I often do individual portraits at 2.8 (with a 70D). Are you saying that a 24-70 would be a perfect complement to my 10-18 and 85 1.8 (and I'm sticking with crop for awhile if not forever)?
Upvote
0
Which Lens to buy for Portraits
- Thread starter benique
- Start date
Canon 24-70mm F2.8 would be a great addition to 10-18mm and 85mm. Another good option (only APS-C) is Canon 17-55mm f2.8 Image Stabilizer.Cory said:
Upvote
0
keithfullermusic said:
AGREE! I used my 70-300L the other day for some corporate portraits and I was pleasantly surprised at how sharp they were and how nice the perspective is....I have a 85f1.8 and 100macro...I never use them wide open because the depth of field is zero and one eye oof always looks a bit weird to me... I think these were done at f8 and about 220mm....everything is so sharp that I used a bit of Topaz skin softener to tone the details down a bit...btw lighting was three Canon ttl flashes set on manual...clients were over the moon, and so was I....
Attachments
Upvote
0
Yes I'd say the bulk of portraiture is shot at smaller aps because you want the DOF and you have strobes that only reduce power so much and some of which can't accommodate 2.8 or bigger aps .... however while on the surface I agree with Famatuer about not "wasting money" on large ap lenses, I wouldn't toss it out. I have shot on many occasions at 2.8 and bigger in a studio with strobes for effect. Here:
http://shields-photography.com/p1071533385/h3BCECE62#h270b96b0
I don't have the data with me, but I'm pretty sure I did that with my 35 (perhaps 50) ART at or near wide open (f2 or f1.4) with strobes. How? People often forget you CAN shoot with an ND filter. This one is a 3 stop filter. So If you can get your strobes down to yield f4-5.6 with a 3 stop ND on your glass....Blam. f1.4 to f2 and you can get the DOF you want.
This is why I love the Sigmas. They are unbeatable for the price and if you have a crop now, 35-50mm would be very nice and still be extremely useful once at FF (moreso the 50mm)
http://shields-photography.com/p1071533385/h3BCECE62#h270b96b0
I don't have the data with me, but I'm pretty sure I did that with my 35 (perhaps 50) ART at or near wide open (f2 or f1.4) with strobes. How? People often forget you CAN shoot with an ND filter. This one is a 3 stop filter. So If you can get your strobes down to yield f4-5.6 with a 3 stop ND on your glass....Blam. f1.4 to f2 and you can get the DOF you want.
This is why I love the Sigmas. They are unbeatable for the price and if you have a crop now, 35-50mm would be very nice and still be extremely useful once at FF (moreso the 50mm)
Upvote
0
I use both the 70-200 f4L IS and the 50mm 1.8 (nifty fifty) for portraits. They both do a wonderful job on aps-c cameras. I considered getting a better 50mm, but I just can't justify spending the extra money when the clients (or I) don't complain about the quality from the cheap-o 1.8. I'm open to change, if convinced, even though I love both of those lenses! The first picture was taken with a 7d mark ii with the 50mm 1.8 indoor. The second picture was taken with a 60d with the 70-200 f4L IS outdoor. I must note, the 50 is my indoor portrait lens, the 70-200is my outdoor portrait lens.
Attachments
Upvote
0
And that what differs corporate from beach portrait. Some people seem to be surprised why the OP would shoot at 4-5.6 or above.Ivan Muller said:
Glad you guys begin to show proper portrait shots for the topic.
Upvote
0
Your 50/2 is around 80mm FL in your 650D and you say sometimes you don't have space, why to look for something that required longer distance and bigger spaces. Just get the Canon EF 35mm f2 IS, it is just as sharp as any other you mentioned and gives you around 56mm FL.benique said:
Upvote
0
This is from memory, since it is quite a while since I had the version I and I have not used them on the same body, so I do not have any objective material to look at. I don´t have any of them now, because I sold it when I got the 85mm Otus.lux said:
(From memory) I don´t believe the 85 1.2L II is optically better than version I. I´m sure there are people out there who have done side by side comparisons and may be able to tell the differences, but I cannot. They both suffer from CA, but apart from that, I loved the IQ both lenses produced. Bokeh is beautiful on both. AF is a bit slow on vII, but even slower on vI. DOF @f1.2 can be quite challenging, but rewarding when you nail it. For the kind of use I had, AF speed was not a real issue. AF is a bit faster on a 1D body than any of the others.
A version I for a good price is well worth it, in my view.
Upvote
0
lux said:
Canon's Non-L 85mm 1.8 was introduced sometime in the later half of the 18th century :
, but is remarkably comparable to the new 85L II. 85mm is just one of those magic focal lengths that seems so easy for companies to produce very well. I own the 1.8 and have shot the 85L II. I really struggled to find enough difference (short of having to have that 1.2 ap) to justify stepping up, particularly when I have the 70-200 II and 135L. At 2.8, it was near impossible to see much difference at all and by f4 -f8, it was totally impossible. I suppose if I didn't have other big ap lenses it would be more tempting. However, since I would mostly use a lens like that for portrait work, I wouldn't find myself at 1.2 very much. It all about what you need and how good a deal you're getting on the version 1.
Upvote
0
This thread really helped me to figure out which lenses to have on hand. Even though some are calling my name I'm going to just stick with my 35 2.0 IS and 85 1.8 for portraits, etc. with the 10-18 and 200 2.8 II on opposite ends.
Upvote
0
P
Pookie
Guest
PureClassA said:
Absolutely... I often shoot with 3, 5, or 10 stop ND on the 50 while on location. You really have to when you want that shallow DOF and are using strobes on site.
It's nice to see some great examples of 50mm head shots from everyone ( even with all that horrible distortion :
)5D3+50L with 10-stop ND + Elinchrom Quadra into a 1 meter Rotalux Octa...
https://flic.kr/p/q67Nib
Upvote
0
If you're only taking portraits in offices on APS-C and c. f8, and have a lens you really like using, I'm not sure what you're hoping to get from a new lens. Autofocus? Unless the offices in question are very large or you're doing tight headshots, I wouldn't consider any of the 70-200/300 zooms, especially not the very heavy 2.8II - you're paying a lot extra in money and weight for apertures you're not using (unless you would use the lens for other purposes) and if as I think you said you use a tripod you don't need the IS either. Even 85mm primes could prove far too long on APS-C. At the apertures you're considering just about any lens is more than sharp enough for portraits (or are your clients sharpness fanatics who will be presented with images so large that sharpness differences among lenses would be readily apparent?), so if you must buy a new lens that would work on your APS-C I would join those who recommend a fairly inexpensive zoom, such as the 24-105 or a 24-70 (needn't be the expensive Canon 2.8 II for your purposes, either). But if you like your 50mm, why not wait until you buy a FF body before considering what next? (I prefer the look of portraits taken with fast primes at wide apertures, generally in the 50-135mm range, but that's another matter....)
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 7828
Guest
The 85 1.8 seems like a good choice.
I had that lens and it was excellent. And if you're shooting primarily about f5.6 there's no need to even think about the pricey 1.2 version. At f5.6 one probably won't be able to tell much difference. The 100 f2 is great as well, but think you will find it a tad long on crop.
Frankly, same with the 70-200 series, if that interests you - the f4 version is significantly lighter, cheaper and for all intents and purposes, JUST AS SHARP as the 2.8 II version. I know; I have both. At f4 the 2.8 will have brighter corners on FF but at 5.6, little to no difference.
I had that lens and it was excellent. And if you're shooting primarily about f5.6 there's no need to even think about the pricey 1.2 version. At f5.6 one probably won't be able to tell much difference. The 100 f2 is great as well, but think you will find it a tad long on crop.
Frankly, same with the 70-200 series, if that interests you - the f4 version is significantly lighter, cheaper and for all intents and purposes, JUST AS SHARP as the 2.8 II version. I know; I have both. At f4 the 2.8 will have brighter corners on FF but at 5.6, little to no difference.
Upvote
0
I must say I'm overwhelmed by the amount of answers. It took me quite some time to read and consider all the comments. It gave me a lot of points to think about. In my last post I accidentally wrote 200 F2 (i corrected that). I was certainly not thinking about that lens.
When I'm doing a job I always want to satisfy even the most critical person involved. So far that has been me.
Some have asked about the size of the interior spaces. Well it's difficult to say because every office is different. I've never had problems using my 50mm (on crop) in any office. In most cases I could have used 85mm to achieve the same framing.
On the weekend I've tried my 18-135 3.5-5.6 IS STM at around at 85mm and 100mm @F8. My conclusion was that the IQ is incredibly good. So I guess that I don't need to buy a new lens for my corporate portraits yet. I know I would look more professional with a FF body and a red ring. However since photography is not my main job I'm not convinced that It would make sense to go that route at this time.
Nevertheless I still feel the urge to buy some more glass. Therefore I think I'm going to buy a Canon 85mm F1.8 or a 100mm lens.
Here are some shots that I took while learning how to do corporate portraits and before my first project. At that time I had only 2 flashes and one softbox. I've used a different light setup for the jobs. Unfortunately I don't have an online portfolio yet. They were taken with a 650D and a Nikkor 50mm F2.
When I'm doing a job I always want to satisfy even the most critical person involved. So far that has been me.
Some have asked about the size of the interior spaces. Well it's difficult to say because every office is different. I've never had problems using my 50mm (on crop) in any office. In most cases I could have used 85mm to achieve the same framing.
On the weekend I've tried my 18-135 3.5-5.6 IS STM at around at 85mm and 100mm @F8. My conclusion was that the IQ is incredibly good. So I guess that I don't need to buy a new lens for my corporate portraits yet. I know I would look more professional with a FF body and a red ring. However since photography is not my main job I'm not convinced that It would make sense to go that route at this time.
Nevertheless I still feel the urge to buy some more glass. Therefore I think I'm going to buy a Canon 85mm F1.8 or a 100mm lens.
It's a Nikkor 50 F2. It is very sharp, has very low distortion, very low CA, the focusing ring is buttery smooth and I got it for a very low price. The last image is a 100% crop taken using that lens @F5.6 or @F8. I opened the RAW file in Photoshop with the standard settings without editing anything.anthonyd said:
Here are some shots that I took while learning how to do corporate portraits and before my first project. At that time I had only 2 flashes and one softbox. I've used a different light setup for the jobs. Unfortunately I don't have an online portfolio yet. They were taken with a 650D and a Nikkor 50mm F2.
Attachments
Upvote
0
Similar threads
