Good canon portrait lense - DPChallenge Forums

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/25/2008 06:29:50 PM · #1

Hey guys,
I just got my XTI and am not happy about the stock kit lense it lacks sharpness and clarity. No surprise I know. I mainly do portraits what are my best options for lense?
I'm not new to photography I know that in theory a prime should have more sharpness and a 1.8 or 1.4 aperature will give me more bokeh that the stock 3.5 as will zooming in with a 300mm lense. I already have a 75-300 from my film camera that focuses SLOOOOW.... but oh well anyways I think the 50mm 1.4 is what I should get. Is there any reason not to? I.E. a better lense for my needs around the same price?

itch

Canon EOS-5D

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

03/25/2008 06:34:36 PM · #2

50 is the way to go, the 1.8 is great the 1.4 is better but i would wait until sigma bring their 50 1.4 out because it could be sharp at 1.4 when the canons need stopping down a stop or two to get the best from em, on the 400 these lenses will be around 80mm, this is the perfect length for portraits. i love the 50 1.8 its cheap, focus is a tad agricultural and its made from old ready meal packets but the image quality is flippan awesome.... hope this helps
//www.itchphoto.com

doctornick

Apple iPhone 13 Pro

03/25/2008 06:38:22 PM · #3

The Canon 50mm f/1.4 would be a great portrait lens on a 400D, the 85mm f/1.8 is another stellar choice.

03/25/2008 06:40:49 PM · #4

does the 85mm suffer with same clarity drop in its biggest
f-stops as the 50mm?

Camabs

Canon EOS-20D

Canon EF 35mm f/2.0

03/25/2008 06:47:50 PM · #5

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

does the 85mm suffer with same clarity drop in its biggest
f-stops as the 50mm?

By definition, yes. Each time you increase the f-value by a factor 1.4 (SQRT of 2 actually), you decrease the surface of the diafragm and hence the amount of light by a factor 2. This holds for any lens.

I use the Canon 50/1.8 as well as the Tamron 90/2.8 for portraits. The latter is a macro lens, but any macro lens is great for portraits too. You might also want to take a look at Canon's EF-S 60/2.8 macro lens.

oOWonderBreadOo

Canon EOS-5D

03/25/2008 06:48:25 PM · #6

I'm not sure I'd go with the 50mm on a 1.6 crop camera (if it's not then forget what I'm saying!!) :0P

You might think about the 35mm which works out to a 50 on the 1.6 camera. But I absolutely LOVE my 28 1.8 although I'm always thinking I wish it had macro capabilities and might get another in my arsenal :0)

03/25/2008 06:54:58 PM · #7

Originally posted by oOWonderBreadOo:

It's going to be yet another one of those big old 'it depends on how you shoot' questions. What type of portraits does the OP like ? Full body, tight head shots, groups ?

I wouldn't go with a 50mm on a 1.6 crop for portraits because I'd like something longer, like an 85 or 100. Some would go much wider, others again might pick a 200mm. Occasionally I see people who shoot portraits with a 400mm and use walkie talkies to communicate.

The 50 1.4 is a good, cheap, sharp lens. It is maybe on the short end of a medium telephoto on a 1.6x crop for tight portraits but is workable. If you like the wider view of the world, the en the 35 or 28 would be great too.

Very personal preference on what focal length for portraits. You can point to well regarded and successful photographers that each use a radically different focal length to good effect.

03/25/2008 07:03:28 PM · #8

I do waist up mostly but I do do full body shots also...

03/25/2008 07:09:25 PM · #9

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

I do waist up mostly but I do do full body shots also...

Well, maybe think about it another way, what focal length do you like to use for portraits. Sounds like you have a variety of options available to you (that you don't like for one reason or another) that should guide you to what focal length you like.

Then from there, find a good prime lens in your price range. Also depends a bit on what sort of depth of field you like to shoot your portraits at, if you care about shooting wide open with a fast lens or not. Also depends a bit on if you want to shoot available light or with lighting gear, because that changes the needs too.

03/25/2008 07:13:27 PM · #10

Honestly I would love a 28-300 lense with a 1.4 so I'd have the versatility.. I don't have any lighting gear yet eithers . I love the bokeh of my old 300mm though but sometimes its just to long..... i mean sometimes there is a great shot and I can't go any further back cause I'm already pressed against a wall you know?

Retroesque

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

03/25/2008 07:16:37 PM · #11

Just a thought.

I have the Canon 100mm 2.8 - I think it's a WONDERFUL portrait lens. Plus it has the added bonus of being a Macro - GRIN!

Message edited by author 2008-03-25 19:18:04.

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/25/2008 07:20:13 PM · #12

The macro would be nice but how about some pics with my camera.... I see all these pics with lenses but none of them are on xti

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

03/25/2008 07:28:23 PM · #13

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

The macro would be nice but how about some pics with my camera.... I see all these pics with lenses but none of them are on xti

Don't worry about what camera the pics are taken with, except that they are taken with a 1.6-crop camera, that is, not a 5D or 1-series Canon, Nikon D3, or Kodak SLR/N or /C (have I missed any??).
At web resolution there will be little in the way of detail that visibly separates good images from any of the available APS-C (1.6-crop) cameras.
Do you find that you want a focal length longer than the kit lens gives you? If so, consider either the 85/1.8 or 100/2.8 (or 100/2) lenses. If you feel that the long end of your kit lens is long enough, then for sure the 50/1.4 should be the top of the list. FWIW, the 50/1.4 is a couple cuts above the 50/1.8, both in build and in image quality, most especially bokeh. Definitely worth the extra money.
If you go for the 50mm, then down the road, consider something at 100mm or so for a second focal length.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

03/25/2008 07:33:14 PM · #14

okay so here is my thinking... Im just gonna have to get more than one lense!! :) Maybe I'll get the 50mm 1.4. and replace my dated non USM 75-300mm with something similar for that focal length.

Robot-Fotomat

Canon EOS-10D

03/25/2008 07:44:08 PM · #15

I prefer to have the whole face/head in focus but the background blown out so a say... 50mm at f/3.5 is what I would prefer. So IMHO a fast prime may not always be necessary for a good portrait. The longer the lens, the smaller the aperture is that you can use, but still can separate the subject from the background.

But I think that you may still have some distortions if you do a head shot with a 50mm.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

03/25/2008 07:50:07 PM · #16

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

okay so here is my thinking... Im just gonna have to get more than one lense!! :) Maybe I'll get the 50mm 1.4. and replace my dated non USM 75-300mm with something similar for that focal length.

Only one choice... the Canon 70-200 f/4. Though not 300mm, it's a constant f/4 and far out in front of all the 70-300 choices for optical quality.
Of course, there's the f/2.8 versions, if you don't mind spending into four figures.

sukibabee

Canon EOS-40D

03/26/2008 04:25:34 PM · #17

A lot of people get focal length confused with distortion/perspective. They are not related. What is important is how far away you are from the subject. If you want to do just head portraits, and you use a 50mm on a smaller sensor (with the 1.6 crop factor), you wind up being a bit too close to the person. The nose looks bigger, the ears are smaller etc. and the subject has a cam shoved in their face and are usually more uncomfortable, resulting in a unnatural expression. So you want a focal length where you can back up and zoom to get the crop you want. But then you have a focal length where you have to back up a lot to get a full-body shot. So, the other posts are right in that .. it really depends on what you like to do.

DOF and focal length are related, just like DOF and aperture. But focal length is also related to amount of blur due to camera shake. Bigger apertures are heavier and most expensive too. There is no answer. You are always juggling.

For me, I chose to get a 100mm canon macro. I love the lens. I got it because I want to do tight portraits, and also be able to snap the occasional bug or whatever up close. 85mm may have been a better fl for me though - but I appreciate the added macro. I have a dual purpose lens in this case. I also got the freakin expensive 17-55mm 2.8 IS to do the other work. I may get a 50mm or 85mm too. not sure.

All of these pics were taken with a 100mm -
//www.flickaway.com/glen/dinner
//www.flickaway.com/glen/newcam#f=a1_210

Don't slam me for this next link. Ken Rockwell is biased, but a lot of general info on his site is well written for the newbies. I think this is one of his better articles (on portraits) : //www.kenrockwell.com/tech/portrait-lenses.htm

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

03/26/2008 04:35:43 PM · #18

Originally posted by sukibabee:

and at the same time, other photographers spend their entire quite successful careers sticking a medium wide angle lens right in their subject's face. Two lights, one WA. Over and over again to great effect.

FWIW, Rockwell's '15 feet or further' rule is nonsense. Similarly with his 'use a 400mm for headshots'. The vast amount of fantastic portraiture on his site is a helpful way to weigh his advice.

Message edited by author 2008-03-26 17:03:54.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

03/26/2008 05:06:40 PM · #19

Originally posted by sukibabee:

DOF and focal length are related, just like DOF and aperture.

Not really. At a given reproduction ratio (i.e. image size), DOF is independent of focal length.

So if you have a head and shoulders portrait shot with a 50mm lens shot at f2, the DOF will be identical for any head and shoulders shot at f2 with a 28mm, 85mm, 105mm, 135mm 200mm or lens of any focal length. What will change is the subject to camera distance required to frame the image the same way with different lenses.

Of course, if you take KR's advice and use a 400mm lens, you may need signal flags or, at least a bullhorn to direct your subject.

03/26/2008 05:11:28 PM · #20

Actually here is something I have always wanted to know. Some lenses have an exit or filter mm of 58 while others are in the 70s what difference does that play in picking a lense? I love the look of those 70s on cameras

03/26/2008 05:27:19 PM · #21

Originally posted by Patrick_R:

Roughly, the bigger the physical aperture (not the f-stop) the bigger the front element is going to be. So typically the faster the lens, the bigger the filter it is going to require, for a given focal length. Very roughly.

In practical terms, a larger front element and filter ring means two things

1/ you'll pay more for filters
2/ the lens looks physically more imposing, provides a bigger reflective surface to freak out portrait subjects by their reflection and the size of the camera and your arms will get more tired.