Portrait Lens

[sdsr]

Are you considering the 100L macro so you can get IS? If not, and/or if you're good at holding a camera steady, you might as well save yourself half the price and get the non-L macro, which I hear is as good as the L version (I have the L version, though, so that's just hearsay); the 100mm f/2 costs less still. Also, as everyone else says, if IS isn't an issue, consider the 135L, which costs much the same as the 100L and is alarmingly sharp wide open (at least as sharp as the 100L in my experience - which doesn't involve test charts, though).

I realize you asked about 5.6 (I don't think the differences between the two lenses you mention will be significant there), but if you tried portraits at a wide aperture you might find yourself hooked by what you can achieve that way (and not just on people - flowers, pets, buildings etc. can all benefit) and wish the 24-105 were faster than f/4 (I seldom use my 24-105 for that reason, excellent though it otherwise is).

 

[RLPhoto]

I know there are many great lens for portraits, but due to price and other lens I've decided my next purchase will be either the 24-105L f4 or a 100L f2.8 macro.

I guess the decision will mostly come down to whether I value to versatility of the zoom, or the bonus of macro.

But what I wanted to ask on this site, is will there be much difference in the quality of portrait shots, taken at the same focal length, at say f5.6 and above?

Thanks everyone.

Ben

I shoot at F/8 - F/16 in the studio all the time, but I still prefer my primes for the Corner sharpness.

 

[Loswr]

...portraits at a wide aperture you might find yourself hooked by what you can achieve that way (and not just on people - flowers, pets, buildings etc. can all benefit) and wish the 24-105 were faster than f/4 (I seldom use my 24-105 for that reason, excellent though it otherwise is).

Indeed. I use the 24-105mm for portraits when I have a studio-type backdrop, in which case I'm using f/8-10 with strobes in softboxes, and it's great:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/200 s, f/9, ISO 100

You can get a nicely blurred background with f/4, but you've got to be really close to the subject, and ideally have a relatively distant background:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/160 s, f/4, ISO 100

But for portraits (since that's the title of the thread), I'd really recommend the 135L over either the 24-105L or 100L Macro, assuming you're shooting FF. It's great for melting the background in action shots, too:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 135mm f/2L USM, 1/1600 s, f/2.2, ISO 100

Of course, if you want to really melt out a background, try the 85L - it's great for portraits on both FF and APS-C:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM @ 1/60 s, f/1.8, ISO 400


EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, 1/2000 s, f/1.6, ISO 100

 

[bendobb]

Wow! I'm overwhelmed at what a fantastic, active forum this is and how many insightful (and well kitted!) people are willing to help out with advice.

Really a lot of food for thought here.

The reason I didn't mention which body I use is its hopefully going to change very soon - currently an old 350d but waiting for 6d to come out, although probably just so I can pick up a 5d ii cheaper.

I would love to try a 135f2 but I think it's just too long for my needs. I mostly take pics of my family - and often indoors - cants always get too far away. I tend to bounce a speedlight, which is why i often use a medium aperture - not bright enough to shut right down, but enough not to have to use wide open.

Still undecided after all these ideas. Will probably go for the zoom and then save up for a faster prime - not sure which yet.....

 

[dirtcastle]

Great shots, Neuro! It looks like all that geek knowledge of yours actually translates to good photos.

 

[Loswr]

Great shots, Neuro! It looks like all that geek knowledge of yours actually translates to good photos.

LOL. Ummmm.....thanks?

 

[gary]

I have both and prefer the 100L for Portrait although the 24 to 105 is a very good lens indeed, either will serve you well. Consider the 135L which is one of the best lens out there at a very good price. As your intending to go full frame any would be great

 

[joshmurrah]

I'm a fan of wider apertures and the capability to both: blur undesirable backgrounds, and draw more attention to the focus of the picture. Thus, in my mind the 24-105 is great for studio type work, but not for anything portraiture outside of that IMO.

The two wide-aperture lenses that I have experience with are the 50/1.4 and the 85/1.8... they're both good, and have different uses... full-body the 50/1.4, head/shoulders, the 85/1.8.

I've heard love and hate for the 50/1.2, but don't have experience... the 50/1.2 doesn't seem like it'd be any sharper for the extra $1,000 I'd spend, and I'm OK with the build-quality of the 50/1.4.

I haven't looked into the 100 f/2, however I'd probably go with the multi-purpose 100 f/2.8 macro instead since I already have a 85mm.

 

[infared]

The 100mm f/2.8L is the SHARPEST Canon lens I own. Amazingly sharp...BUT ..
if I am going to take portraits:
1st Choice: Canon 85mm f/1.2L II (any portrait!)
2nd Choice: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (3/4 portrait)
End of conversation.

 

[PavelR]

The 100mm f/2.8L is the SHARPEST Canon lens I own. Amazingly sharp...BUT ..
if I am going to take portraits:
1st Choice: Canon 85mm f/1.2L II (any portrait!)
2nd Choice: Sigma 50mm f/1.4 (3/4 portrait)
End of conversation.

100L @ 2.8 is sharper than 135L @ 2.8 or than 85LII @ 2.8?

 

[verysimplejason]

Here's some casual shots from 100mm F2.8 non-L. I've taken them with 500D. Sharp enough for me.

 

[Bosman]

...portraits at a wide aperture you might find yourself hooked by what you can achieve that way (and not just on people - flowers, pets, buildings etc. can all benefit) and wish the 24-105 were faster than f/4 (I seldom use my 24-105 for that reason, excellent though it otherwise is).

Indeed. I use the 24-105mm for portraits when I have a studio-type backdrop, in which case I'm using f/8-10 with strobes in softboxes, and it's great:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/200 s, f/9, ISO 100

You can get a nicely blurred background with f/4, but you've got to be really close to the subject, and ideally have a relatively distant background:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM @ 105mm, 1/160 s, f/4, ISO 100

But for portraits (since that's the title of the thread), I'd really recommend the 135L over either the 24-105L or 100L Macro, assuming you're shooting FF. It's great for melting the background in action shots, too:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 135mm f/2L USM, 1/1600 s, f/2.2, ISO 100

Of course, if you want to really melt out a background, try the 85L - it's great for portraits on both FF and APS-C:


EOS 5D Mark II, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM @ 1/60 s, f/1.8, ISO 400


EOS 7D, EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM, 1/2000 s, f/1.6, ISO 100

Neuro, these made me smile, totally captured the sweetness and beauty of this child in these photos!