| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/04/2005 01:28:56 PM · #1 |
What is the most common (and/or best) lens to use for studio portraits? I'm researching which lighting setup to get, but I also need to know what the best lens would be. I want to go with Canon and I have a budget of $1000.
Message edited by author 2005-11-04 13:29:24.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2005 01:48:04 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by chafer:
What is the most common (and/or best) lens to use for studio portraits? I'm researching which lighting setup to get, but I also need to know what the best lens would be. I want to go with Canon and I have a budget of $1000. |
70-200 2.8 L will be your most flexible option. 85-90mm are the ideal lengths for portraiture.
Don't forget your digital crop!
|
|
|
|
11/04/2005 01:48:39 PM · #3 |
| Well, I really like my 24-70 f/2.8... If you shop around, you could probably find one for $1,000 or so. |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 01:53:42 PM · #4 |
Probably no single answer because it depends on the portrait. I think the Canon 85mm f/1.8 is an amazing lens on the 20D. I also like the 50mm f/1.4 for a wider view.
I think the 70-200 2.8L is a great lens on full frame cameras, but it's a little long for portraits with the 10D. |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 01:55:13 PM · #5 |
IMO, length is not as important as lens speed, but then, thats just my style of portraiture.
I don't use lenses slower than f2.8 for portraits, and I frequently use f1.8 lenses. The wide-open look is not for everyone, and it's not suited to every portrait, but I like it.
//www.pbase.com/mcmurma/black_and_white
Most of these were taken with a 50mm lens at apertures from 1.4 to 2.8.
Message edited by author 2005-11-04 13:56:09. |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 02:05:54 PM · #6 |
Everyone has their own style. I am just starting out with this portrait bit, and a 70-200 for head shots would be fine. I want more of the person in the shot you better have a deep studio to work in.
Canon's 85 1.2 is real nice, but not in your price range. I think the ~100mm macro lenses are decent, but a bit long for me.
How sharp do you want or need it to be? Too sharp and well, you'll have to fix in PP. If you use a diffuser filter when shooting, then you don't need a super sharp lens to start with.
I was doing pet portraits today with a Tamon 24-135 SP 3.5-5.6 and shooting at apertuies of 7-9 and the BG went soft just fine, and the lens is plenty sharp. I'll be posting samples for CC shortly - have to eat lunch first. But after shooting a self portrait with this lens yesterday i am of the school that ultra sharp is NOT what you want.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2005 02:09:29 PM · #7 |
| Is the inexpensive canon 50mm f/1.8 II good as a portrait lens. The reason I ask is because I want to start taking portraits (as a learning experience) and I have that lens but no money at the time to purchase a new lens. |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 02:14:44 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Is the inexpensive canon 50mm f/1.8 II good as a portrait lens. The reason I ask is because I want to start taking portraits (as a learning experience) and I have that lens but no money at the time to purchase a new lens. |
1.6 x 50=80
Close enough for me.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2005 02:19:32 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by SDW65:
Is the inexpensive canon 50mm f/1.8 II good as a portrait lens. The reason I ask is because I want to start taking portraits (as a learning experience) and I have that lens but no money at the time to purchase a new lens. |
Yes, but the AF is a little slow.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2005 02:20:42 PM · #10 |
As you can see, the answer might be quite different depending on intent. If you really gravitate toward the ultra-short DoF style, then a sharp, fast prime is a necessity. If not, then something like the Canon 24-70 is a great option. The 70-200 is also a terrific portrait lens, but more for intimate candids or headshots due to the length, especially on a 1.6-crop cam.
My opinion on sharpness on portrait lenses is this... make it razor sharp, and I'll make the decision as to how much detail to lose in post-processing. I can't create detail, I can only remove it, and for soft-focus effects, I like the results in software MUCH better, most especially since I can change it after the fact!
@SDW65: The 50/1.8 will work pretty darn well as a portrait lens, set it for f/2.8 and give it a whirl. It may not be as sharp as you'd like wide open, but at 2.8, it should rock.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2005 02:32:00 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
Probably no single answer because it depends on the portrait. I think the Canon 85mm f/1.8 is an amazing lens on the 20D. I also like the 50mm f/1.4 for a wider view.
I think the 70-200 2.8L is a great lens on full frame cameras, but it's a little long for portraits with the 10D. |
Some more info per request from OP...
The 85mm (~135mm equivalent) is great for head and shoulders shots but I also use it when I have lots of room to work. The large aperature and longer focal length produce an amazing bokeh allowing distracting backgrounds to just melt away.
The 50mm (~80mm equivalent) is great for anything less than a full body pose and can be used for full body when you have lots of room to work.
I also have a 35mm f/2.0(~55mm equivalent) that I use for full body shot or when I want a more intimate perspective. When working portraits with this short a lens there can be distortion, so you need to work with that rather than letting it work against you.
All three lenses I mentioned are inexpenive, fast, and sharp. I do a lot of portrait work at f/2.8 or below because I like the shallow depth of field. I also added an adpater to the 35 so all three lens have the same 58mm thread size for caps and filters. Maybe not as cool as an L lens, but I enjoy working with this simple collection. |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 02:45:36 PM · #12 |
My 85mm f1.8 is my favorite portrait lens.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2005 02:51:08 PM · #13 |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 03:29:58 PM · #14 |
Pics here of the Tamron 24-135. Various focal lengths , aps 7-9 range. The BG was 5-8 feet behind the subject. My position varied from 2' for the cat to 12 or 15 feet at times.
I'll post specifics later (on the pics) but i have an appointment now.
|
|
|
|
11/04/2005 03:51:51 PM · #15 |
85mm f/1.8 at f/2.0 used for a little more than head and shoulders:
 
Both show the shallow depth of field available at 2.0 Erin's eyes and hands are in focus but things soften up rapidly from there back. By the time you get to the pack of the chair (strong paisley) it's a nice even blur. With Katie the concrete wall was only inches behind her, but the focus is soft enough to keep it from being too distracting.
This next one is bit odd, but I think when compared to the two above it shows the different perspect and feel provided by the 35mm lens.
Message edited by author 2005-11-04 15:55:06. |
|
|
|
11/04/2005 03:53:35 PM · #16 |
| I have the 85 1.8 awsome at a reasonable price |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/11/2025 03:42:59 PM EDT.
