Which Lens to buy for Portraits

[StudentOfLight]

I've been thinking about getting a new lens mainly for portraits. I currently use a Nikkor 50 F2 with an adapter on a EOS 650D. The image quality of the lens is outstanding in comparison to the Canon 24-70 F2.8 MK I and the Canon 50 F1.4 I compared it to.

I've been thinking about buying one of the following lenses.
1. Canon 85 F1.8
2. Canon 100 F2
3. Tokina 100 F2.8 Macro
4. Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM II

I'm mainly shooting and making money with business portraits. I'm not into macro photography. I'm mainly considering the first 3 because of the cots and I guess that the image quality of primes is a lot better. I'm going to upgrade to FF within a year or two. So I'm only considering FF lenses.

What lens would you recommend. How is the image quality of the Canon 70-200 F2.8 IS USM II compared to the Canon 100 F2? What lens could you recommend? What are they reasons why you would choose one over the other?

When it comes to portraits I find that 100mm is generally too long on an APS-C body. I like the 24-70mm range as it provides a comfortable working distance. One of the lenses to consider on APS-C is the EF-S 60mm macro. This lens is designed for APS-C and is like the cousin of the EF 100mm macro on full frame. To put the lens in context, when shooting wide open, the EF-S 60mm outresolves the 24-70mm L lens on APS-C.
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=335&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=787&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=0

P.S. If you are after the full-frame look then getting a full-frame camera is the easiest way to achieve it. Second hand or refurbished 5D bodies are always floating around and with the 5Ds cameras launching in a few months I'm sure there will plenty more. Take a look at EF 100mm f/2 on full frame vs Zeiss Otus 55mm on APS-C... The difference is nowhere near the price difference. http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=118&Camera=9&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=1&LensComp=917&CameraComp=736&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=1

 

[ksgal]

ok, here is my three cents - so for what it is worth.

1. portraits aren't really about how sharp your lens is. In fact, sometimes, we really don't want to see every pimple/wrinkle/age spot we've got. (got a 100L and it is scary sharp!)

2. Portraits are about how well lit they are.

3. the lens in my bag when I go to take headshots for business/id is my 24-105L.

Why? because you never know when that head shot might also turn into a 'can we all have a picture please?' or when that conference room they assured me was big enough turns into a 10x10 low ceiling closet I'm trying to get enough room to use that 70mm end of my 70-200mm 2.8. (usually out the door, into the hall, but it aint always going to work)

IF said portrait is going to be larger than 8x10, then sure, go FF and get a prime and shoot it with your best quality. If it is going to be some senior photo shoot, then yeah, go for as shallow a depth of field as you can go for.

But - for business portraits for website/ id badges/8x10 printing... Having the ability to also do a group shot, or an environmental portrait - then I think a zoom is wise. JMHO.

 

[PureClassA]

If you're sticking with crop, then take a hard look at the 50mm Sigma ART. It's crazy sharp wide open and stopped down to 5.6 it's even more ridiculous. I've done full body and headshots with this. It's nice because the barrel distortion is pretty much nonexistent making closer headshot look natural. On a crop body it's about an 80mm equivalent.

On full frame the 70-200 IS MkII is very versatile and widely used for studio and portrait work....but it probably way too long on a crop for this sort of task.

If you want the most versatility out of single lens where you'll be shooting mostly at f8 and down then the 24-105 f4 L IS is very good, very cost effective ($650 for a USA model on eBay from getitdigital), and had IS... but if you can swing the 24-70 f2.8L MkII, then do that one. You'll have much better sharpness to the corners if you ever upgrade to FF.

The 85 1.8 Non-L is very, very good, but on a crop it won't do you much better than headshots for a studio setting. Look to the 50mm non-L prime in that same price range instead. I never have been able to personally justify the $2000 price tag of the 85L Prime.

I shoot on a 6D and 5D3 for studio stuff and use the 35mm & 50mm Sigma Art for groups and full body respectively (sometimes the Canon 16-35 f4 L) and for torso and headshots I use the 135 f2 L, which is still arguably the sharpest lens and best bokeh maker Canon has ever made. It's a tremendous value at $1000 but unfortunately too long on a crop body for this stuff.

 

[Phenix205]

On a crop body, I'd say 50 1.4. On a FF body, 85 1.2. I find 70-200 too heavy for a long session of shooting. The bokeh of 70-200 is also a little harsh compared to 85 1.2. If you shoot at small apertures most of the time, I’d pick a light lens.

 

[Cory]

Do you think that 35 and 50 are too close in focal length for crop to own both and maintain a non-redundant set-up?

 

[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.

Yes, but not for 650D.

Certainly not for the 650D. I was basing my opinion on him saying;

I've been thinking about getting a new lens mainly for portraits
...
I'm going to upgrade to FF within a year or two. So I'm only considering FF lenses.
...
What lens could you recommend? What are they reasons why you would choose one over the other?

It seems as though even his shortest (85mm) is rather long if he keeps the 650D. He could always get the 50L, it's cheaper and can realistically be used for portraits on a crop or full frame. I just got the gist that he was planning well into the future with his next lens purchase.

Cheers!
-Tabor

 

[Tabor Warren Photography]

Do you think that 35 and 50 are too close in focal length for crop to own both and maintain a non-redundant set-up?

Nope!

-Tabor

 

[PureClassA]

Do you think that 35 and 50 are too close in focal length for crop to own both and maintain a non-redundant set-up?

Nope!

-Tabor

I have both. I use the 50 ART more than the 35 ART but only because I since bought the 16-35 f4 L. The 50mm you can use for portrait work. The 35 you really cant. You have to get so close to get a frame filling headahot that you will distort normal features. Stick with longer focal lengths for portrait work unless you're doing something wide

 

[Pookie]

Both the 50 and the 35 can be used for portraiture... not sure why you'd think not. You just have to know what your doing. The 35 works perfectly well on a crop and on a FF can be used for full length to 3/4 length portraiture. Portraiture is not just head shots...

50L...


35L on a 7D (a few of my favorite street ports)...

https://flic.kr/p/j73hMu

 

[PureClassA]

I said "unless you're doing something wide". Or in your case, going for a certain effect. of course portraiture isnt just headshots or 3/4 shots, but since most folks looking to start are trying to fine one good lens, i would not suggest 35 at all because good headshots become limited unless you want the effect of features being out of proportion. I have shot lots of close ups on my 35 sig. But i was going for that effect. Its not something I would go to in a studio unless I was going for something wide

Here's a 50 ....

 

[ecka]

Do you think that 35 and 50 are too close in focal length for crop to own both and maintain a non-redundant set-up?

Nope!

-Tabor

I have both. I use the 50 ART more than the 35 ART but only because I since bought the 16-35 f4 L. The 50mm you can use for portrait work. The 35 you really cant. You have to get so close to get a frame filling headahot that you will distort normal features. Stick with longer focal lengths for portrait work unless you're doing something wide

Any lens can be used for portraits, even fish-eye (maybe except MP-E 65/2.8 ). The question is - which focal length you prefer(?). By choosing the FL you are choosing the perspective and distortion, like you can make legs look longer by using 24L .

 

[Pookie]

I said "unless you're doing something wide". Or in your case, going for a certain effect. of course portraiture isnt just headshots or 3/4 shots, but since most folks looking to start are trying to fine one good lens, i would not suggest 35 at all because good headshots become limited unless you want the effect of features being out of proportion. I have shot lots of close ups on my 35 sig. But i was going for that effect. Its not something I would go to in a studio unless I was going for something wide

But those shots on the 7D are not wide or distorted... the op has a crop and will have for at least a year or two. On a crop that's 56mm. A pretty standard portrait length. In the Canon Trinity of portraiture 35 or 50, 85, and 135.

 

[PureClassA]

I said "unless you're doing something wide". Or in your case, going for a certain effect. of course portraiture isnt just headshots or 3/4 shots, but since most folks looking to start are trying to fine one good lens, i would not suggest 35 at all because good headshots become limited unless you want the effect of features being out of proportion. I have shot lots of close ups on my 35 sig. But i was going for that effect. Its not something I would go to in a studio unless I was going for something wide

But those shots on the 7D are not wide or distorted... the op has a crop and will have for at least a year or two. On a crop that's 56mm. A pretty standard portrait length. In the Canon Trinity of portraiture 35 or 50, 85, and 135.

True, i am thinking FF. But 35 is not my first or even second pick for typical studio portraiture. On a crop, yes perhaos so.

 

[Pookie]

I said "unless you're doing something wide". Or in your case, going for a certain effect. of course portraiture isnt just headshots or 3/4 shots, but since most folks looking to start are trying to fine one good lens, i would not suggest 35 at all because good headshots become limited unless you want the effect of features being out of proportion. I have shot lots of close ups on my 35 sig. But i was going for that effect. Its not something I would go to in a studio unless I was going for something wide

But those shots on the 7D are not wide or distorted... the op has a crop and will have for at least a year or two. On a crop that's 56mm. A pretty standard portrait length. In the Canon Trinity of portraiture 35 or 50, 85, and 135.

True, i am thinking FF. But 35 is not my first or even second pick for typical studio portraiture. On a crop, yes perhaos so.

Indeed... I rarely shoot crop these days. Only FF and then use the 24-70 II as my main studio lens, sometimes I use the 70-200 but if that's the case the 200 f/2 gets the nod. Honestly if the OP is doing corporate work he should go FF or MF. That's where my 645z shines the best but that is a non-Canon entry and better left for another discussion. Trying to stay Canon-centric here in this forum.

 

[PureClassA]

http://shields-photography.com/p1071533385/h372E3BD2#h372e3bd2

A link to what should be a shot of my 7 year old done on a FF with a 35mm Sig Art at close range for a face shot. I love the pic, but I was going to for that wide angle lens, close up effect with the natural distortion of features from the curvature of the glass. Now perhaps this isn't as apparent on the crops (I've not shot this lens on my 7D). My original point though was that your best all around, single cost effective lens if starting out may just be the 24-105 f4L because of the crop factor translation and it keeps you in t he game if you step up to FF. Is it the best? No. Is it very good? Yes. 70-200 is just way too long for a crop, but a 35-50 prime would be great.

 

[K]

Anything can be used to shoot a portrait. However, certain focal lengths are superior and 50mm is not a good choice. Especially for headshots. Then again, it depends on the type of photography. Some people want that wide angle distorted look even in their portraits. I'm of the opposite opinion. I want the least possible distortion in portraiture.

I recommend the 70-200mm 2.8 II. This is probably the ultimate portrait lens out there and also one of the top lenses overall.

However, if you're shooting a crop camera - for about same money....

A Canon 6D with the 135mm F2 will be superior to a crop camera with the 70-200.


I would go 6D + 135 before I'd put a $2,200 70-200 2.8 II on a crop camera. Now, if you plan on going FF anyway - then get the 70-200 and have the best of both worlds. Since the 70-200 was on your list, I'm assuming you're willing to spend at least $2,000.


The 135 is better than the 100. I would only get the 100 if I was on a budget and needed a lens that can cover both portraits and macro. If you don't need macro, the 135 is better.


You might also want to consider the 70-200 F4....

 

[Pookie]

Again, 50 is perfectly fine for headshots... it's all in perspective. If you push in super tight of course you're going to get some distortion but if you know what you're doing and how to use the tool in hand you can get great headshots with a 50mm FOV. There are numerous, very well known professional photographers that use both a 50mm and the 24-70 FL with great success. Surprisingly, 50mm is right in the middle of the 24-70 range... go figure. And again, Canon specifically made primes in the trinity of portrait lenses to contain the 35, 50, 85 and 135.

 

[PureClassA]

Ive never had barrel distorion problems doing headshots with a 50 although its not my first choice. The 135L is but not on a crop. A good fifty will get you great results.

 

[Famateur]

Benique, if I've read correctly, here are the nuts and bolts of what you've described of your needs, followed by my opinions:

> You mostly shoot at F5.6 - 11.

This, to me, means spending big money on wide aperture lenses is a waste for the majority of your work. If you're stopping down to F8, or something, the advantage of an F1.2 or an F2.8 lens is lost. That's good news because it could save you a LOT of money.

> You shoot in somewhat limited space. Without exactly defining what that is, it's hard to know what the limits are going to be for focal length. Some have said a 70-200MM is wholly inappropriate, but then they recommend an 85. If your space isn't too tight for 85MM, then the 70-85 end of a 70-200MM will work, too.

> You currently shoot a crop body but have plans to upgrade to full frame in a year or so. This plan, to me, means don't let the crop factor affect your choice. You'll likely have the lens far longer than any body.

When I add this all up, I like MackGuyver's suggestion of the 70-200MM F4 IS more and more (I also happen to have and love that particular lens...for portraits...on a crop body). The zoom ring is so smooth and can turn with a single finger. It has excellent sharpness, great flexibility with the zoom, is much smaller and lighter than the F2.8 version and has a relatively friendly price (especially with rebate).

If it was me, I'd be choosing the 70-200MM F4 IS. If you can fit an 85MM, then you can use a 70-200. The move to full frame will only improve its usefulness in limited space.

 

[anthonyd]

I shoot with a crop body (60D), I do a lot of people photography, a lot of it indoors, and I use the 50/1.4, the 24-70/2.8 II and the 70-200/4.0 so here is my two cents.

First, as was said by someone else before in this thread, portraiture is not really about using the sharpest lens. Especially if you work in the 5.6-11 range (why would you do that anyway?). So forget about which lens is the sharpest and find which one is the most appropriate for what you are trying to achieve.

I find the 70-200 to be an outstanding lens (and it's only the f/4.0) but I don't think I've used it indoors a single time in the five+ years that I've own it. What kind of indoors are you talking about? There is a difference between my son's bedroom and an auditorium.

The 50/1.4 is my go to lens when I want a nice bokeh. It only works as a 80/2.2 on the crop body, but that's plenty of bokeh if you put some distance between your subject and the background. However, you shoot at f/5.6 and above, so you must not care much about bokeh. So why do you love your 50/1.4 so much?

The 24-70/2.8 II is the lens you are looking for. It's sharp, it's fast, it's accurate and it can zoom in a range that indoors and on a crop body should be ideal (it is for me anyway). Also, since you are doing corporate portraits, it's big enough and has that nice red line on it that tells your client that they hired a pro. A Nikkor lens on a Canon body ... I don't know.

Here are my samples in the following order:
24-70 @38/2.8 (60/4.5 equivalent)
70-200 @104.0/5.0 (165/8.0 equivalent)
50 @50/1.4 (80/2.2 equivalent)