Portraitlens for headshots.

[Jack56]

Hi all. First of all, yes I know, there has been written a lot about lenses for portraits.
But still I like to know a bit more, hopefully.
I own a Mark5dIII with several lenses (16-35/24-70 II/70-200 II/100 IS). Very pleased with them.
I did some landscapes and detail shots.
Curious enough, I like to make headshots of animals more and more and I have been asked to make images in black and white of all the children of school.
I made the headshots with the 100L and the 70-200. Pleased with them, but those lenses are not the primes the pro's have got in their bag. Not that I'm a pro, no, don't misunderstand me. But, spending some money, I will spend it right.
I've searched the net for hours and tried to figure out what kind of lenses famous portrait photographers use. Hahaha, I know, you may laugh
But, to get this info is very difficult.
Which lens will satisfy my needs the most?
- 85 L
- 85 1.8
- 135 L
And strange enough, I love the images of Lee Jeffries and he uses a 24 mm.
This is the kind of images I like to make myself:
[Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/yJFYQDM.jpg)

 

[Loswr]

The 135L is the classic headshot lens. If you have control over the background, e.g. a muslin backdrop, no reason not to use the 70-200 at ~135mm.

 

[GuyF]

Consider the Sigma 85mm f1.4 - very sharp wide open and smooth bokeh. If you can wait, they're almost certain to release an "Art" version.

 

[chromophore]

For photographing children *specifically*, a shorter focal length is probably better. The reason is that a child's face is proportioned differently than an adult: their faces are rounder and flatter; and their noses are proportionally smaller. A longer lens will accentuate the roundness of the face, bring the ears forward, and flatten the face even more, which is not necessarily what you want.

Given your existing lenses, the best thing for you to do is to find the focal length that works best for the type of image you want: you have covered the entire range from 16mm to 200mm. Ignore the DOF/bokeh, just figure out the focal length that results in the right perspective for the shot. I'm going to guess it's going to be between 50mm and 85mm, but you might come to a different conclusion and that's totally fine.

Then, once you know the focal length you would like to use, the decision becomes simplified: you can then choose among lenses that give the desired bokeh for the price point.

 

[Loswr]

For photographing children *specifically*, a shorter focal length is probably better. The reason is that a child's face is proportioned differently than an adult: their faces are rounder and flatter; and their noses are proportionally smaller. A longer lens will accentuate the roundness of the face, bring the ears forward, and flatten the face even more, which is not necessarily what you want.

Good point! I generally use my 85L with kids, 135L with adults.

 

[Sporgon]

Personally speaking I don't find tight head portraits shot at ultra wide apertures such as f/1.2 very appealing. The closer you are to the subject the shallower the dof is going to get, so if you're using a 100 to 135ish lens you're going to be pretty close.

Bearing that in mind I think that if you already have a 70-200/f2.8II the sky's pretty well the limit: I couldn't tell the difference between that lens used well and the others you mention - close up. I full length portrait with ultra shallow dof, maybe.

The only trouble is that lens is such a lump.

 

[privatebydesign]

It depends very much on your style and the look you are going for. Silly things like your shooting style and image preferences dictates your perspective, which impacts your lens choice. Most pro headshot shooters use macro lenses on medium format bodies that equate closest to the 100 f2.8 macro on a ff Canon. If you are shooting outside and want dreamy backgrounds then the 85 f1.2 is traditionally the recommended lens.

The best answer is to post some images in the style that you are looking to achieve, we can then tell you what you need to achieve it, or browse Flickr and check out the exif data.

 

[rcarca]

For what it is worth, I would be non-plussed if I was told that I could only keep one of my 85L and 135L. I have probably used the 85L more, but I love them both. I don't think you would go far wrong with either. I only have Canon lenses at the moment, so cannot comment on the Sigma options. But these two are sheer joy to use...

Richard

 

[Jack56]

Thank you all for your advice.
Very kind of you.
@Richard: Do you use these lenses with the 100mm and 70-200?

 

[atkinsonphoto]

Canon 7D 200mm 2.8L

Yeah, 135 is too long for kids.

 

[acoll123]

I had the 85/1.2L and loved it. I think it is the quintessential portrait lens for headshots. I started doing more sports and had to sell it to finance some other gear . . . still miss it though! I do still have the 50/1.2L and think it might be something you should look at, especially for kids - wider field of view, similar bokeh. It seems like I saw a rumor here on this site of a replacement in the works - maybe some older models are available used for good prices?

Andy

 

[lion rock]

atkinsonphoto,
Great photo. Beautiful person!
-r

 

[Pookie]

Hi all. First of all, yes I know, there has been written a lot about lenses for portraits.
But still I like to know a bit more, hopefully.
I own a Mark5dIII with several lenses (16-35/24-70 II/70-200 II/100 IS). Very pleased with them.
I did some landscapes and detail shots.
Curious enough, I like to make headshots of animals more and more and I have been asked to make images in black and white of all the children of school.
I made the headshots with the 100L and the 70-200. Pleased with them, but those lenses are not the primes the pro's have got in their bag. Not that I'm a pro, no, don't misunderstand me. But, spending some money, I will spend it right.
I've searched the net for hours and tried to figure out what kind of lenses famous portrait photographers use. Hahaha, I know, you may laugh
But, to get this info is very difficult.
Which lens will satisfy my needs the most?
- 85 L
- 85 1.8
- 135 L
And strange enough, I love the images of Lee Jeffries and he uses a 24 mm.
This is the kind of images I like to make myself:
[Imgur](http://i.imgur.com/yJFYQDM.jpg)

All of the above... you can take portraits with a 17mm if you choose. Why worry about what the pros use, use what you have already, buy what you want.

 

[rcarca]

@Richard: Do you use these lenses with the 100mm and 70-200?

I do also have the 100mm (which I use more for plants - the shame is that I am currently living in a flat without a garden whereas I used to have a lovely garden - Divorce...) and I have the 70-200 which I use much more as a walk around lens - typically if I am visiting somewhere for a few days I alternate going out with the 70-200 and the 24-70. Although if I am in London (my home city - or at least where I work) I sometimes take any lens on the camera into work with me to get different perspectives. Which reminds me I need to do so again soon! I have to admit that I don't use the 100mm macro so very much nowadays - it would be the first to go, but I guess it's second hand value is pretty low so I will keep it!!!

 

[privatebydesign]

Lee Jeffries and the linked image are not really lens specific, they certainly don't need exotics like the 85 f1.2, they are much more processing driven and remind me of the Dragan effect (https://www.google.com/search?q=dragan+effect&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8) that was popular a few years ago, named after its earliest creator and promoter Andrzej Dragan.

For instance this was taken with a 50mm f1.4 @ f8. You certainly don't new any new lenses to get 'the look' you are after just some post processing.

 

[Sporgon]

@Richard: Do you use these lenses with the 100mm and 70-200?

I do also have the 100mm (which I use more for plants - the shame is that I am currently living in a flat without a garden whereas I used to have a lovely garden - Divorce...)

At least your camera gear survived in tact. I know some who's didn't !

 

[rcarca]

At least your camera gear survived in tact. I know some who's didn't !

Most was stolen in a mysterious break-in. I kept the essentials because I had them with me. And I have been rebuilding - slowly, slowly! Last time I built a great collection on the back of a redundancy, but now I am self employed, that makes it much more difficult!!!

 

[Patlezinc]

What about the 50mm Sigma Art?
I own It on my 6D. It Is the kind lense pushing you to shoot everyday ;D

Here is an exemple. Not a "direct" portrait but just to show the lens possibilities.
EDIT : the picture is at 90 degres on my iPad. Just click on the file.
Picture Is only 1920x1200 here. Shot at f/1.4

 

[mackguyver]

As Private says, it's all about your style. I own or have owned the 50mms (all Canon models other than the macro), both 85s, 100 f/2.8 IS macro, 135 f/2, and the 70-200 f/4IS and f/2.8 IS II. I have used all of them for headshots and here's my take.

The 50s are great for children and outdoor shots, with the 50L being best, followed by the 50 1.8 STM in my opinion.

The 85 f/1.8 is great for the money, but the 85L II is a stunning lens if you like to shoot between f/1.2 and f/4. If you shoot from f/2.8 or f/4 and up, i.e. in a studio, the 70-200 lenses are better choices. There's something about the 85L, though that works well for all portraits from full body to tight headshots that I love. It's a heavy, delicate beast, though, so it's not the most practical.

The 100L macro is my newest lens in this range and I'm starting to really love it for headshots because of the IS, close focus, bokeh, and sharpness.

The 135L is great for headshots, but if you use it indoors or in tight spots, it's not very flexible. The minimum focus (MFD) is a bit limiting as well compared to the 100L macro if you like tight shots. It's really light, which means you can shoot all day with it. It's probably the least flexible of all the options, but it also has a dreamy quality and if all you do is headshots, it's a great choice.

Both 70-200 IS lenses (f/4 and f/2.8 II) are excellent and highly flexible lenses for headshots. You lose the wide aperture and (being honest) some of the flaws that make the fast lenses so special, but for studio or any other kind of work where you don't need to blow out the background so much, they are excellent.

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.

 

[privatebydesign]

Based on my use, which is a mix of all techniques, I think I'd go for the 100mm macro, even though I've only had it for about 4 months. It's small, light, has killer IS, is fast (enough) for most work, and the ability to work without having to deal with a MFD makes it a joy to use.

I've been saying that since it came out ;D