Is there a "Best" Portrait Lens for Crop-Sensor Canons?

[Cory]

Head and shoulders only, or environmental? It all comes down to how you like to work, and your available studio space or environment.

85mm is good for the head-and-shoulders, so is the 60mm f/2.8 macro. If you can back off further, there's always the deluxe 135 f/2 L, more bokeh, but not everyone likes to work relatively far from the client. At some point you might like to have a lens in the "normal" range as well, for environmental portraits. If so, there's the cheap but good 40mm f/2.8 STM, and the more expensive and faster Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art.

IF you like the 85 for your style work, keep it, don't worry about lenses, and spend your money instead on more lighting, stands, and modifiers (soft boxes, reflectors, flags, white and black foam-core, etc), and any gels and backdrops you might need. Also, RF transmitters and receivers are cheap and good.

That really is very good advice. Got a nice portrait backdrop, but I don't like it so it's back to the drawing board. I'll likely try to figure out a nice backdrop light (with gels) and maybe an very simple off-camera set-up maybe even just using an ETTL cord so I don't have to try to figure out wireless stuff (which is probably ultra simple, but I don't know from it).
Many thanks.

 

[kphoto99]

Head and shoulders only, or environmental? It all comes down to how you like to work, and your available studio space or environment.

85mm is good for the head-and-shoulders, so is the 60mm f/2.8 macro. If you can back off further, there's always the deluxe 135 f/2 L, more bokeh, but not everyone likes to work relatively far from the client. At some point you might like to have a lens in the "normal" range as well, for environmental portraits. If so, there's the cheap but good 40mm f/2.8 STM, and the more expensive and faster Sigma 35mm f/1.4 Art.

IF you like the 85 for your style work, keep it, don't worry about lenses, and spend your money instead on more lighting, stands, and modifiers (soft boxes, reflectors, flags, white and black foam-core, etc), and any gels and backdrops you might need. Also, RF transmitters and receivers are cheap and good.

That really is very good advice. Got a nice portrait backdrop, but I don't like it so it's back to the drawing board. I'll likely try to figure out a nice backdrop light (with gels) and maybe an very simple off-camera set-up maybe even just using an ETTL cord so I don't have to try to figure out wireless stuff (which is probably ultra simple, but I don't know from it).
Many thanks.

For a portrait backdrop try one of the silver survival blankets that you have crumpled as much as possible. If you can find it a survival tent made from the same silver material is bigger so you would need only one.

 

[Cory]

Thanks. I think I got it -
1. work on my lighting, backgrounds, etc. over time (with simplicity as a top priority)
2. keep everything I have (except for the 50mm 1.8 STM) and add a Canon 50L

 

[gregorywood]

As another mentioned, the Canon 60mm 2.8 macro is a quality performer that's worth a look.

+1 - This is my favorite prime for the APS-C sensor. It's small, light, has USM and does macro.

 

[Ah-Keong]

I think the Sigma 50-100mm is kinda of a 3-in-1 package for 50mm, 85mm, 100mm prime lens to cover the ~85mm, ~105mm, ~135mm focal range.

However, life is not perfect where it is heavier (weight) and pricier (cost).
I am still considering should I get this DC lens or not.... ;D

 

[Alex_M]

I had a very limited time to play with the Sigma 50-100 but I was very impressed with the lens. Sharp, good AF performance. What is amazing is the lens is in fact parfocal. Very cool.

I think the Sigma 50-100mm is kinda of a 3-in-1 package for 50mm, 85mm, 100mm prime lens to cover the ~85mm, ~105mm, ~135mm focal range.

However, life is not perfect where it is heavier (weight) and pricier (cost).
I am still considering should I get this DC lens or not.... ;D

 

[rfdesigner]

I had a very limited time to play with the Sigma 50-100 but I was very impressed with the lens. Sharp, good AF performance. What is amazing is the lens is in fact parfocal. Very cool.

I think the Sigma 50-100mm is kinda of a 3-in-1 package for 50mm, 85mm, 100mm prime lens to cover the ~85mm, ~105mm, ~135mm focal range.

However, life is not perfect where it is heavier (weight) and pricier (cost).
I am still considering should I get this DC lens or not.... ;D

I would hesitate in calling any lens parfocal unless it has been designed and tested to be so. (you may of course have been lucky with your copy)

Roger thinks so too

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/mythbusting-parfocal-photo-zooms/

 

[slclick]

The Sigma Art 50 is pretty sweet on an 80D. Nice head and shoulders portrait glass.

 

[Ah-Keong]

I had a very limited time to play with the Sigma 50-100 but I was very impressed with the lens. Sharp, good AF performance. What is amazing is the lens is in fact parfocal. Very cool.

I am considering should I get this Sigma 50-100mm or the Canon 85mm f/1.8.
I think I shall save up for this Sigma 50-100mm.

 

[Ah-Keong]

The Sigma Art 50 is pretty sweet on an 80D. Nice head and shoulders portrait glass.

Initially, I wanted to get a Canon 50mm f1.8, but soon I find I prefer the perspective and look of the Canon 85mm f1.8 (minus the purple edges) for head and shoulders. I think the Sigma Art 50 design is gorgeous.
I like the new build design of the Sigma. Very clean and functional, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Alex_M]

Noted. Correction then: the copy of the lens I tested was parfocal

I had a very limited time to play with the Sigma 50-100 but I was very impressed with the lens. Sharp, good AF performance. What is amazing is the lens is in fact parfocal. Very cool.

I think the Sigma 50-100mm is kinda of a 3-in-1 package for 50mm, 85mm, 100mm prime lens to cover the ~85mm, ~105mm, ~135mm focal range.

However, life is not perfect where it is heavier (weight) and pricier (cost).
I am still considering should I get this DC lens or not.... ;D

I would hesitate in calling any lens parfocal unless it has been designed and tested to be so. (you may of course have been lucky with your copy)

Roger thinks so too

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/03/mythbusting-parfocal-photo-zooms/

 

[wsmith96]

I used the 85mm f/1.8 on crop. It worked pretty well for portraits. Especially if you used any sort of strobe/flash and were stopping down to f/4 or something. Biggest complaint was that it was a little long and therefore could be tight if used indoors. I actually found myself using the 60mm f/2.8 macro a lot for portrait shots and I thought it delivered some excellent results.

I second the 60mm macro. It has produced many excellent portraits for me on my old t1i.

 

[Ah-Keong]

I remember I read it somewhere but may have forgot the source.

For Portraiture work, there is this "15 feet rule" where the human brain generates an image of facial features from about 15 feet. If you "zoom with the feet" and come close to the subject face, the brain will generate the image of the facial features in proportions of the "15 feet position" from the subject without distortion.

However, the lens used would generate distortion onto the image sensor (brain). From here, this "15 feet guideline" as I would call it would be the optimal distance when taking portraiture.

In the artistic world of imaging. The photographer's artistic eye would gage the correct distance for the pictures. Some subjects will look better closer, while some will look better further.

In crop frame (~full frame effect) terms, the "Best" Portrait lens depend on how the artistic eye frame the subject. Using the "15 feet guideline", some scenarios will yield the "best" lens requirement:

1) Full view of the subject standing : 30-50mm (~50-70mm)
2) Full view of the subject seating / bust-up : 50-70mm (~70-100mm)
3) Head and shoulders : 135-200mm (~200-300mm)

in my opinion, the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 (~80-160mm) and the Canon 135mm f/2L (~200mm) duet cover majority of the possible scenarios for portraiture. Other may consider the 70-200mm f/2.8 (~112-320mm).

lastly, many other considerations include availability of space (indoor events), Background (defocus effect) and Bokeh (too much blur may fight with the attention of the subject in the image).

;D Cheers!

 

[Mikehit]

I remember I read it somewhere but may have forgot the source.

For Portraiture work, there is this "15 feet rule" where the human brain generates an image of facial features from about 15 feet. If you "zoom with the feet" and come close to the subject face, the brain will generate the image of the facial features in proportions of the "15 feet position" from the subject without distortion.

However, the lens used would generate distortion onto the image sensor (brain). From here, this "15 feet guideline" as I would call it would be the optimal distance when taking portraiture.

In the artistic world of imaging. The photographer's artistic eye would gage the correct distance for the pictures. Some subjects will look better closer, while some will look better further.

In crop frame (~full frame effect) terms, the "Best" Portrait lens depend on how the artistic eye frame the subject. Using the "15 feet guideline", some scenarios will yield the "best" lens requirement:

1) Full view of the subject standing : 30-50mm (~50-70mm)
2) Full view of the subject seating / bust-up : 50-70mm (~70-100mm)
3) Head and shoulders : 135-200mm (~200-300mm)

in my opinion, the Sigma 50-100mm f/1.8 (~80-160mm) and the Canon 135mm f/2L (~200mm) duet cover majority of the possible scenarios for portraiture. Other may consider the 70-200mm f/2.8 (~112-320mm).

lastly, many other considerations include availability of space (indoor events), Background (defocus effect) and Bokeh (too much blur may fight with the attention of the subject in the image).

;D Cheers!

The '15-feet' explanation was discussed ad nauseam several years ago and roundly disproved.
The '15 feet' thing was more of a back-calculation from the experience that shooting frame-filling with a lens between 90mm and 135mm on a 35mm format camera gave the correct perspective on facial features - shooting closer with a wider lens gave distorted nose/cheeks, shooting further away with longer lenses gave a flattened perspective.
The human visual system does not assess the full-length body from 15 feet and putting a 30mm lens on 35mm format camera and shooting full-length from 15 feet will give you horribly distorted body shapes. The human visual system will assess full-length from further away and at those distances perspective is less important.

 

[Ah-Keong]

The '15-feet' explanation was discussed ad nauseam several years ago and roundly disproved.
The '15 feet' thing was more of a back-calculation from the experience that shooting frame-filling with a lens between 90mm and 135mm on a 35mm format camera gave the correct perspective on facial features - shooting closer with a wider lens gave distorted nose/cheeks, shooting further away with longer lenses gave a flattened perspective.
The human visual system does not assess the full-length body from 15 feet and putting a 30mm lens on 35mm format camera and shooting full-length from 15 feet will give you horribly distorted body shapes. The human visual system will assess full-length from further away and at those distances perspective is less important.

To a large extent, I agree with you.

In full frame terms, I usually work use this "guideline"

35mm : Environmental Portraits
50mm : Full Body Portraits
85mm : Partial Body / Bust up Portraits
100~135mm : Shoulders / Headshots.

In crop frame terms (APS-C / DX), this would translate to:

20mm : Environmental Portraits
35mm : Full Body Portraits
50mm : Partial Body / Bust up Portraits
60-85mm : Shoulders / Headshots.

However, the focal length used will introduce distortion. To achieve the similarity of the field of view factoring the crop factor, a wider angle lens have to be used. If one uses say a 85mm on a crop frame body, the resulting image is a 85mm lens distortion effect with a ~135mm perspective effect by standing far away.

This become a kind of compromise issue for crop frame shooters. A 50-100mm lens on a crop frame body will result in a 50-100mm lens distortion effect with a ~80-160mm perspective effect.

For full frame shooters, a 85mm lens will result in a 85mm distortion effect with a 85mm perspective effect. An 1:1 ratio.

In my opinion, I would recommend a 85mm lens for crop frame shooters to enjoy less distortion but due to the crop factor, one has to stand further.