The last thing you want are your model's features distorted because your focal length is too short... compare:

24mm:

to 50mm:

to 200mm:

Also note that the crop factor does not affect perspective distortion, because it is just a crop factor (and not a "focal length multiplier"). A 24mm lens on a 1.6X camera has the same field of view as a 38mm lens, but the lens is still 24mm...

Message edited by author 2005-06-28 14:18:25.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

06/28/2005 02:24:39 PM · #6

This is true, but the crop factor does allow you to back a bit, which reduces the distortion - but I mostly agree.

Originally posted by EddyG:

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

06/28/2005 02:33:56 PM · #7

Originally posted by EddyG:

Surely, if a 24mm lens is used on a 1.6 crop camera, it has the same field of view as a 38mm lens, so the photographer using this setup would stand in the same place as a photographer using a 38mm lens on a full-frame camera to make the subject fill the same proportion of the respective frame. As perspective is a function of the relative positions of photographer, subject and background, the perspective given is also equivalent to a 38mm lens on a full-frame camera.

Sorry to intrude, but I was thinking about this on the way home today in the car.

EddyG

06/28/2005 02:34:51 PM · #8

Originally posted by AJAger:

As perspective is a function of the relative positions of photographer, subject and background, the perspective given is also equivalent to a 38mm lens on a full-frame camera.

We're drifting off-topic now, but since we're already heading that way... I was hoping to provide a reference, but I don't have the details on the article (if anybody does, please post). I remember reading an article at a friend's house in what I think was Popular Photography & Imaging. They put a 50mm on the 1Ds Mark II and then on a 20D and shot the same scene. Obviously, the pictures were very different. When the 20D was moved back to compensate for the difference in field-of-view, the resulting photo was still obviously very different from the one taken with the no-crop-factor 1Ds...

Message edited by author 2005-06-28 14:39:25.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

06/28/2005 02:42:27 PM · #9

Originally posted by EddyG:

Originally posted by AJAger:
As perspective is a function of the relative positions of photographer, subject and background, the perspective given is also equivalent to a 38mm lens on a full-frame camera.

I was hoping to provide a reference, but I don't have the details on the article (if anybody does, please post). I remember reading an article at a friend's house in what I think was Popular Photography & Imaging. They put a 50mm on the 1Ds Mark II and then on a 20D and shot the same scene. Obviously, the pictures were very different. When the 20D was moved back to compensate for the difference in field-of-view, the resulting photo was still obviously very different...

I think that this particular test is somewhat flawed, as the respective combinations of camera and lens would have to yield the same 'equivalent' focal length e.g, a 300D with a 24mm lens and a 1Ds with a 38mm lens both set up in the same spot. If both cameras in this test were indeed set up in the same position for the test, and the 1Ds shot cropped to match the 20D shot, then both should be identical, as far as perspective goes. Indeed, if the photos using the two different cameras were to be taken from the same spot using any lens, as long as they are cropped to match, they should be identical.

hopper

Canon EOS-80D

Canon EF 35mm f/2 IS USM

06/28/2005 02:55:43 PM · #10

You gettin' all this, Jennifer? There's a quiz later.

:)

EddyG

06/28/2005 03:10:07 PM · #11

Originally posted by hopper:

You gettin' all this, Jennifer? There's a quiz later.

Continuing this off-topic sidebar... =]

Originally posted by AJAger:

I think that this particular test is somewhat flawed

It appears I'm remembering details about the article entirely wrong. D'oh! I found the article on popphoto.com, although it appears they don't include all of the images from the print version. In it, there is a relevant reference which I'll paraphrase slightly to be less Nikon-ish:

Letâ��s say youâ��re a portrait photographer who shoots everything on film with your favorite 100mm lens. Now you buy a DSLR with a 1.6X crop factor, and your FOV instantly narrows to that of a 160mm lens. To get the same composition you once had, you either have to move your camera back exactly 1.6X the distance to your subject or switch to a shorter focal-length lens (in this case, 62.5mm). But as you move back from your subject (assuming you have the room), you weaken the linear perspective, so objects behind the model change less in scale (in relation to the model) than they did when shot closer using your film camera. In addition, depth of field increases rapidly as distance increases (doubling the subject distance yields four times the DOF), so a background cloth or foreground flower arrangement might appear sharper and draw the viewerâ��s eye away from the subject.

Edit: After thinking about this some more, when it comes to perspective, it is distance-to-subject that matters, and not focal length. You could take a shot with a 25mm lens, crop the middle of it, enlarge it four times, and then take the shot from the same spot with a 100mm lens and the perspective in the resulting images would be identical. This is confirmed by Top 10 Misconceptions in Photographic Optics (#4).

Message edited by author 2005-06-28 15:58:15.

les0910

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/28/2005 03:41:59 PM · #12

Originally posted by Juniper366:

ebertdj

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 17-35mm f/2.8L

06/28/2005 04:01:18 PM · #13

I mostly use my 17-35mm L lens for portrait work - Mostly when I am in my studio since it's way to small to get what I need at more than 35mm. And I find that there is definite distortion at the short end but it's awesome at the higher end. If I had a 24-70L I am sure it would be on my camera more than any other lens. Even my 50mm 1.4 is not a lot of good in my studio unless it's just head shots. When I have lots of room and light - like outdoor work - I love my 100-400 L IS lens - it's crisp and best of all it allows the subjects to be more at ease since I am not in their face.

yido

Sigma 20mm f/1.8 EX Aspherical DG DF RF for Canon

06/28/2005 07:58:43 PM · #14

Originally posted by Juniper366:

I think the Tamron starts to get soft around 200mm and up.
I personally prefer a 70-200mm lens for portraits and use my 70-200 f2.8L lens for shooting portraits. It offers a good range so that you can go from pretty much a full body to head and shoulders composition with the zoom. I also like the DOF from this focal length as well. Lastly, I like to keep a bit of distance between my subjects and me. I don't shoot professional models so I think shooting portraits with a shorter lens much closer up can be intimidating.
The 105mm focal length is right in there, but I prefer to have a zoom vs. a prime.
Oh, only you can decide if the L lens is worth it or not. Although optically better than consumer zooms ("sharper"), most of the cost increase goes to faster speed, durability, and less distortion.

Message edited by author 2005-06-28 20:01:03.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

06/28/2005 09:21:55 PM · #15

For my money I like either the Canon EF 70-200 or the EF 85. I shot both of those on the 10D and liked the results (you need some room, though).

"Best" depends on the effect(s) you are trying to achieve (maybe you want to exaggerate some part of the subject) and how much room you have to work in. I tend to think that 300mm starts to flatten the subject too much for my taste but then again the 75-300mm lens I shot with wasn't the fastest nor endowed with the best contrast and that may have affected my opinion of the results.

Kev

Juniper366

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/28/2005 10:17:14 PM · #16

Originally posted by hopper:

You gettin' all this, Jennifer? There's a quiz later.

:)

LOLOL YEAH... learning even more than I expected... which is what I am discovering is true of this web sight!! Gotta love it!

Juniper366

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/28/2005 10:22:19 PM · #17

...back to the original question.

I have the 85 1.2 L and it is an amazing lens, but a little too telephoto for my tiny studio. Most of the time I use my 24-70 L for portraits. See some sample portraits taken with it here:

//yours.smugmug.com/gallery/553688

IMHO the L glass is definately worth the $$$. [/quote]

Your photos are amazing!!!!!! I have been surfing the web looking at people's galleries, and, HONESTLY, you have some of my favorite ones!

Jen

ramevi

Sony Alpha a7 II

Sony Sonnar T* FE 55mm f1.8 ZA

06/28/2005 10:39:03 PM · #18

Canon 50mm f1.8 II (low lights situations)

Sigma 18-50mm EX f2.8 (Closer portraits)

Canon 70-200mm f4L (Candids and outdoors)

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

06/28/2005 10:52:03 PM · #19

Originally posted by Juniper366:

Your photos are amazing!!!!!! I have been surfing the web looking at people's galleries, and, HONESTLY, you have some of my favorite ones!

Jen [/quote]

I don't know what focal length these shots were taken at, but I am sure that both these lenses are pretty expensive. The Canon 50mm 1.8 is extremely sharp (as I'm sure you are aware) and gives an 'effective' 80 mm focal length on a 10D, allowing the photographer to be a fair distance away. I'd suggest perhaps start with that and see whether you want a longer (85mm?) or shorter (35mm?) lens.

One always has to cut one's coat according to one's cloth, so the relative dimensions of your studio will dictate how far away from your subject you can get and hence the focal length that will be most useful.

That said, lenses are only the start. Lighting is where it's really at and that's the part that I am worse than hopeless at. IMO, the best portraits are not the sharpest ones, rather the best-lit ones.

les0910

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

06/28/2005 10:57:17 PM · #20

Originally posted by Juniper366:

Your photos are amazing!!!!!! I have been surfing the web looking at people's galleries, and, HONESTLY, you have some of my favorite ones!
Jen

I wish I had one of those little dancing smiley guy animations to show how your complement made me smile, thanks!!!!!!
Janice

hankk

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 EX Aspherical DF for Canon

06/29/2005 10:31:38 PM · #21

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

"Best" depends on the effect(s) you are trying to achieve (maybe you want to exaggerate some part of the subject) and how much room you have to work in. I tend to think that 300mm starts to flatten the subject too much for my taste but then again the 75-300mm lens I shot with wasn't the fastest nor endowed with the best contrast and that may have affected my opinion of the results.

Kev

Yes, and you have to take into account the person's face. Someone with a huge nose may look better at 300mm :-) Kids generally have small noses, so you may want to use a shorter lens. As you said, its all a matter of perception and the effects your trying to achieve.

IMO, one size doesn't fit all.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

06/29/2005 10:50:40 PM · #22

I prefer the 85 f1.8 or the 50mm f1.8 for portraits. A 70mm f1.8 would be nice if someone saw fit to make one.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

06/29/2005 11:00:01 PM · #23

Originally posted by Spazmo99:

I prefer the 85 f1.8 or the 50mm f1.8 for portraits. A 70mm f1.8 would be nice if someone saw fit to make one.

I have a 75mm f/1.5 :-)

Alecia