Best Lens for Studio Portraits?

S

*Sam*

Messages
33
Name
Samantha
Edit My Images
Yes
I have a Canon 550d and was shooting a practise portrait session a few days ago in a studio near where I live. The shots came out lovely and I'm really pleased overall, however, they lack the clarity and detail that I've seen in the work of a photographer I know. Only when zooming in can you see the difference but I'm sure it's a lens thing. I'm using the standard kit lens which the camera came with since my others aren't built for portrait work (long distance etc).

I know this guy has a 24-70mm lens but not sure on what the f value is. He's using the same shooting settings as me but getting much clearer results. We both shoot at an f11-f13 range, he does have a lower shutter speed than I do but don't know if this would affect it that much. He is using a Canon 1D which is obviously a lot better in terms of spec so not sure if this is the main factor?

Anyone have any ideas which is the best lens for studio portraits if I want very clear results? Sigma 24-70mm f2.8?

Thankyou,
Sam
 
Last edited:
You really want to get primes for studio. 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 100mm, 135mm - or any mix of those as required. Then there will be no need to shoot at f/11-13 - you could go as low as f/2.8 or even f/2 if you wanted.
That zoom is something you probably want to avoid like a plague.
 
i was with a pro photographer yesterday who was shooting formal business type portraits with a 70-200 vr II at about f8 and they looked super sharp...
 
I pretty much exclusively do studio work, I used to use a 24-105mm, but I've actually recently found that I actually prefer the 28-135mm which is a much, much, cheaper lens.

I very rarely use primes in studio work, but a 50mm 1.8 doesn't go far wrong for portraits on a crop sensor, if you can be bothered moving every 5 seconds.

what lens were you using?
 
Thanks for the replies everyone, I'm currently using the standard 18-55mm lens which my 550d came with but I think that's the reason my images aren't quite as clear as they could be. Don't get me wrong they aren't bad quality but not crystal clear.

Oh great punkuate, thanks for your help! So you normally do studio work and prefer the 28-135mm? What kind of aperture do you shoot in then? Around f11, f13? I just want to check I'm using the right settings being new to studio portraits. I'm also using a 1/125 shutter speed.
 
If you go into my flickr (linked at the bottom, almost everything in from pensta onwards with the exception of tansy was this lens) There will be lots about f/11-f/13.

Its very good about f/8. Its not the greatest lens wide open, but if you're not planning to use it wide open, there is not much difference between this and the 24-105L which is many times the price. You can compare, the tansy folder is the 24-105L.
 
Each to their own, I sometimes use an 85 but 95% of the time I use a Nikon 24-70. I shoot a lot of very young kids in the studio so the 24-70 allows me the flexibility to change focal length as they move about.

As for avoiding the zoom like the plague, I must admit that's left me completely baffled, but each to their own.
 
If you're comparing a 550D at f/11-13 with a 1D, then it's the camera making the lion's share of the difference in sharpness. Crop format lenses are way past it's best at those f/numbers - diffraction, amongst other things. Switching to primes won't make any difference at all.

If you're going to make critical comparsisons, they have got to be like for like with only one variable at a time. And perfect technique in everything is obviously essential.

It would be quite exceptional to see a crop format image of any sort beat one from a larger format sensor, pretty much regardless of lens or anything else. The bigger sensor just has such a head start, even if it's only 1.3x vs 1.6x.
 
A better lens than the 18-55mm will make so much difference, there is no words for how crap that kit lens is for portraits.
 
your lens will be soft due to diffraction that that aperture. if it was an original 1D then your camera should produce a better image but because diffraction will set in latter on a 135 frame his images will probably be sharper.
 
Thanks for all of your opinions on this, it's a real help. So I think now I'm torn between going for the Canon 28-135mm or the more expensive Sigma 24-70mm. Leaning towards the 28-135mm due to it being that bit cheaper and also the photos that you have punkuate are lovely!
 
I have the 28-135 and it produces some lovely pics, yes it is cheap and it does a very reasonable job.
If your looking for a stop gap while you save it will do you no wrong. buy a second hand one and save even more.

spike
 
*Sam* said:
Thanks for all of your opinions on this, it's a real help. So I think now I'm torn between going for the Canon 28-135mm or the more expensive Sigma 24-70mm. Leaning towards the 28-135mm due to it being that bit cheaper and also the photos that you have punkuate are lovely!
Click to expand...

If it's critical sharpness you want, then if you shoot at f/11-13 it won't make any difference which lens you use. Diffraction limits sharpness on your crop format camera, which will peak around f/5.6-8.

And compared to your friend's 1D, unless it is the original 1D launched ten years ago then any of the half dozen 1Dxxx cameras lauched since will beat your smaller format camera by anything from a little to a lot. Not that there's anything wrong with your camera at all, far from it - it's pixel peeping that's the problem ;)

As a thought, if portraits are your thing and you like the shallow depth of field look at low f/numbers, then the 85 1.8 takes a lot of beating for £300-ish.
 
*Sam* said:
Thanks for all of your opinions on this, it's a real help. So I think now I'm torn between going for the Canon 28-135mm or the more expensive Sigma 24-70mm. Leaning towards the 28-135mm due to it being that bit cheaper and also the photos that you have punkuate are lovely!
Click to expand...

I'll have a sigma 24-70 HSM f2.8 for sale in the next week or so
 
HoppyUK said:
If it's critical sharpness you want, then if you shoot at f/11-13 it won't make any difference which lens you use. Diffraction limits sharpness on your crop format camera, which will peak around f/5.6-8.

And compared to your friend's 1D, unless it is the original 1D launched ten years ago then any of the half dozen 1Dxxx cameras lauched since will beat your smaller format camera by anything from a little to a lot. Not that there's anything wrong with your camera at all, far from it - it's pixel peeping that's the problem ;)

As a thought, if portraits are your thing and you like the shallow depth of field look at low f/numbers, then the 85 1.8 takes a lot of beating for £300-ish.
Click to expand...

Ahh I understand. I don't think he has the original but it's only maybe one version up because he has had it a good number of years now. So, if I was to get a 24-70mm or even the 28-135mm and shot at f8 rather than f11 then I'd get clearer results? I want them as clear as possibly but from what everyone's said, the aperture which I use to shoot at really does affect it. I think you're right since my friend is shooting an an f11-f13 aperture and gets very clear shots even when zoomed in and is using a 24-70mm lens so it must be my camera body limiting me. Even though I can improve my results by getting a better lens, it won't be 'as' clear as his due to the actual camera.

POAH said:
I'll have a sigma 24-70 HSM f2.8 for sale in the next week or so
Click to expand...

Thanks for the heads up poah, 'll keep that in mind. Hoping to purchase it in the near future so am going to do a bit more research on both lenses and go from there really :)

Thanks for all the help everyone,
Sam
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top