Which Lens to buy for Portraits

Sort by date Sort by votes
benique

benique

Oct 6, 2014
55
0
4,981
#1
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?
 
#2
I have the 85L, 100mm macro, and the 70-200 2.8 ii, and i would hands down day the 70-200. It is incredibly versatile and the IS is amazing. The 85 is magic, there is no doubting it, but with most portraits you're using lights and stopped down to 5.6-11, and the 1.2 is of no use. Also, shooting at 135-200 makes a face look better nearly every time.

If you are doing events and weddings I'd maybe say the 85, but for business portraits it's the 70-200 without a doubt.
 
Upvote 0
#3
keithfullermusic said:
I have the 85L, 100mm macro, and the 70-200 2.8 ii, and i would hands down day the 70-200. It is incredibly versatile and the IS is amazing. The 85 is magic, there is no doubting it, but with most portraits you're using lights and stopped down to 5.6-11, and the 1.2 is of no use. Also, shooting at 135-200 makes a face look better nearly every time.

If you are doing events and weddings I'd maybe say the 85, but for business portraits it's the 70-200 without a doubt.
Click to expand...
+1, the 70-200 f/2.8 IS II is by far the most versatile portrait lens, not to mention versatile at just about everything lens. The 85L II is amazing, but unless you plan to shoot from f/1.2 to f/2 all the time, there's not much point to getting it before you get the 70-200. I think you would find the 100mm (and even the 85mm) lenses too long (on a crop body) for most portrait work as well, especially if shooting in tight spaces like conference rooms and offices. Also, the 25mm extension tube + 70-200 makes a pretty decent macro lens if you ever have any need for the occasional close up shot.
 
Upvote 0
#4
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is pretty heavy with a weight of 1.5 Kg. Can my camera support that when mounted on a tripod? Do I have to mount the camera or the lens on the tripod? Is the extra weight and cost (4x - 5.5x) worth it when I'm only going to use a small part of it's range?

How's the auto focus and image quality of the 70-200 2.8 IS II compared to the 85 1.8 and 100 2?

I don't have a studio. I'm not doing weddings and and I'm not planning to do events in the near future. I'm usually shooting portraits indoors at my customers offices with speed lights and my 50mm @F5.6-8. I often don't have that much space when shooting portraits. So I would only use a range of about 50-100mm.
 
Upvote 0
#5
benique said:
Thanks for your comments and suggestions. The Canon 70-200 2.8 IS II is pretty heavy with a weight of 1.5 Kg. Can my camera support that when mounted on a tripod? Do I have to mount the camera or the lens on the tripod? Is the extra weight and cost (4x - 5.5x) worth it when I'm only going to use a small part of it's range?

How's the auto focus and image quality of the 70-200 2.8 IS II compared to the 85 1.8 and 100 2?

I don't have a studio. I'm not doing weddings and and I'm not planning to do events in the near future. I'm usually shooting portraits indoors at my customers offices with speed lights and my 50mm @F5.6-8. I often don't have that much space when shooting portraits. So I would only use a range of about 50-100mm.
Click to expand...
It has a tripod ring & foot that you can use to mount it to a tripod or hold with your hand when you shoot. It's heavy to hand hold for long periods, but not terrible otherwise. The AF is about as good as it gets and image quality is better than those lenses. Assuming that you'll be shooting at f/4+ most of the time I would also consider the 70-200 f/4 IS. It's every bit as good as its big brother at half the cost, weight, and size. Given that you are on a crop body currently, you might also consider the 24-70 f/2.8 II. It lacks IS, but is far lighter and the 38-112mm range might work well for your purposes. When you go full frame, it will complement a 70-200 perfectly as well.
 
Upvote 0
#6
the 70-200 2.8 ii is amazingly fast at focusing, and the image quality is unbelievable. It's not just sharp, but the bokeh and the colors/contrast really stand out. The image quality and focusing of the 70-200 are definitely better than the other ones you mentioned.

i see that mackguyer mention the f/4 and the 24-70. if i were to pick between the two, i'd go with the 70-200 f/4. the distortion you get at 60mm and below is definitely noticeable when compared to the 135mm and above (which i find to be the best). however, if money isn't an issue, get the 70-200 2.8. it is probably the most versatile lens you can get.

also, don't worry about weight with them. even the 70-200 2.8 isn't that bad. when i do weddings, i have that thing on a body most of the time and it's fine.
 
Upvote 0
#8
The suggestions to use a 70-200, of any description, on a crop camera for indoors portraits when "I often don't have that much space when shooting portraits." is poor advice in this case.

Sure the 700-200 is a great lens, just in this instance it is 100% inappropriate.

If the 50 is too loose then I'd say get the 85 f1.8, it is a great lens that will become your current 50 when you do go FF. My advice, save the lens money and either put it towards the FF upgrade, and those 6D's are very good value and there are crazy good deals on the 5D MkIII at the moment, or put the money towards lights and modifiers.

My go to corporate head shot/portrait lens is the 100mm L Macro on FF.
 
Upvote 0
#10
Indoors, I tend to use the 24-70 II the most and outdoors, it's the 70-200.

I would suggest renting/borrowing a FF camera and trying it with your 24-70 compared to using your Nikkor 50 f/2 on your 650D. You might find the IQ improves enough with going to FF than spending more on lenses.

I generally don't like using the 70-200 on a tripod for indoor portraits because it's cumbersome to change lenses when you are switching from a single person shot to multiple people. It's much easier switching a 24-70 out for a 100 or 135 prime when you don't have to take the camera off the tripod.
 
Upvote 0
#11
If you like to shoot at f2.0 and wider for shallow DOF potraits, get the 85.

If money is no object and you don't mind the bulk and weight, get the 70-200

If I had to choose, I'd pick my 85L over my 70-200 f2.8 II any day (for portraits)
 
Upvote 0
#12
If you prefer prime lenses, I recommend having a couple of them.
I chose Canon 100mm F2 + Sigma 50mm Art.

I've had the Canon 50mm F1.4 and sold with no regrets, because I was forced to stop down to F2.5 until sharpness and contrast similar to 100mm F2, and 50mm Art wide open.

I think 70-200mm would be too long to shoot indoors with an APS-C body.
If you can wait for a new 50mm Canon, the rumors say that it should not take to be released.
 
Upvote 0
#13
benique said:
So I would only use a range of about 50-100mm.
Click to expand...
70-200 would be my choice as well.
Tripod mount is very good, stopped down to f4 - f8 it is very sharp. I would just use it on the longer end if room allows it. I don't shoot in offices but during business events (so I always have room) and only occasionally.
I don't own it anymore and I do less that type of shoots nowadays, but if I get an assignment that what I would rent.
 
Upvote 0
#15
It's great that there a lot of people giving their point of view. I see that opinions vary widely. All this input surely helps.

IQ wise I'm very happy with my setup. The Nikkor 50 F2 blows the Canon 50 F1.4 out of the water. With this lens I always focus using the live view @100% to get perfect focus.

It's heard many times that using a longer focal length could make the people look better. When I use a different lens I don't want to downgrade the IQ. I learned that primes are usually better than zooms IQ wise. Since there are some pretty cheap primes (85 F1.8 & 100 F2) in my range I was thinking that those might be good choices. However if the IQ of them is worse than the zoom then I won't buy any of those.

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.

Do 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.
 
Upvote 0
#16
benique said:
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?
Click to expand...

It really depends on what you are trying to achieve.
A 70-200 would be the most versatile.
But even a fisheye could be used for portraiture. It just depends on what you are trying to achieve.
 
Upvote 0
#17
benique said:
It's great that there a lot of people giving their point of view. I see that opinions vary widely. All this input surely helps.

IQ wise I'm very happy with my setup. The Nikkor 50 F2 blows the Canon 50 F1.4 out of the water. With this lens I always focus using the live view @100% to get perfect focus.

It's heard many times that using a longer focal length could make the people look better. When I use a different lens I don't want to downgrade the IQ. I learned that primes are usually better than zooms IQ wise. Since there are some pretty cheap primes (85 F1.8 & 100 F2) in my range I was thinking that those might be good choices. However if the IQ of them is worse than the zoom then I won't buy any of those.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

If you are working inside with a crop camera I don't understand why you are dreaming of a 70-200, it is totally inappropriate. Really nice lens, but practically useless for your specific situation.

If you feel you can go twice as far back for the same framing, or crop 50% of your current images then 100mm is your max. If that is the case get the 100mm f2.8IS L Macro, it is a blindingly good portrait optic at your most used apertures, and is nicely sharp wide open and will be equally fine on your current crop and when you go FF. As I said, it is what I use for interior corporate shots and I have a 70-200 f2.8 IS.
 
Upvote 0
#18
For 650D portraits there is only one lens in your list I could pick. It is 85/1.8USM and if (for whatever reason) you want something even longer, you better get 135L. I'm not sure why you are considering the huge and expensive 70-200/2.8L'II IS (compared to the rest of the list). I would get a FF camera instead, like 6D, which would suggest more and much better portrait lens choices (even 200L :) ).
 
Upvote 0
#19
benique said:
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?
Click to expand...

I like portraiture... I presume you have all the lighting you can ask for... so based on that...

none of the above. Maybe the 85 f/1.8 since I have owned it... and I have owned a 100L macro, both of which I used for portraiture... but in comparison to the 135L and the 85L mkii, both leave something to be desired. I have the 70-200mm f/2.8L is mkii... but that stays in the bag for portraiture... though it can do the job.

I liked the 85 f/1.8... it was plenty sharp wide open... a little bit of color abberation that is fixable in post...

I've had this discussion before... but if you are shooting a stationary object/person, isn't it safer to shoot at f/8 with peripheral lighting, rather than risk shooting wide open and having the left eye out of focus (but the right being in focus).

100/135... on a crop... you just might have to be too far from your subject... I'd lean towards the 85 as a stop gap measure... then maybe re-evaluate after you make the jump to full frame.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
alternate lens hoods for RF 100-500 and or 70-200 z
Replies
3
Views
396
Tomba
T
Richard-CN
The Canon RF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM Z is the “Sharpest Zoom Ever”
Replies
36
Views
19K
OldDudePhotog
O
mimbu
Sony Redefines the 100mm F2.8 Macro
Replies
1
Views
823
ThomasTH
T
O
Lens Design?
Replies
18
Views
635
neuroanatomist
neuroanatomist
AlanF
Quick comparison of RF 100-500mm vs RF 100-300 and 70-200 f/2.8 Z + 2xTC vs EF 600mm f/4 iii vs RF 200-800mm
Replies
40
Views
10K
Del Paso
D
Top Bottom
Home
Forums
Media
Menu