Which Lens to buy for Portraits

[PhotosbyChuck]

I have the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II and the 85 f/1.2L II. For headshots, both are great lenses. But for you, I'm not so sure either is your best bet. Let me walk you through my thinking. Granted ... I don't know what you shoot when you say "portraits" it covers a lot of ground. But hey, I'll dump out my thoughts nonetheless.

First, the 70-200 f/2.8L IS II. If you only take headshots, go for it. But if you take much that's wider, on a body with a crop factor especially, consider your working space. At a distance of 18 feet, you'd barely frame a 5'8" subject at 70mm.

Secondly, the 85 f/1.8 (my opinion is based on the 1.2L II). This is a second portrait lens, not a main lens. It's too limiting to be a main lens. You may work differently than me, but I like the option of free-flow shooting. For shots I set up (say an executive portrait), I can use the 85. I know I want a 3/4 shot, or a headshot, or whatever and I can plan and work around that distance then move for another series of shots. But mixing full length, 3/4, headshots for more action-oriented shooting (say band portraits), it's a terrible lens. You need a zoom as you'll find the need to change focal lengths constantly.

On to my suggestion:

If you shoot mainly outdoors, go for the 70-200. Otherwise, I'd strongly suggest the 24-70 f/2.8L II. It's going to give you more flexibility to frame shots on the 650D. Consider the 85 f/1.8 as a second lens for those times you want what it offers.

Your list includes mainly sub-$500 lenses, so I will also suggest the 24-105 f/4L. I don't think anyone has suggested it yet, but I've used it myself quite often for portraits. I'll post a couple. It is not as sharp as the 24-70, but it is $700 cheaper -- and an excellent portrait lens with a very good zoom range for portraits on an APS-C sensor (effective 39-170). You can buy this AND the 85 for less than the 70-200...

That said, you don't have any bad portrait lenses in your list. Just carefully consider your shooting style and the best fit should be obvious.

Here are 2 samples from the 20-105:

 

[bholliman]

I was going to recommend the Sigma 50/1.4 Art, but it sounds like you are happy with your Nikkor 50 with an adapter.

Given that you are shooting indoors with controlled lighting, I think the 85/1.8 makes sense. It will give you tighter framing for head and head/shoulder shots and it excellent optically. In then environment you are shooting in the problems with this lens (high CA in some situations) will not be an issue.

 

[mustafa]

The 70-200 f2.8 is your best option. But only if you upgrade to a 5D MkIII first.

 

[benique]

My Portraits are usually from the waist up or just a headshot. If I wasn't satisfied with my Nikkor 50 I would go for the Sigma 50 1.4 Art.

A friend lent me his 5D MK III, a 24-70 2.8 MK I, a 50 F1.4 and a 70-300 4-5.6 usm for a few months. The IQ of the nikkor was better than the 24-70. So I didn't bother trying the others. I'm going to take some photos with various focal lengths to get a better idea.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the 85 F1.8 or 100 F2. The CANON EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM looks interesting as well though since it is very affordable. There are just too many lenses to choose from.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I will use my new lens mainly at F5.6-11. However the new lens has to offer good IQ when used at wide apertures as well.

Are you guys who own the 70-200 still use the 85 F1.8 or 100 F2? Why do you use them instead of the 70-200? What are the reasons you stopped using the 85 F1.8 or 100 F2?

The Sigma 50mm Art would be high on my list if I needed 50mm. I have speed lights and soft boxes. So light is no an issue. I think the 24-70 won't be the right choice at the moment since 70mm is only slightly longer than 50mm.

See these comparisons thedigitalpicture site. I put link to compare each pair of lenses, always at the same angle of view, and the same aperture diaphragm to have a fair comparison.

Canon 70-200mm F2.8 ii versus Canon 100mm F2
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=687&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=1&API=3&LensComp=118&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=4

Canon 24-70mm F2.8 ii versus Sigma 50mm Art
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=941&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=5

Canon 24-70mm F2.8 ii versus Canon 50mm F1.4
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=787&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=3&LensComp=115&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=6

 

[mackguyver]

There are just too many lenses to choose from.

Isn't that the truth! I have bought and sold so many lenses in the last several years it's crazy. I would definitely give the 70-200 f/4 IS some thought given everything you have posted. It has excellent IQ and seems well-suited for your needs. The 24-105 would have been a suggestion too, but if you weren't happy with the 24-70 f/2.8 (I), you probably won't find it sharp enough. You might want to give Lensrentals or Borrowlenses a try to see which lenses you like. If you have enough gear to join Canon Professional Services, they let you try out pretty much anything, so that's another option.

 

[nvsravank]

I feel that most folks have ignored the fact that the request is to work with a 650D.
As it is a crop,
I would strongly suggest the 24-70.

 

[privatebydesign]

My Portraits are usually from the waist up or just a headshot. If I wasn't satisfied with my Nikkor 50 I would go for the Sigma 50 1.4 Art.

A friend lent me his 5D MK III, a 24-70 2.8 MK I, a 50 F1.4 and a 70-300 4-5.6 usm for a few months. The IQ of the nikkor was better than the 24-70. So I didn't bother trying the others. I'm going to take some photos with various focal lengths to get a better idea.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the 85 F1.8 or 200 F2. The CANON EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM looks interesting as well though since it is very affordable. There are just too many lenses to choose from.

For a 650D for interior portraits at f5.6-11? Grow up.

Look at the work of Joel Grimes, 90% of his website was shot with the 24-105, though he now uses the 24-70 f2.8 MkII, almost all of the subjects are shot in a small studio and composited in to the background afterwards.

For your uses I'd be looking at the 24-70 MkII and the 24-105 for zooms, and the 85 f1.8 and 100 L Macro for primes.

There is no lens magic in a corporate portrait at f5.6-11, none, it is all about the lighting.

 

[Besisika]

That is because those that say it don't understand the difference between lenses and perspective. Stand in the same place and crop a 50mm image to the same framing as a 100mm lens and the perspective, 'look', is the same.

Now you get me curious. I have never done the test and never paid attention to it (I admit) but thanks for bringing that out.
I will do my testing to see.
I am curious if, say the compression, being the apparent distance between the tip of the nose and the eye remains the same.

Anyway, I stick to using longer focal length, not below 85mm for corporate portrait and similar on a full frame (environmental and lifestyle are different matter). I don't want to crop anything if I don't have to (this is one of the very few instances when I respect the get it right in camera stuff (which I really hate)). Besides, I prefer respecting those important people personal space.
Usually, I shoot at 85mm for horizontal head and shoulder , for longer (say knee - up - vertical) I prefer 200mm, everything in between: 135mm. But that is personal preference.
The way I see it, 70-200 allows you to have all these in one gear, besides at f4-5.6 70-200 II vs 85 1.2 you won't see much of a difference. Don't get me wrong, I use primes, but you would have to buy all 3 instead of just one.
I have primes because I shoot mainly events and there I really need wide aperture, 2.8 won't cut it for me.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

If the OP intends to make its corporate portraits using apertures between F5.6-F11 he should look for a zoom lens as the "superiority" of the primes will be negligible in this situation.

Even 24-105mm F4 will give you very good results for that use. If the lens will be used in F5.6-F11 there is no reason to buy a lens like 200mm F2.

Maybe he does not know that the contrast and sharpness of the same lens at F1.4 and F5.6 will be completely different.

 

[Pookie]

My Portraits are usually from the waist up or just a headshot. If I wasn't satisfied with my Nikkor 50 I would go for the Sigma 50 1.4 Art.

A friend lent me his 5D MK III, a 24-70 2.8 MK I, a 50 F1.4 and a 70-300 4-5.6 usm for a few months. The IQ of the nikkor was better than the 24-70. So I didn't bother trying the others. I'm going to take some photos with various focal lengths to get a better idea.

At the moment I'm leaning towards the 85 F1.8 or 200 F2. The CANON EF 70-200mm F/4.0L USM looks interesting as well though since it is very affordable. There are just too many lenses to choose from.

Well, let me preface this with just a little background. I run a studio (for about 15 years) and my main source of clients range from family, senior port, weddings, and corporate assignments. I work on location and in my studio with Elinchrom Ranger (studio) and Quadra's (studio/on location). Just bought 2 Profoto B1's too. So from what I understand very similar to what you're doing.

I own all primes from 14mm-200mm f/2; no TSE, though or the 200mm 2.8... I own the 16-35 f/4, 24-70 II and 70-200mm II zooms. Two older 7D's, 2 5D3's and a 1DX.

Yes, there are a lot to chose from. I was surprised to see that you are considering the 200 f/2 (perhaps you meant the 200 f/2.8... The 200 f/2.0 is the peach of the bunch and was one of my last big lens purchases... and surprisingly not a lens I use often for the intended purposes of portraiture. I use it for just about everything else though... it's big and just not my first choice when working. I know it's going to seem like sacrilege but I'd put the 70-200 II in the same category... great lens but just not my first choice after years of work.

With your use in mind and a crop body... I'd been using the 16-35f/4 and 24-70 II. With the FF I use... 90% of the time I use the 24-70 II or a 135L. They just work and work very very well. If you are truly considering the 200mm f/2 then I would suggest saving that purchase for another date and going FF with some quality L glass.

I know your head can swim in choices and in the end, it will be you alone putting out the cash for your choice. Typically I would go back and forth, buy and sell lenses (like many have noted). These days I very happy with my kit and no longer lust after much. Best of luck and enjoy the new kit once you have it in hand.

24-70 II is a superb choice and one you shouldn't discount so easily...

 

[slclick]

24-70 L 2 hands down

 

[mb66energy]

I am not specialized in portrait but I had the chance to do 10 shots of four rap musicians - spontanous shot with natural light in a park. They had seen my 40D with the EF 2.0 100 and asked if I am a pro photographer ...

My experience was that the lens is very fast / easy to use. It is small enough not getting in the way: Well balanced camera and - more important - I think it is very decent for those who are photographed.
The optical quality is superb, see the links of ajfotofilmagem . The photos I have made were done at f/4 and show a high fidelity - not only sharpness but also the fine textures of skin and hair.

If I can put the flexibility into my feet without being restricted by walls it might be a good option which will still work on a FF body - if you operate in limited space a zoom might be the better option. Or a second 650D with your 50mm lens mounted. I prefer to have two bodies with me to reduce the amount of lens changes ...

 

[privatebydesign]

That is because those that say it don't understand the difference between lenses and perspective. Stand in the same place and crop a 50mm image to the same framing as a 100mm lens and the perspective, 'look', is the same.

Now you get me curious. I have never done the test and never paid attention to it (I admit) but thanks for bringing that out.
I will do my testing to see.
I am curious if, say the compression, being the apparent distance between the tip of the nose and the eye remains the same.

Anyway, I stick to using longer focal length, not below 85mm for corporate portrait and similar on a full frame (environmental and lifestyle are different matter). I don't want to crop anything if I don't have to (this is one of the very few instances when I respect the get it right in camera stuff (which I really hate)). Besides, I prefer respecting those important people personal space.
Usually, I shoot at 85mm for horizontal head and shoulder , for longer (say knee - up - vertical) I prefer 200mm, everything in between: 135mm. But that is personal preference.
The way I see it, 70-200 allows you to have all these in one gear, besides at f4-5.6 70-200 II vs 85 1.2 you won't see much of a difference. Don't get me wrong, I use primes, but you would have to buy all 3 instead of just one.
I have primes because I shoot mainly events and there I really need wide aperture, 2.8 won't cut it for me.

It does.

Lenses do not create 'compression' your position, your perspective, does.

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

From the options you listed, there is very little doubt that the 70-200 f/2.8L ii is the best option. That being said, the 85L is (in my opinion) Canon's best portrait lens and wow is it good. The 70-200 f/2.8L ii, is a very close second.

My wife's better with the 85 and I'm better with the 70-200, when we go on a shoot together, those are our preferred lenses. If you compare our two shots side by side, hers "wins" more often, but we often give our clients both. Either way, you should be dandy.

With regard to the 100 f/2, no first-hand experience.

With regard to the 100L Macro, also good, just not as great for portraits, (again, from my experience).

I hope this helps a bit! Feel free to look on our gallery site, http://photosbytabor.smugmug.com for any shots that suit your style, then click on the info button in the bottom right corner. Chances are, we may be using a lens that you are considering.

Have fun shopping!
-Tabor

 

[tiltshift]

I think it depends on personal preference. I have the 70-200f2.8 II is and its a great lens. but I feel I can get equally good results with my 85f1.8. sure there are some differences but to a client they would be hard pressed to spot any. I think the most important aspect is what you want to carry and how much versatility you need. if you dont need the flexibility of a zoom I'd save on the weight myself. this is especially true if working under lights where youll be shooting f4-f11. I would ask how important is it that you shoot at f2.8? if 90-95% of your work is at f4-8 then I would suggest the 85f1.8. tons of resolution, sharp, good focus, light, affordable.

 

[ecka]

From the options you listed, there is very little doubt that the 70-200 f/2.8L ii is the best option. That being said, the 85L is (in my opinion) Canon's best portrait lens and wow is it good. The 70-200 f/2.8L ii, is a very close second.

Yes, but not for 650D.

 

[jdramirez]

But in fairness, with the distance the same, a 24mm lens will create a vastly different image than a 200mm. Just crop it... same perspective, different image... But I'm coming in on tail end of this conversation so I may have missed something.

That is because those that say it don't understand the difference between lenses and perspective. Stand in the same place and crop a 50mm image to the same framing as a 100mm lens and the perspective, 'look', is the same.

Now you get me curious. I have never done the test and never paid attention to it (I admit) but thanks for bringing that out.
I will do my testing to see.
I am curious if, say the compression, being the apparent distance between the tip of the nose and the eye remains the same.

Anyway, I stick to using longer focal length, not below 85mm for corporate portrait and similar on a full frame (environmental and lifestyle are different matter). I don't want to crop anything if I don't have to (this is one of the very few instances when I respect the get it right in camera stuff (which I really hate)). Besides, I prefer respecting those important people personal space.
Usually, I shoot at 85mm for horizontal head and shoulder , for longer (say knee - up - vertical) I prefer 200mm, everything in between: 135mm. But that is personal preference.
The way I see it, 70-200 allows you to have all these in one gear, besides at f4-5.6 70-200 II vs 85 1.2 you won't see much of a difference. Don't get me wrong, I use primes, but you would have to buy all 3 instead of just one.
I have primes because I shoot mainly events and there I really need wide aperture, 2.8 won't cut it for me.

It does.

Lenses do not create 'compression' your position, your perspective, does.

 

[wsmith96]

From your provided list of choices, I would recommend the 85mm f1.8. It's a great lens that would have a similar FOV as a 135mm on a FF camera. Good for headshots. After that, I think you are set with your nikkor. I typically view 50mm-135mm as the portrait lens range, but on a crop that would be around 35-85mm.

If you are happy with your 50mm, you may want to think about a 35mm F2.0 IS. I don't own one, but I've read that it's a good lens for the money and would fill any need for a full body photograph without having to backup as far.

I also have used the 60mm 2.8 macro for headshots. It's a very sharp lens for crops, but may not offer any advantage over the 50mm you already own.

And, as previously stated, the 24-70 2.8 mk II is a great lens (if you aren't looking for faster than 2.8) if you would rather have 1 lens than a handful of them.

Last, if you are shooting over f4.0, then there also is the 24-105L. I've got that one too and you can find them at good prices if you shop around. I would recommend the 24-70 over this lens if money is not an issue, but this lens does produce some nice images.

Good luck!

 

[mangobutter]

This thread is saturated with opinions but I'll give mine anyway. If this is to be a dedicated portrait lens, the 70-200 2.8 is a favorite formula for a reason. If you are budget conscious, consider version 1 non IS. I see one on craigslist now in my area for $740. Also consider Tamron, sigma, etc. Theirs are world class performers as well. You really won't see a difference in real world use. The main difference is the build quality. The canons are built for war. not to say the third parties are weak. they just aren't as tank like.

if you mostly travel, street shoot, and do some portraits on the side, consider the 100F2. i'm kind of in the same boat right now... though i dont really do paid work. I have a 70-200 F4 and I'm sure its great at portraits (i know it is because i've done some) but the ability to blur backgrounds even more is a nice part of the 2.8. but then I don't really do too much portraiture so the cost and weight really isnt appealing to me. for me a 100 F2 or 135L is more likely. It can double as a lightweight street/travel setup and do some great portraits should I need to.