What is your favorite potrait lens for Canon?

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

09/03/2004 06:17:17 AM · #1

What is your favorite (affordable) portrait lens for Canon SLRs?

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

09/03/2004 06:34:49 AM · #2

Any lens that's less than or equal to f/2.8! :-)

I took some shots at my sister's graduation with my Sigma 28-70/2.8, which came out well.

There's a thread on SportsShooter about this at the moment..

Ed: Typos

Message edited by author 2004-09-03 06:35:25.

zerocusa

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/03/2004 06:57:35 AM · #3

Originally posted by dwterry:

What is your favorite (affordable) portrait lens for Canon SLRs?

hmm.. nne other than the 50mm 1.8 mk2

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

09/03/2004 07:06:28 AM · #4

David,

I've own all these listed and have shot them for portraits that I posted here. In ascending order of preference I like the following lenses.

If you're in the studio and shooting on seamless paper then I love the 17-40 f/4. You can control separation of the model and background by placement of the model (about 10-15 feet or 3-5 meters) away from the background and then put some spots on the background. If you want to generate some more artistic tones with lighting and DoF then I'd go with some of the same glass as I normally use outside. This lens is relatively lightweight and gives some great fields of view for more closeup work but its also pretty pricey (around $700 USD at B&H) compared with how much I use it for portraiture (it is useful for other work, though). Unless you just shoot in the studio and want bright, full-bodied shots, I'd hold off on this lens.

EF 50 f/1.8 - Great little lens. It works like an 80mm lens on the 10D. It gives a decent field of view for even full body work and you don't have to get too far back. It's cheap, fast, has decent bokeh and is lightweight as all get out. It's fantastic for outdoor, available light shots. If I had limited budget this is the lens to buy (around $75 USD at B&H).

EF 85 f/1.8 - Incredibly sharp with great bokeh. This lens would probably be perfect for portrait work on a 1.3x or 1x crop factor but it really gets in tight on the 10D. You need some room to use this lens but its worth stretching your legs a little bit. It is a wonderful lens to have and relatively inexpensive. I love shooting this lens. I'm looking forward to comparing it to its big brother the 1.2L version someday. If you have the money for this lens (about $340 USD for the USA version at B&H) then I'd get this over the 50mm and just accept that some shots may take a little work to compose unless you're outside where you can move around more easily.

EF 70-200 f/2.8 L IS - This is frankly my favorite portrait lens. I wouldn't go into a session without the other two but I like this lens best. If money and weight are not major considerations, I'd forget about the other two lenses and start off with this. This lens just handles the perspective better IMO. Its not as fast but its sharp as a razor and has the most incredible bokeh in the world. Photodo rates the quality of the 85 f/1.8 and this lens as the same but in my book I like this just a hair better. If I was going on a shoot and had to take one lens, this would be it. The tradeoffs are that this lens is HEAVY. I don't mind it but if you don't want to carry around a hunk o' glass then this ain't your lens. Its expensive, too. $1649 for the USA version at B&H last time I checked. Finally you have to get some distance from the subject with this lens. It'll focus up to about 5 feet or 1.5 meters but I usually find that I'm around 10-15' away from a model when using this lens just to get the shot I want.

And there's my list with my least favorite first and the lens that I just love to shoot last. Hope this helps you.

Kev

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

09/03/2004 07:19:58 AM · #5

Kevin,

For full-length model shots do you use the 70-200? What sort of distance are you away from the subject? I should be doing a model shoot next weekend and I've got a 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 28-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8, but I'm unsure what to do most of my full-length shots with. I'm slightly concerned about strange perspective on wider angle lenses.. :-/

Edit: The shoot is outdoors, btw..

Message edited by author 2004-09-03 07:37:21.

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

09/03/2004 07:21:47 AM · #6

Kevin, do you find the IS in the 70-200 to be critical in most of your work? That is, do you shoot a great deal of handheld shots at lower shutter speeds that this becomes an important factor?

Gil P

Canon EOS-1Ds Mark II

09/03/2004 07:40:07 AM · #7

16-35L 2.8 USM....

I likes my angles ultra-wide...and my DOF ultra-shallow, Like me!!!!

Message edited by author 2004-09-03 07:40:48.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

09/03/2004 07:45:27 AM · #8

Paul,

Here are a few shots with the 70-200. Even at 70mm the field of view sometimes constrains the subject just because I didn't move back that extra 5-10 feet (2-3 meters). The perspective can be a little rounder or give a "fuller" look to the subject with wider angle lenses but I've shot a ton with the 50mm and frankly the most noticible problems with the photos was because of my poor composition or lighting. Sure, a few of them may have been noticibly . . . different in perspective . . . faces look slightly different but to me that difference is slight. Shoot your 50mm and for that matter I'm envious that you have that 28-70 f/2.8. The 24-70 f/2.8 will probably be my next purchase as I think it'll complement these lenses well.

This is from a distance of 15-20 feet (about 5-7 meters) and at a focal length of 144mm if I remember correctly. You can see how it wouldn't allow for a full body shot even if I zoomed out to 70mm. But it makes for a helluva shot with the upper body.

There wasn't much room to play with on this one. I had to crop in the sides just the slightest bit because of something in the background but everyone commented that it felt too tight and restrictive on the model. This was shot at 70mm from a distance of about 25 feet (8 meters). It helped that she was sitting up.

This was shot at 70mm from a distance of around 15-18 feet (5 or 6 meters). It has a little more room but the subject in the foreground is a good foot maybe a foot and a half shorter than the previous subjects and I placed the taller subject farther back in the composition.

I think this lens works best when you have a good 25-30 feet (8-10 meters) of distance in which you can work.

Rich,
I find the IS helpful but not critical. If you have a steady hand then you can generally hand hold the f/2.8 but I think you'll end up giving up some of the first light shots and end of day shots. In my experience, given how steady I can hold the camera, the difference in price for the IS was money well-spent. I can tell a difference in how steady the shot looks just through the viewfinder when I depress the shutter release and the IS kicks in. After about 3 and a half hours of holding this monster with a flash bracket and flash or ST-E2 attached IS is a godsend.

Kev

P.S. - Sorry David. I didn't mean to take over this thread. Hopefully others will share what they like to shoot, too. I know Photomama has an awesome set of work on her website (//www.alwphotography.com/) and I think its all with the 50mm (don't know which flavor, though).

PaulMdx

Canon EOS-1D

09/03/2004 07:53:48 AM · #9

Originally posted by KevinRiggs:

Paul, Here are a few shots ...

Thanks very much, Kevin. This is another of your posts that has made it to my Watched threads so I can carefully read it at home. You could practically put that in a tutorial as is.. Very useful stuff.

rich

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

09/03/2004 08:29:10 AM · #10

I know what you mean about the weight - I have the 100-400 L, primarily for wildlife photography and it is indeed a monster. IS is definitely a plus there.

Great post by the way - I admire the amount of detail and effort you frequently put into your posts.

dan_pendleton

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

09/03/2004 08:29:46 AM · #11

I agree with Kevin, particularly about the 70-200.. it's a great lens. Also worth a mention is the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, not only superb for Macros but widely regarded as a great portrait lens.

Natator

Canon EOS-5D

09/03/2004 08:35:46 AM · #12

Originally posted by dan_pendleton:

I agree with Kevin, particularly about the 70-200.. it's a great lens. Also worth a mention is the 100mm f/2.8 Macro, not only superb for Macros but widely regarded as a great portrait lens.

I use the 100mm f2.8 all the time for portraits and love it.

Wish I had a 50mm at times, as I can;t always get as far away as I need indoors for full body shots. As a straight portrait or macro lens the 100mm f2.8 really is supberb :)

09/03/2004 10:19:20 AM · #13

You guys are awesome! Thanks for all of the advice, I'm going to try to digest all of this and see where I go from here. THANKS!!!

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

09/03/2004 10:51:30 AM · #14

For head shots nothing beats the 70-200 f/2.8, for full body shots the 24-70 f/2.8 or the 50 f/1.4 are perfect.

Sonifo

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

09/03/2004 10:57:24 AM · #15

Wooohooo...I just received my 50mm 1.8. I love it.

First picture taken with it.

Nusbaum

Fujifilm X-T1

Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM

09/03/2004 12:56:58 PM · #16

If you are into primes:
85mm f/1.8 - fantastic lens at a very reasonable price. great for headshots
50mm f/1.4 - great for full length and torso up
35mm f/2.0 - good if you are into environmental portraits. I would like wider, but haven't really found one that I like yet.

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

09/03/2004 01:12:00 PM · #17

I agree with Kevin on the 70-200/2.8L IS... my favorite lens by far.

All of the pictures mentioned/linked in this thread were shot with that lens...

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

09/03/2004 01:17:39 PM · #18

It does seem strange to be listing a zoom lens among fav's for portrait work, but I'll add a third vote fo the 70-200 2.8 IS. Simply wonderful.
I also like the results from the 100mm macro and the 50/1.4, and I'm renting the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L this week to see how I like it. I'm thinking the 24-70 might just be the perfect complement to the 70-200.

Rooster

Canon EOS-400D Rebel XTi

Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8-4.0 Aspherical for Canon

09/03/2004 01:25:08 PM · #19

50mm...$60 at b&hphoto

EddyG

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

09/03/2004 01:28:41 PM · #20

Originally posted by kirbic:

I'm renting the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L this week to see how I like it. I'm thinking the 24-70 might just be the perfect complement to the 70-200.

I just came back to edit my prior post to add that the 24-70/2.8L is also awesome... and saw your post kirbic. =]

I just did a shoot with the 24-70, and for full-length shots, it was great because I didn't have to step back as far.

The two of them are definitely a "dynamic duo"!

Message edited by author 2004-09-03 13:29:44.

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

09/03/2004 11:59:37 PM · #21

Well... I took all of your advice. And then ignored. (sorry)

I ordered the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di lens. I looked up the ratings and read lots of reviews. This one seems to have glass that is close to "L" quality at a much lower price ($349).

The fixed f/2.8 max aperture should make for great DOF and also let me do low-light shooting.

And I figure the upper end of the zoom range will be great for portraits while the lower end will let me keep the lens on my camera longer.

Thanks for all of the advice though. It really helped to think things through.

dsa157

Canon EOS-50D

09/04/2004 12:38:56 AM · #22

no reason not to pick up the 50mm 1.8 as well, though. as has been mentioned at ~$65 you can't afford not to have it. :)

Dave