Portrait Lens

Malvern Birder

Malvern Birder

Messages
201
Name
Carl
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi All,

Looking for a bit of advice on a portrait lens.

I've been looking at the following - Canon 85 1.8 / Canon 50 1.4 or Sigma 50 1.4

All to used with Canon 5D 3. I've heard a few stories regards the latter Sigma 50 1.4, not sure if it's correct but there seems to be a lot of bad copies of them out there. However, if you get a good one - it's a great lens.

If anybody has any photo's taken with either of the above combinations I'd been interested in seeing them.

Thanks in advance,

Carl.
 
I don't have any taken with those lenses as I'm a Nikon guy, but when I'm researching new lenses I just search over on flickr. You'd be amazed at how some people tag their pictures with all the info, so they nicely come up when you search for them.

They're also well known lenses so I would guess at there being afew groups where all the photos submitted are from the required lens :)
 
For portraits on a FF surely only the 85 comes close to a traditional 'portrait lens' length.
For head and shoulders, I'd go with the 135 f2, for wider shots, any of the faster primes you've mentioned and I'd add the 35mm 1.4 Sigma to the mix too.

I suppose it depends what you mean by 'portrait lens'?
 
Cheers both. I've searched through Flickr and a few others Andy just try and gauge which is better but still can't make my mind up!

Phil, I guess I'm just after something that will cover most portrait situations, like most probably. I've offered to shoot a friends wedding, dumb move I know but he does understand I've never done anything like this before but do want to try and make the best of it I can. So, I suppose something that will cover me inside the church / registry office, hence why I chose the above.

Think I have the rest covered but time will tell I guess.

Thanks again,

Carl.
 
HI MB,

I'm using a 5D2.

I've got the Canon 50/1.4, but I wouldn't recommend it for portraits on a FF camera. If you fill frame or anywhere close you'll get a wider face and that's not generally a good look. I've had issues with the 50mm focusing in low light, it also tends to produce CA which means lost shots. I do use it when the light just isn't enough and it becomes my last resort. I also like it for B&W work where CA isn't an issue.

For portraits I use either a 24-105L or a 70-200L. I find using a zoom gives so much flexibility over a prime. The 24-105 is ideal when space is restricted, otherwise I use the 70-200. I realise the 135/F2 is a really great lens, but I've even heard some portrait photographers say it is too sharp.

For covering events, definitely the 24-105L. I found the occasions I could use f2.8 are very limited and the high ISO performance on our cameras along with the IS on the lenses means shooting at max f4 isn't an issue. Also, the f2.8 lenses way a ton, twice the weight of the f4 and I'd be reluctant to use one for a long shoot. A lot of my work is stage productions which means low light, rapidly changing distance and rapidly changing light and for this the 24-105L is ideal.

Hope that helps :)
 
Traditional portrait lens to avoid distortion or poor perspective for portraits on a 35mm film camera was 85 or 135, FF cameras need the same length, distance to subject obviously dictates how much of the frame you fill with either.
Given that, you may want the flexibility of a zoom, downside being all the usual things and if you need a fast lens the most obvious being cost and weight. Assuming you will have a spare body if it's a wedding I'd be highly tempted with a 135 on one and an 85 on the other with a wider lens in my pocket. The 50 1.8 represents great value for money and should be wide enough for most situations. Canon did a 135 soft focus 2.8 that are going quite chealp on E-bay, certainly less than an F2 and the S/F is switchable so you can get a sharp image if you want one, but a nice misty one if you dont (bit of a 70's retro look of course). the 85 1.8 is a gem of a lens and certainly fast enough in terms of light gathering and AF, it produces a beautiful image on a FF camera. I have all of those lenses (plus a selection of zooms 28/70 f2.8 and 70/200 f4). For me teh primes and foot zooming would win the day.
Plus they are all nice and inconspicuos unlike the white F4 thing.
Matt
 
MatBin said:
Traditional portrait lens to avoid distortion or poor perspective for portraits on a 35mm film camera was 85 or 135, FF cameras need the same length, distance to subject obviously dictates how much of the frame you fill with either.
Given that, you may want the flexibility of a zoom, downside being all the usual things and if you need a fast lens the most obvious being cost and weight. Assuming you will have a spare body if it's a wedding I'd be highly tempted with a 135 on one and an 85 on the other with a wider lens in my pocket. The 50 1.8 represents great value for money and should be wide enough for most situations. Canon did a 135 soft focus 2.8 that are going quite chealp on E-bay, certainly less than an F2 and the S/F is switchable so you can get a sharp image if you want one, but a nice misty one if you dont (bit of a 70's retro look of course). the 85 1.8 is a gem of a lens and certainly fast enough in terms of light gathering and AF, it produces a beautiful image on a FF camera. I have all of those lenses (plus a selection of zooms 28/70 f2.8 and 70/200 f4). For me teh primes and foot zooming would win the day.
Plus they are all nice and inconspicuos unlike the white F4 thing.
Matt
Click to expand...

The Canon 50/1.8, for me, was too prone to CA.
 
JennyGW said:
24-105L in a church. No flash, hand held. 1/60th/f8/3200ISO

Click to expand...
Lovely. But. Huge windows. Bright sunlight. Also wide field of view which by definition has more light in the frame. However I wouldn't shoot a b&g making their vows at 2.8 in fairness as one is out of dof in my limited experience
 
DizMatt said:
Lovely. But. Huge windows. Bright sunlight. Also wide field of view which by definition has more light in the frame. However I wouldn't shoot a b&g making their vows at 2.8 in fairness as one is out of dof in my limited experience
Click to expand...

Thank you :) Yes, but it's shot at f8.
 
85mm should be your bare minimum for a portrait. 50 never. Ideally something like 135+ If you want to flatter your subject.
 
Last edited:
Why is there an architecture shot of a church when this thread is specifically about portraits....???
 
Last edited:
JennyGW said:
The Canon 50/1.8, for me, was too prone to CA.
Click to expand...
Is anyone other than a serious amateur or pro actually going to notice on a 5x7 print?
Matt
 
I love the 85mm f/1.8 for portraiture, it was easily my most used lens. I have mine for sale only because I can no longer use a 5DIII after a car accident
 
DizMatt said:
would you use the same aperture shooting a two-shot of the B&G making their vows?
Click to expand...

Of course not. I would use closer to f4, which gives you 2 stops more light. That's my point :)
 
MatBin said:
Is anyone other than a serious amateur or pro actually going to notice on a 5x7 print?
Matt
Click to expand...

So much is subjective. I was not happy with the lens. I would not have liked to have what I would consider a missed shot I could not present to a client because I was not happy with the CA. Every photo I take is an advert for my services, I don't hand out bad adverts.
 
Canon 85mm f/1.8 on 5DII
richardhardwick-ppmono.jpg


Canon 85mm f/1.8 on 5DIII
RHP-BW-003-Low.jpg
 
For head & shoulders type portraits I have always considered, on 'full frame' digital, the 100/105 mm focal length to be the best; I have always thought that the 'look' of the 85 mm to be slightly too short, and the 135 to be slightly too long. When I had my Eos 3 I found that the 100 mm f2 gave superb results, and since I have had my D700 the 105 f2 DC is my most used portrait lens.
 
"For both Nikon and Canon 50mm lenses, overall image quality is generally sharper, with less vignetting and fewer aberrations over the range of apertures with the less expensive f/1.8 version. In most (but not all) cases, this makes the f/1.8 a more desirable lens."

It is what it is......
 
shaylou said:
"For both Nikon and Canon 50mm lenses, overall image quality is generally sharper, with less vignetting and fewer aberrations over the range of apertures with the less expensive f/1.8 version. In most (but not all) cases, this makes the f/1.8 a more desirable lens."

It is what it is......
Click to expand...
That is not my experience, nor that of countless others.
 
It proves no point at all because they are not portraits. People move.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top