Best Portrait Lens for Crop (1.6)

M

_MikeyB

Messages
346
Name
Michael
Edit My Images
Yes
What's the best portrait lens to sit on a 50D.

I mainly work in low lit rooms, and have to use the flash.

I'm using the nifty fifty at the moment, and to be honest, it's pin sharp, but lacks the creamy bokeh that I'd like. It's also pretty shabby build quality.

Any advice?

I think the 85 might be too long on the crop, and I can't afford the 50mm L, but I could easily afford the 50mm 1.4, or is there something better out there that I could buy?

I have a budget of around £800.

Much appreciated!!

Mike
 
_MikeyB said:
What's the best portrait lens
Click to expand...

There's no such thing as a best portrait lens, you can take great portraits with any focal length, provided you play to it's strengths. People will often say the 85mm if the ideal portrait lens but this is only a hark back to studio days. In reality it's no better than any other length.

If it's bokeh you're after you'll have to look at primes as they are generally better at rendering OfF areas. I'll have to pass to the Canon owners to advise which Canon lens are best at bokeh.
 
Thanks for your comments.

I suppose I should re-ask my question asking - what's the best lens for portrait photography that is quick, very sharp, and produces gorgeous bokeh?
 
_MikeyB said:
Thanks for your comments.

I suppose I should re-ask my question asking - what's the best lens for portrait photography that is quick, very sharp, and produces gorgeous bokeh?
Click to expand...

Its got to be the canon 50mm F1.4. Cheap, pin sharp and good for low light. You will be able to dump your flash.
 
100mm macro is perfect, 135mm L, 200mm or 85mm may also work. It is absolutely nonsense 85mm is too long - it is the shortest you can get away with for portraits (or 50mm for full length - but 50/1.8 at f/4 should be good enough for that).
 
I have the Sigma 50mm f1.4 HSM, I think it's a great lens. Might be worth a look?
 
david1701 said:
200 f2 if you ask me, but I've never held one
Click to expand...

It may need tripod support :)
200mm f/2.8 was a real joy though until I got rid of it due to complete stupidity
 
I have the Canon 60mm f2.8 macro,works great and I can kill two birds with one stone by using it as a macro and portrait lens. Only thing at f2.8 it may not be fast enough for you.
 
I find 50mm about right for portraits on a crop so 50 1.4 sounds perfect, or an 85 1.8 for tight head shots.

You get better bokeh with longer lenses because the field of view is narrower. Bokeh is more than just depth of field.
 
daugirdas said:
It is absolutely nonsense 85mm is too long - it is the shortest you can get away with for portraits (or 50mm for full length - but 50/1.8 at f/4 should be good enough for that).
Click to expand...

85mm is the shortest you can get away with? Now that's nonsense! :cuckoo:

In the last year I've won prizes with three portraits, one taken with a 20mm on a D300, another with a 50mm on an D70s while the last one was taken at 24mm on a full frame D3 at 32mm on a 24-70mm lens.
 
I can't say that I've ever or will ever win any prizes but I'd use a 20mm f1.8, 30mm f1.4, 50mm f1.4 or even my 17-50mm f2.8 for portraits, I'd even use my 12-24mm, in fact I have (all on a 20d.) If you've got reasonable control over aperture or another creative aspect (like wide angle) then there's scope for a great picture IMVHO without insisting on 85mm.
 
The reason people are suggesting the longer lenses is that the field of view compression is more kind to faces.

You could do portraits with the Sigma 10-20 but you won't have many happy models.

I agree with the person above who said the 200 f2 is the best, but back in the real world you generally don't want to be standing in the next studio (in the next town on a 1.6 crop) to take the photo, so the 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.8 are probably the best bets.
 
Sigma 50mm 1.4 gets cracking reviews, a lot of people prefer it to the canon version - I personal would buy it over the canon. Image quality wise its supposed to sit between the canon 1.4 and the 1.2 L.

Canon 85mm 1.8 - Fantastic Lens, if you had the space to work, I would recommend it for the price.

Canon 135mm f/2 L. - In my eyes - the ultimate portrait lens if you have the space. Pin sharp, fairly light weight, hits the spot all the time and will obliterate any background :D - ofc that's just my opinion.
 
jon- said:
The reason people are suggesting the longer lenses is that the field of view compression is more kind to faces.

You could do portraits with the Sigma 10-20 but you won't have many happy models.
Click to expand...

That's rubbish. People are suggesting longer lenses because they have a fixed, unoriginal idea of what constitutes a portrait. The compression (or elongation) effect has nothing to do with it. It's only relevent if you are shooting from a fixed spot, hence the reference to 85mm being a hark back to studio shooting. Any half decent photographer should be able to shoot a portrait with a Sigma 10-20mm lens that a model would be more than happy with.

The fact remains, that there is no one best lens for portraits, only for the shot you want to take.
 
Amateurphotographer did a piece on portrait shooting with a 10-20mm some time ago with quite stunning results.

I'm not a portrait shooter but wasn't wide angle portrait shooting the in thing a few years ago?
 
I love my 50 1.8, and also love my 30 1.4. Out of the two I'd go for the 50, I'm looking to upgrade now to the 1.4 so I have the best of both worlds.
 
NorthernNikon said:
That's rubbish. People are suggesting longer lenses because they have a fixed, unoriginal idea of what constitutes a portrait. The compression (or elongation) effect has nothing to do with it. It's only relevent if you are shooting from a fixed spot, hence the reference to 85mm being a hark back to studio shooting. Any half decent photographer should be able to shoot a portrait with a Sigma 10-20mm lens that a model would be more than happy with.

The fact remains, that there is no one best lens for portraits, only for the shot you want to take.
Click to expand...

I agree, you can get some fantastic results from using a UWA but the question was inclined towards more straight old fashioned portraits (or at least that was my, and many others interpretations of it) and this is where the longer focal lengths win.
 
jon- said:
I agree, you can get some fantastic results from using a UWA but the question was inclined towards more straight old fashioned portraits (or at least that was my, and many others interpretations of it) and this is where the longer focal lengths win.
Click to expand...

With respect, I think it's more a reflection on what your view, and those of others, of what constitutes a portrait rather than the question, which is pretty ambiguous.
 
canon 60mm macro gets my vote too
yours gwh
 
jon- said:
The reason people are suggesting the longer lenses is that the field of view compression is more kind to faces.

You could do portraits with the Sigma 10-20 but you won't have many happy models.

I agree with the person above who said the 200 f2 is the best, but back in the real world you generally don't want to be standing in the next studio (in the next town on a 1.6 crop) to take the photo, so the 85mm 1.8 or 100mm 2.8 are probably the best bets.
Click to expand...

I think working distance is more important than focal length, although it usually works out to much the same thing. I'm not sure how important perspective and compression actually is, within reason.

Shooting from five or six feet works best for me - not so close that you're crowded, not too far for good communication from both sides. Comfortable.

That usually works out to around 50mm on a crop camera, or 85-ish for a tight head shot. The option of f/1.8 or 1.4 for shallow DoF is nice with a prime but I usually shoot around f/5.6 with a 17-55 2.8 zoom, or the short end of a 70-200. An 85 1.8 would be good, for a bit of shallow DoF indulgence now and then, but not often. Personal thing.
 
HoppyUK said:
I think working distance is more important than focal length, although it usually works out to much the same thing. I'm not sure how important perspective and compression actually is, within reason.

Shooting from five or six feet works best for me - not so close that you're crowded, not too far for good communication from both sides. Comfortable.

That usually works out to around 50mm on a crop camera, or 85-ish for a tight head shot. The option of f/1.8 or 1.4 for shallow DoF is nice with a prime but I usually shoot around f/5.6 with a 17-55 2.8 zoom, or the short end of a 70-200. An 85 1.8 would be good, for a bit of shallow DoF indulgence now and then, but not often. Personal thing.
Click to expand...

Not sure if you've seen this:

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/IMAGES/stripsmall.jpg

I agree with your point about working distance though.
 
Its the same old argument of some things work for some people, and for others it does not.
There will never be one given answer for this kinda question, its all based on the situation involved, and what best suits the job. My advice would be, have a good long think about what you need out of the lens, try couple out, then decide what YOU think is best for you.
 
jon- said:
Not sure if you've seen this:

http://stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/lensdistortion/IMAGES/stripsmall.jpg

I agree with your point about working distance though.
Click to expand...

That's a good sequence and TBH is all looks okay except for the last two where the camera must have been stuck right up the model's nose. And the focal lengths stated refer to full frame of course - 50mm on a crop camera is perfect from a natural perspective point of view, if you think that is really a deal breaker.

What that sequence doesn't show, because it's shot against a plain background, is how field of view changes with distance and focal length. In the long lens shots the area of background visible behind the model will be hardly larger than her head, yet in the shorter lens shots practically the whole wall will be visible. It's just beginning to show in the last two frames where you can see the studio behind!

I think that is a better reason for using a longer lens than perspective distortion, to isolate and highlight the subject in much the same way that shallow depth of field does. By the same token, that is the argument for shooting an environmental portrait with a wide angle - so you can see the environment.


NorthernNikon said:
That's only relevent if you're shooting from a fixed spot.
Click to expand...

He's not shooting from a fixed spot :thinking:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top